Give you a breather and let you have your say….
OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Eddy Booth May 16, 2024 at 3:28 pm on Midweek 15th May 2024https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/articles/crgygz082llo 'Boxing great Lennox Lewis is tipping “bigger guy” Tyson Fury to become undisputed ...
- MarkyMark May 16, 2024 at 3:23 pm on Midweek 15th May 2024"Stars back Kevin Spacey acting return" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cnd6d7y11nwo ................... Why does Hollywood keep defendi...
- MarkyMark May 16, 2024 at 3:14 pm on Midweek 15th May 2024"Kemi Badenoch touted: “This government is seizing the benefits of Brexit by reducing burdens on business, pushing down the cost...
- Eddy Booth May 16, 2024 at 3:09 pm on Midweek 15th May 2024"Teenagers could help fill train driver shortage" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz747krrw9lo "Teenagers will be able to qualify to dri...
- Rob in Cheshire May 16, 2024 at 2:56 pm on Midweek 15th May 2024They truly love and respect each other so much.
- MarkyMark May 16, 2024 at 2:53 pm on Midweek 15th May 2024The Jihadis Next Door This programme from 2016 films with, and challenges the behaviour and motivations of, a new wave...
- MarkyMark May 16, 2024 at 2:51 pm on Midweek 15th May 2024We are all equal Comrades. ..... Taylor Swift breaks political silence to endorse Democrats in US midterms This article is...
- Rob in Cheshire May 16, 2024 at 2:49 pm on Midweek 15th May 2024This is complete BS. He came as a student and just stayed. He knew full well he was not British....
- Fedup2 May 16, 2024 at 2:48 pm on Midweek 15th May 2024Just became a swiftly - all those avios points - next up - flights in and out of paedo island...
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
The following link of well-known SNP supporting Sunday Politics Scotland is not recommended viewing for those with high blood pressure or anger management problems; if you don’t reside in Scotland then best you avoid this lefty foulness unless you want your TV to be given the old Keith Moon treatment.
Anyway, to the point. This very revolting Sunday Politics feature (link below) begins by focusing on the pro-independence campaign’s weekend march in Edinburgh; it was basically an advert for the Yes/SNP agenda BUT with no balanced response from unionists, who, if the polls are to be believed, constitute over two thirds of the Scottish populace; Unionists are the majority voters in Scotland but you wouldn’t believe this by watching the biased package.
There was no mention that the turnout was utterly feeble, with only 5, 000 nationalists turning up. In the feature you have shots of Alex Salmond and useless anti-English nasty bit of work, Margo MacDonald, preaching to the converted, and a cynical mention of how a unionist started a scuffle as a result of flying a Union Jack flag. I live in Edinburgh and can inform you that there were boos from hundreds of Unionists as the march went by; the BBC doesn’t mention this or hint at this at all. Neither did it mention that Alex Salmond got booed by thousands at the Olympian homecoming in Glasgow a coupe of weeks’ back.
After the feature in the ‘analysis’ section there was absolutely no attempt at getting the views of Unionists but instead we had a pro-independence interview with the Chairman of the Yes campaign; this Whiskey Galore/Wickerman extra lookalike was given free-reign to speak his mind-numbingly boring/biased drivel with no interruptions from well-known SNP sycophant, Isobel Fraser. It was an utter DISGRACE! As an Englishman working up here I am disgusted by the BBC’s constant groveling to the SNP agenda. It really is awful and they get away with it on a daily basis.
Anyway, here is the link to the program.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01mzg0r/Sunday_Politics_Scotland_23_09_2012/
Sorry, scroll along to 35.00 to get to the Sunday Politics Scotland episode.
In Catalonia the other week, 1.5 million people, roughly 17 per cent of the population marched for independence.
In Edinburgh at the weekend, 0.005 million people marched for independence, roughly 0.001 per cent of the population.
Work still to be done, it seems.
Yep…. but watching the BBC’s report you’d think the whole of Edinburgh was out marching.
Alex Salmon – any relation to Georgie Insertion Gallway ??
BBC: “Libya….promises to disband all illegal militias in the aftermath of the US ambassador’s death.”
“Death”? Natural causes? No suspicious circumstances?He just died?
BBC just could not bring themselves to say “the ambassador’s murder”. Factual accuracy discarded for the anodyne, to protect the guilty.
bBC editorial is infiltrated by arab-sympathisers and activist journalists.
Yes, Islam Not BBC (INBBC) is not only ideologically aligned towards Islam, but has a large representation of Islamic advocates among its ranks not only in UK ‘news’ sections, but also in all Islamic countries of the world, in INBBC Arabic TV, in INBBC Asian Network radio, etc.; and INBBC has links with Islamic Al Jazeera TV, from where it commissions Muslims to make propagandist Islamic programmes for INBBC.
Doubtless Nicked Emus will fatally undermine your point by giving the dictionary definition of the word ‘death’.
And anyway, the news agenda just sets itself, so what are you complaining about.
It is “accurate”.
“Death”emcompases all causes.
“Murder” encompasses just the one – premature death by the hand of another
We all die eventually, not many of us are murdered.
…reminds me of another droid report (I commented on at the time) where some poor sod was kidnapped by the IRA and ‘later found buried in a shallow grave’.
The reporter was a tad silent on what might have happened between the kidnapping and the finding.
The way Al-BBC has always framed it from day one is this:
“the US Ambassador died after the embassy was attacked”
“Factual accuracy discarded for the anodyne, to protect the guilty.”
Jeez you people really need to sharpen your act. Do you know he was murdered? Do you have the evidence that he was?
The BBC is being factually accurate. You can’t say the ambassador was murdered unless you know specifically that he was. SInce we don’t know what the cause of death was, you can’t describe it as murder.
It almost certainly will turn out that Ambassador Stevens was murdered, but at the moment that is speculation, not fact. Best to stick to facts (I realise for many of you on here that is an alien concept).
“bBC editorial is infiltrated by arab-sympathisers and activist journalists.”
And Biased-BBC comprises people who don’t have a clue what they are talking about (and review programs they don’t watch).
Not to worry, folks. The President has dismissed the man’s rape and murder as “a bump in the road”. Those photos of the man being stripped and bloodied and dragged around are just images of run-of-the-mill roadwork. They all had their mobiles out so they could take photos of him to send back to his concerned mother so she’d see the caring citizens looking out for her boy.
It’s pure speculation, as Nicked says, to think that Mr. Stevens’ death by asphyxiation from smoke inhalation had anything to do with the fact that the place was set on fire by an armed gang.
Murder by arson isn’t really murder, just an accidental death. Mr. Stevens was really being Islamophobic when he wrote in his diary that he was being targeted for murder.
So the BBC is 100% correct in watering it down, not using emotional terminology or pointing fingers.
“It almost certainly will turn out that Ambassador Stevens was murdered, but at the moment that is speculation, not fact.”
Wrong.
What happened happened. If it is a fact that he was murdered, then that is a fact now, was a fact at the time, and will be a fact for ever.
Are we really going to get into an epistemological argument?
At the moment the truth value of the statement “he was murdered” is unknown. It may turn out that it is truthful, it may not. However that doesn’t alter the status right now; you simply can’t assign a value to it.
What we do know is that Amb. Stevens is dead. That is a fact. The BBC would have been wrong to describe it as murder.
What about ‘doubleplusdead’?
Unless you’re prepared to say straight out it was suicide, thus ruling out murder, any death which results from the commission of another crime is considered “murder,” from a penal code standpoint, in pretty much every Anglo-Saxon common-law jurisdiction. Depraved indifference to human life is the telling point here; whether they meant specifically to assassinate the man personally, or they looked to destroy the place and all in it, even if that included the Ambassador, is really of no consequence so far as a murder rap is concerned. They engaged in violent conduct unlawful in itself, someone died = murder. There, that isn’t so hard to fathom, is it? Unless, of course, you know differently (he was already dead, or topped himself), in which case you owe it to all of us to produce your “facts” of the matter.
How do you know it isn’t manslaughter?
But this is irrelevant. The fact is that it is not up to a journalist to decide what is and what is not murder.
It would be both presumptuous and wrong for the BBC or any other media outlet to declare this a murder. They are not a competent body to do so.
This place would be up in arms if the BBC went about saying who was and who was not guilty of crimes. And quite rightly so.
Amb Stevens almost certainly was murdered, but it is not up to the BBC to decide. Once a competent body has decided then the BBC can report it.
Until that fact has been established the only facts that can be reported accurately are that he was killed.
Yet again all these posts do is reveal the profound ignorance of the media on this board. This board lacks the competence to judge what is or is it biased because very few people here have any idea what they are talking about.
“How do you know it isn’t manslaughter?”
So you accept that he was killed?
Maybe the word ‘killed’ would have presented a lesser barrier to understanding as it acknowledges that another force or party was involved?
Oh, Nicked emus, thou hearest the sound but knowest not whence it cometh. Manslaughter requires that there have been no prior intent to cause harm, but that, caught up in the moment, one inflicts such harm as will end the life of the harmed person. (Cf. the killing of Trayvon Martin in Florida some months back.) With your concept of the possibility of manslaughter, and then squaring the facts with the definition, a person at a lynching could possibly be guilty of manslaughter, a result with which I am sure you won’t agree. “I just got a bit carried away, m’Lud!” ain’t gonna cut it as far as getting off on a murder rap associated with a lynching. You attack a building, people are inside, you have reason to believe people are inside (which was the entire point of the attack!) and people die = murder. Call it what it is. Millions of people watched Jack Ruby kill Lee Oswald; they would be entitled to say “Oswald was murdered.” JFK was shot dead; he was murdered. Of course, the legal nicety of referring to the defendant as “accused murderer Fred Bloggs” must be observed, as it is up to the prosecutor to prove the mens rea (the mental state of criminality, i.e. intent) of the defendant. But an act itself which can admit of no other explanation than murder as defined must be called “murder,” even if we do not call the perpetrator a “murderer.”
Nicked, I’m willing to accept your point about the BBC deciding it was murder before any trial proceedings. But the passive “death” waters it down a bit too much given the circumstances.
I don’t accept, though, your position about people being upset that the BBC is saying someone is guilty. As far as I’m aware, at no point is any individual being accused of anything, so there isn’t any actual legal obstacle here. News reports talk about “foul play” being “suspected” all the time, which is how I see this situation.
Would you find it acceptable to say instead “allegedly murdered”?
As I say above, the correct word would be ‘killed’.
How bent are the bBC? Seems to much of a coincidence to me that a Top Gear episode is selected for repeat that contains the Sweeny section. The same week that the Sweeny is released for public showing. Brown envelopes anyone!!!
I think you mean “braahn” envelopes…
‘Very good’ now for plan B.
Is this the BBC’s position as well? from yesterday’s Muslim march in Toronto…
http://vladtepesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Islam-Condones-Racism-sign.jpg
link
Did anyone catch Humphrey’s on Today on Friday interviewing a Muslim uppity about the violence arising from the ‘insult to the Prophet’ film.
Giving him his due, JH made a reasonable attempt at asking searching questions instead of the usual ‘Yes sir ’ and letting the interviewee rant on and on.
My criticism is that JH and his editorial team should have been better prepared. For example, according to Private Eye, and other sources only 10 people in the world have actually seen the full version of Innocence of Muslims at its only public screening. Yes I know parts of it went on U Tube.
JH could have asked how many of those protesting had actually seen any part of the film at all, including the Muslim facing him, JH could have had a field day on that.
When the Muslim rated on about the number of deaths the West has caused in Iraq, JH should have had the figures for the numbers of Muslims killed by fellow Muslims for being the wrong kind of Muslim in Iraq, Pakistan etc plus the killings of Christians in those countries plus Nigeria, and asked him to explain that!
The Today team knew how the interview would go they should have been ready with facts and figures.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b01mqr4k/
1hr and 1hr 43 from friday
from saturday
http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b01mtr32/
1hr 10mins
humpheys another of the al beeb school of lazy journo s – shocking – i could have tied this slimeball in a knot, unless the idea was not too?
yep! all the usually pap from this, hate group
understanding- values- context -all religions etc etc, and “offence” to a billion whatever “believers” ya da ya da
and …. no surprise shillary clinton is brought up as an “aid” to his duplicitous drivel, after her apologist “film critic in chief”, shamefully supine displays on this.
The BBC researchers were probably too busy looking up Andrew Mitchells trouser legs to see whether his bike clips left a mark.
When it comes to Islam-although they prefer it to Christianity for news value, they`re not going to dare research any of it, lest the gay blade with a load of lattes draws attention to himself by Regents Park.
So Humphrys-a classically thick and anodyne atheist-tries to sound like he cares about previous insults to OUR Prophet, as he tells the Muslim chap that he ought to get over himself.
Revealingly, our Muslim says that he finds insults to Christ equally obnoxious. No wonder he thinks we Christians deserve all we get.
Maybe there is something to learn from Islam after all…and if we could lose the lazy, useless secular lefties and athiests from the top layer of the BBCs public face…then that would be progress.
Exhibit 1-Evan Davis piece this morning about Germans not wanting to fund the Catholic Church-they`d all prefer to give it to the kindergartens of the State…and why, here`s a grass roots activist now to tell us why.
Davis was able to tell our German grassroots grouch how many Catholics were leaving the church as well, when the German bloke understated it…subtle as a flying dustbin.
full video here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgx1_JVxfZE
New Israeli TV series Challenges Thinking on Europe’s Muslims
http://tinyurl.com/8r7rxjd
What emerges can be startling – even shocking – to those of us accustomed to smooth-talking community representatives explaining the disturbing aspects of what passes for everyday life in today’s Europe. Unfortunately, it exists only in a made-for-Israel television version. So there are no English or other sub-titles
To be direct about this – overall it delivers a very deeply disturbing picture: Yehezkeli finds no shortage of immigrant Muslims who heap scorn on the societies that have granted them shelter, unemployment payments, lives immeasurably more safe and comfortable than those they left behind.
But they didn’t ‘leave them behind’, did they?
No, they just left the dangers and discomforts of them behind, mostly.
Although as the “computer engineer” from Surrey discovered in France, those dangers can follow them…
Article on sepsis, doesn’t mention that many people get sepsis from having operations in dirty NHS hospitals, the NHS being beyond reproach. The clue is in the first line:
I noticed the BBC Parliament channel has been giving us wall to wall coverage today of the Liberal Democrat conference – even the gaps and intermissions. And I presume on Saturday.
However with UKIP, in contrast, there was Nigel Farage’s (great) speech yesterday and I saw a second, Roger Helmer (ex Tory MEP) – all done with one fixed camera and no other shots.
Why the difference and will anyone take it up with the new management?
Q&A: Anti-Islam film
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19606155
“opens with a scene in which a Coptic family in a newly radicalised Islamic Egypt is attacked by a group of Muslims while police look on without intervening. The father tells his daughters that Muslims want to kill all Christians and that the Islamic state is hiding their crimes”
goodness … i thought this crap was supposed to be full
of fabrication.
of course al bbc goes to great great length to catalogue the erm “offence”, virtually vilify the maker.
and yet still – no real hard open exchange of views –
on al bbc … maybe next time eh!
Anti-Islam film: Pakistan minister offers bounty
bbc news – yep! … the movie made me do it alert
Railways Minister Ghulam Ahmad Bilour said he would pay the reward for the “sacred duty” out of his own pocket,
but i m confused islam means peace? …. doesn t it?
pt2, the movie made me do it alert
“A national strike ? 😀 has been called in Bangladesh in protest against the amateur film mocking the Prophet Muhammad. The majority of schools, offices and shops are closed for the strike called by opposition parties”
hmm … to guarantee a good protest turn out?
which of course comes after :-
Friday had been declared a national ” love” holiday by Pakistan’s government so people could protest against the video, which erupted into violence, leaving over a dozen dead.
all just spontaneous … of course
In its lazy, pro-Islam ‘journalism’, INBBC’s following piece has been drastically re-edited since its first edition: but this stuff remains:
…”anti-Western sentiment has been stoked further by caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad published this week in the satirical French magazine, Charlie Hebdo.”
INBBC avoids stating this:
‘anti-Islam sentiment has been stoked further in the West this week by caricature violent behaviour by Muslim mobs.’
Now revised INBBC headline:
“Anti-Islam film: US condemns Pakistan minister’s bounty”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19692971
INBBC’s cryptic mention of actions of Muslims in Greece (in above piece) does not do justice to what is going on there.
‘The Blaze’ has:
“‘ALL WE HAVE IS MUHAMMAD’: MUSLIM PROTESTS SPREAD TO GREECE”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/all-we-have-is-muhammad-muslim-protests-spread-to-greece/
surprise surprise! – life imitates art? – 😀
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/01/09/christians-in-egypt-sinai-refuse-flight-after-threats-over-prophet-film.html
Egypt: Muslims distribute leaflets telling Christians to leave or have their property destroyed
“Christian Families in North Sinai Face Threats, Refuse To Leave,” Sept 21.
did they watch the movie? – and so
pt3 – the movie made me do it alert
Ethnic cleansing on a major scale, not covered by the Beeeb. Wonder why!
i think the BBC should do a program about who burns a flag the best and get John Barrowman to host it
If John Barrowman hosted a programme about flag burning. The radical muslims are more likely to burn John Barrowman than flags seeing he is a homosexual.
Only the radical ones?
i don t know? … have you heard him sing? 😀 … only jest of course
mind you … have you seen torchwood?
Or he could host a weekly satire on all things political called “Mock the Sheikh” where comedians don’t body swerve the real issues of the day.
or as he s such a leading light in
al bbc s chapter of the sugar plum fairies, maybe “torchwood-en actors?.
Is Barack Obama a Tory? – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19577434
This article is ostensibly about exploring similarities between President Obama and the Tories (perhaps to diffuse allegations of bias), but manages to praise Obama whilst knocking the Tories!
Jeff
Have I accidentally stumbled into some sort of mirror universe à la Star Trek? Like there’s a bearded Obama who isn’t an extreme Left-wing ideologue?
How curious that Kate Dailey was directed to write this piece sanitizing the President (for that’s what this is) by attempting to make Him seem more on the middle ground, right at the same time Mardell wrote his idiotic post about how we all need to embrace wealth redistribution because it’s a classic Conservative value. Agenda? What agenda?
Dailey’s stuff about how the President has embraced “tradition” is a joke as well. Just like every President before Him, He’s had to accept a certain amount of reality once taking office. But maybe I’m wrong and she’s actually referring to His continuation and escalation of Bush’s warmongering and drone attacks, bank bailouts, and sucking up to Goldman Sachs and big corporations. 😉
And anyone who cites Sarah Palin’s Womb Watcher in an appeal to authority is not worthy of respect. Romney’s more divisive than the Community Organizer-in-Chief? Please.
But I did laugh out loud when she then cited Walter Russell Mead saying the President is a lot like today’s Tories. Sweetheart, that wasn’t meant as a compliment.
I honestly don’t know to whom this article is supposed to appeal, but I do know what agenda lies behind it.
David Preiser might have some fun with that. My fun ended when ‘So tell me, which conservative would have hung out with 1960s lefty terrorist Bill Ayers?’ got moderated into oblivion.
‘My fun ended when ‘So tell me, which conservative would have hung out with 1960s lefty terrorist Bill Ayers?’ got moderated into oblivion.’
Be interested in why and by which rule.
Because ‘not sharing the BBC’s world view and hero worship’ really is not a good reason.
We reserve the right to fail comments which…
Contain potentially defamatory statements
I discern a distinct lack of potential. potential.
Back in the early eighties, in an interview with David Horowitz and Peter Collier, Bill Ayers remembered his reaction upon learning that he would not be prosecuted by the government for his bombing spree as a member of the Weather Underground. “Guilty as hell, free as a bird—America is a great country,” he exulted.
‘Contain potentially defamatory statements’
I discern a distinct lack of potential. potential.
Oh, larks, what a fine set of precedents can be neatly ‘lost’ in that one, vague, FoI-protected word.
The ‘Beware of the Leopard’ cabinet at the BBC must be the size of the Pentagon.
Too easy to make light of, as they have just justified censorship on whim when the opinion doesn’t suit their worldview.
Not exactly the act of a trustworthy broadcast news entity.
Worth pursuing, even if we all know how predictable and long the route to ‘got it about right’ oblivion will be.
Is “lefty” a potentially damaging statement? Because looking at Wikipedia there doesn’t seem to be much room for doubt about the “terrorist” bit.
Could be worse. You might have called him a pleb.
One has to draw the conclusion that, according to the BBC house rules, the truth is damaging, so verboten.
The President really does have a personal association with Ayers, but clearly someone at the moderating firm either doesn’t know this and decided it was something besides the truth, or that the truth makes Him look bad and so banned it.
Doesn’t inspire confidence either way.
I`m thinking of getting a wall put up to commemorate “The New Fallen2…those brave souls who risked social death because they fell foul of the BBCs cultural wars since 1997.
Carole Thatcher, David Starkey…and now , of course, the latest victim of the liberal media…John Terry.
Reckon that hideous wall by Salfords wharf might do it-and a small stencil set or graffiti artist too.
Any other nominations?
Jade Goody, after being accused of racism towards Big Brother housemate.
David Bellamy
Christopher Monckton, Piers Corbyn, Anthony Watts, Martin Durkin, Peter Sissons.
And these are the Scientists that the BBC Editorial Guidelines probably classify as Enemies of Science. David Archibald, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Tom Segalstad, Ernst-Georg Beck, Nir Shaviv, Jasper Kirkby, Henrik Svensmark, Gerhard Gerlich, Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller.
No wonder Mensa members are now mocking the lack of intelligence at the BBC with articles such “Enemies of Astronomy”.
“David Bellamy”
Bellamy’s last major BBC series was way back in 1981. He fell out of favour with TV producers long before he came out against “man-made global warming” in 2004.
Christopher Booker – a considerable expert on the EU and the ‘climate change’ scandal – banned from appearing on any BBC programme.
I’ll second Chris, he would wipe the floor with any BBC stooge put up against him, and they know it.
This is the same Christopher Booker who believes in the “Intelligent Design” theory?
I think perhaps your confidence in his abilities may be somewhat misplaced.
Anthony Worrell Thompson. Apparently, as far the BBC is concerned, certain celebrity peccadilloes are excusable – but there can never never be a get out of jail free card for a sometime conservative party fundraiser.
“Anthony Worrell Thompson”
I think you’ll find his adventures in shoplifting happened after the TV gigs dried up; not before.
Philip Lader, former US ambassador to Britain – had the great misfortune to appear on the infamous 9-11 Question Time episode – almost reduced to tears while the wreckage of the Twin Towers was still smouldering.
Made me ashamed to be British. Probably considered by many beeboids to be one of the BBC’s finest moments, it remains one of the most revealing insights into the corporation’s culture and worldview and inherent detachment from the values and attitudes of the majority of the population.
Toby Young,after questioning value of ‘prizes for all’ state education
Roger Scruton for,among other crimes
attacking ‘concept art,
Rod Liddle,after falling out with, Bonnie (white people should be afraid) Greer
(sorry about comp. glitch fat fingers I’m afraid)
Jim Davidson’s and Paul Daniels’ careers nosedived when they came out blue.
Neil and Christine are allowed on because the BBC find it easy to mock them.
Neil and Christine Hamilton of course.
“Jim Davidson’s and Paul Daniels…”
Last time Jim Davidson had his own slot onTV I remember him telling a joke I’d heard from a friend ten years previously.
Likewise, the ratings for “The Paul Daniels Magic Show” became so pitiful towards the end that he even attempted singing. It was embarrassing, and (more or less) killed off his career over night.
Kilroy Silk and Sam Mason
Jeremy Clarkson, for making joke about Indian toilets.
Good list forming.
Johnny Ball too for his views on nuclear power-or is he being slowly rehabilitated due to being Zoes dad, and therefore Fatboy Slim might redirect the drugs?
…also a ‘climate change denier’ – the doubly evil bastard.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1359350/Zoe-Balls-father-Johnny-vilified-questioning-global-warming.html
They actually allowed him to have his say, though…albeit briefly. In this short clip he manages not only to be a climate change denier, but also to be Anti-eco scare mongering, pro-consumer, free market & anti-state regulation, anti-windfarm, pro-nuclear….beeboids heads must have exploded…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12608157
Is this the same Johnny Ball who provided a ‘voice over’ for the TV licence campaign in 2010?
Looks like I was mistaken, then. That 9 second voice-over is proof that he’s certainly not running against the grain of the BBC mindset.
I seem to remember he was given a slot on Channel 5 morning TV for a while – based on the affection he was held in by a generation of children in the 70’s.
It didn’t really work though, and he was dropped after just a couple of weeks.
Obviously it’s all the BBC’s fault…
Clearly 😉
Clarkson earns the BBC far too much cash for them ever to send him into exile. Plus he’s useful to hold up as an example of everything that’s wrong with Tories. He’s a licensed jester, and will always have a safe home at the BBC so long as the money keeps rolling in.
I miss the wonderful and talented Kenny Everett – an openly gay comedian on the BBC who was actually funny and entertaining…and a vocal supporter of the Tories and Maggie – and even performed at their conferences.
Can anyone imagine such an aberration these days?
“Let’s bomb Russia!”
I can still remember the faux outrage.
“Let’s kick Michael Foot’s stick away!”
I bet they loved that one, too.
i still suspect a lot of gays and pretendy lefties secretly vote Tory.
Did anyone see the BBC World’s Dateline London discussing the riots over the Mohammed film?
Quite Frankly (with the exception, strangely enough, perhaps of the Guardian’s Michael White) the participants were a moral and intellectual disgrace. We heard from them cliches about the “tiny minority” involved in the rioting, something about folks in the developing world taking their religion more seriously than the secular west not to mention that Iraq, Afghanistan and US foreign policy might have had something to do with the bad fettle the rioters found themselves in.
The dishonesty and craven cowardice of most of the participants was compounded by the fact that no mention was made at all about the similarity with the riots over Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses in 1989. There was no evident desire to get to the root of the problem, just a serving up of the usual sickening, self-loathing, liberal cliches that it’s all somehow the west’s fault. The American, Stryker McGuire, mumbled some rubbish about Christian fundamentalist and Islamist fundamentalist blocks colliding.
The participant from the Times of India at the end of the program disgracefully said that he hoped the maker of the film “did not get away scot-free”. The lead news story immediately after Dateline London finished was that a Pakistani minister had put a bounty on the head of the film maker. Maybe the BBC should invite the minister to their next edition of Dateline London.
Yes, I was disgusted when I came across the BBC’s website story over the Pakistani MP’s bounty for the killing of the movie writer. The tone of the BBC’s pathetic article almost seemed to justify this reprehensible and disgusting act of aggression. As a result of this terrorist-supporting act from the Pakistani minister we should immediately withdraw all aid to Pakistan and severe political links; I also think we should stop all immigration from the Arab region – in fact, all immigration full-stop; this country simply cannot take any more people.
The BBC have done more than most to destroy this country’s Christian heritage with multicultural and Islamic groveling; they are, quite simply, an utter disgrace!
dateline is as bad as any questions, sunday morning live or all the other supposed debate progs … craven apologists all.
my observation – no matter, what al bbc, or lefty/indian apologists think of the 1st amendment … it is still there … just because muslims want to create a strawman argument, orchestrate it to their own ends, to allow sharia/blasphemy law … they simply delude themselves,(again) …
the only restriction on free speech, ought to be, “if you try to restrict free speech you go to jail”
this is what is so dangerous with the obama admin on this – they have no spine enforcing their own constitution?,
unbelieeevable … the sooner he s gone the better.
Dateline London is nothing if not predictable.
‘BBC should invite the minister to their next edition of Dateline London.’
Well, his oppo the High Commissioner to GB seems free and willing.
And so far when he’s been out and about demanding folk ask more why the ‘offenders’ have not been strung up from lampposts by their own governments, oddly cowed market rate talented interviewers have suddenly found that’s all they have time for to cut away to where a Minister of bad-timed rudeness may or may not appear for lunch, with a colleague in a helicopter on hand to capture such crucial ‘news’.
Our politicians are a disgrace.
And the media we have foisted upon us are worse.
and if i hear another grovelling, handwringing idiot, talk of THE prophet,
i ll bloody take up arms myself, that arab scumbag,(if not a construct), even by the usual ideal, was nowhere near, his claims were absurd, manipulative and totally self serving, i should imagine
the most loathsome, despicable, genocidal excuse for humankind ever known.
The poisonous bile attributed to him, still blights the lives of millions today.
or maybe al bbc just can t see it, he seems to be the most important person
to those braindeads doesn t he.
says everything about them
The liberal left simply does not know how to handle this. Reality is colliding with their illusionary world. I find it all very bizarre but predictable.
By all normal rules that govern states the bounty placed by a Pakistani minister should immediately trigger recall of ambassadors at the very least.,if not an outright break of diplomatic relations. It won’t so craven have our leaders become. Excuses will be made and this will go on and on and on. I am sick of it as are ,I suspect , the majority in the West.
The minimum is that the Pakistani High Commissioner to London should be called in by Cameron and asked to explain this murderous minister’s statement. And Cameron should let him know that if this evil man is not sacked and arrested immediately Britain will stop all aid, all immigration and end diplomatic ties until the minister is put in prison.
Any mention that the Libyan violence and murder was really a response to a drone killing ordered by a certain Nobel Peace Prize laureate?
If we are talking about insults, it is taught in every madrassa that Jews are the decendents of pigs and monkeys. Thats some f*****g insult.
Nice bit of journalism, the BBC digging up a Boris Johnson quote suggesting those who swear at police officers should be arrested.
Shame they never managed to ‘dig up’ the nationality or religion of the ‘groups of men who rape underage girls’ that got a mention a few minutes later in the same programme.
There are none so blind as those pig-thick, softy-wofty, liberal-wiberal, hopey-changey, Guardian-loving, dripping wet droids.
Or whatever the quote is.
Yes, those muslim grooming gangs in Rotherham got only passing mention. For years, the police were very well aware of such gangs of muslims in many places in the north of England, but they and (appallingly) the Labour Government kicked the problem down the road.
The BBC also shows itself to be little concerned about the rape of underage girls, preferring to ‘go big’ on Andrew Mitchell.
I agree, the bBC would be much better served following a story, whereby wide spread abuse and crimes were not investigated for years. My opinion is that it would take orders from a high level, the Labour gov in this case, to achieve such a thing
newspaper review on uk news page comments on mondays papers escept the times but does sunday times
“The BBC also shows itself to be little concerned about the rape of underage girls, preferring to ‘go big’ on Andrew Mitchell. ”
Words are so much more harmful, dontcha know. Their effects are so much more pernicious and long lasting to ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶ ̶s̶k̶i̶n̶n̶e̶d̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶n̶e̶r̶s̶ sensitive souls.
the following conversation on Radio 5 Yer Know – it was with the chairman of the English Democrats who were at Conference and which. BBC felt obliged to make a pretense of covering…
‘Ellie’ Old Droid: You campaign against political correctness, but surely political correctness is just about being polite (that old lefty lie).
Chairman: Absolutely not, it was political correctness that stopped the investigation into muslim paedophile gangs in the north of England.
‘Ellie (seasoned) Old Hyena: andnowtimefortheweatherphilipavery
On matters of offence, and apology, Jeremy Vine is getting into a nice set of knots as we speak on twitter.
But it’s OK, Helen, apparently anything now goes on or via the BBC, at least its twitterverse, so long as you spin up a series of semantic weasels to say it’s all right, such as ‘All views are my brother Tim’s.’
Apparently.
Meanwhile OFCOM dozes on under the guy who really, really wanted to be the BBC DG.
Unique.
Of all the BBCs useless staffers, I reckon Jeremy Vine best sums them up.
Long trenchcoat in the 80s moping over Ian Curtis and Morrissey…getting his degree and being Paxos bagman-then being used to shoehorn Jimmy Young out.
Lat time I heard Vine, he was playing the drumkit of a dead squaddie, as he emoted over Remembrance Day and those sad losses.
But today folks-shouldn`t we let that Pakistani just get over here and tell us why he wants us dead?
We`ll not ask him how he`s got £100,000 to “invest” in his RushdieFund either…wouldn`t be Foreign Aid gone south now would it?..or corruption in the drugs trade up north in his so called “country”?
BBC-NUJ, The Police, and Muslim Sex Gangs.
BBC-NUJ was very critical of the (South Yorkshire) Police and the ‘cover-up’ over the Hillsborough disaster.
Will BBC-NUJ be critical of the Police there over the Muslim Sex Gangs ‘cover-up’, as reported on pages 1, 6 and 7 of today’s ‘Times’ (£paywall)?
There are detailed case-study reports on sex crimes in Rotherham, Yorkshire.
‘The Times’, as rest of MSM (inc BBC-NUJ), in some convoluted ‘politically correct’ reporting, tries to avoid the word ‘Muslim’, and instead adopts misleading words and phrases such as ‘Asian’ and ‘British Pakistani’.
From ‘The Times’, page 1:
“Another confidential 2010 report for the Rotherham Safeguarding Children Board, noted that such crimes had ‘cultural characteristics’…which are locally sensitive in terms of diversity’.
“It sad: ‘There are sensitivities of ethnicity with potential to endanger the harmony of community relationships. Great care will be taken in drafting…this report to ensure that its findings embrace Rotherham’s qualities of diversity. It is imperative that suggestions of a wider cultural phenomenon are avoided.”
Another classic case of how ‘political correctness’ is used to tragically conceal the truth.
‘The Times’ ( page 1) now has access to over 200 restricted-access documents: “which show that, in one area, police and child protection agencies have held extensive knowledge of this crime model for ten years, yet have never publicly acknowledged its existence.”
Yes, truly harrowing reports in today’s Times, and proof that many on this blog have been right all along.
Got that, David? Dez? Scott? Nicked?
Nick Griffin was way ahead of the BBC on this issue.
Of course, not only many Beeboids, but many other ‘journalists’, the Police, the Social Services, and much of the Political Class ( of all three main parties), operating under the guise of ‘political correctness’, are largely a hindrance to the prevention of Muslim sex criminals.
Part of ‘The Times’ update today on the cover-up of Muslim sex crimes is a continuation of earlier reports such as this (of three months ago):
“Social workers hid fact they knew teenage mother was at risk from sex grooming gangs SIX YEARS before she was brutally murdered .”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2155823/Social-workers-hid-fact-knew-teenage-mother-risk-sex-grooming-gangs-SIX-YEARS-brutally-murdered.html#ixzz27OSyzhpe
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
After listening to the BBC, surely everyone knows it’s only Catholic priests who abuse children.
Yes, but only the closet gay ones.
h/tip to Guido Fawkes for the link to this piece of statist red sky thinking from outside the TV box….
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/23/broadband-levy-save-newspapers?INTCMP=SRCH
Guadianista David Leigh reckons
“A £2-a-month levy on broadband could save our newspapers
Proceeds could be distributed based on UK online readership and reinvested to protect great journalism”
Hey, the BBC licence model is so great let’s use it to prop up the Guardian! (Like the BBC doesn’t already do its best in that direction)
“According to conventional wisdom, print is doomed. Circulations are collapsing because readers can get everything they want on the internet. Not only do those readers dislike the idea of paying to read online, but the existence, among other sites, of the rival licence-fee-payer-funded BBC website guarantees that they will never actually need to pay for a supply of reliable day-to-day news. Paywalls will never really work in a UK context for that reason.”
A nice little example of doublethink there. The BBC’s online presence is exacerbating the problems for newspapers so rather than restrict the Beeb in that area the answer must be….
“the Guardian Media Group would…..receive in the region of 20% of the cash – £100m a year.”
Talk about looking after yourself!
Oh and Mr Leigh reckons the BBC is ‘timid’. You understand that? He means not leftist enough.
Lets just wait to see what the Beeb themselves have to say about this crazy idea for more tax and more state funded news.
I have a hunch they might go for it.
Lefties complaining about the BBC is always amusing and usually beyond irony.
But I’ve never yet known one allege that because the Beeb is so right wing it should be disbanded and the licence fee ended. Never. Funny that.
Not exactly capturing the mood of even the CiF crowd, mind.
The Grauniad’s losing £2.5 million a week, so £100 million would come in handy.
Why not fund the Grauniad with a poll tax?
I love it when left-wing organisations die a slow death.
What will Polly do when the Guardian shuts down. Owen Jones is the BBC’s favourite left-wing village idiot and she won’t get a look in.
…I’m sure they can squeeze another one in – there always seems to be plenty of room…for like-minded persons, that is.
There are two seats on the left of Sandy Tostig, one were Jeremy Hardy sits, and then another on the left of that. They could add another seat on the left of that for Polly, that could raise a laugh.
How much would the Murdoch papers get?
I`d hate to have had to share my playground with Martha Kearney!
In the midst of Vince Cable, Lord Oakeshott, Jeremy Brown and all manner of right thinking wonks from the IPPR(it`s an independent think tank doncha know?)…and Anne McElvoy from tne Economist(amongst other outlets, but not today!)…Martha was really good at passing notes onto them all, bitching about one of them in the hope of dishing another one…and all poisoned notelets seemed to end up at Andrew Mitchell-for being an eco friendly doler out of aid to AfPak just isn`t enough today, girls…is it?…as if!
Oh-and this all passed for twenty minutes or so on the World at One this lunchtime-and, you`ll never guess what John Cridland was saying behing George Osbornes back…well go on…guess!
Oh yes, in the fetid little bitchslap which is BBC current affairs output, we really are supposed to care whether Ed Miliband is going to ask Vince Cable out…tee hee, hearts on mission statements!
I myself prefer the open bitchfest of Vicky Pollard to her big worded, scone baking counterpart-which is all that Kearney is able to give us by way of analysis.
Onmishambolic radio.
The BBC’s annoying habit of running behind schedule might be annoying when one misses the denouement of your recorded programme but it probably acts to boost the BBC’s audience share (compared with ad breaked commercial channels) – per BARB “The programme audience is the average audience of all the minutes covered by the programme transmission (excluding commercial breaks and promotions).
I have been inside today and watching the BBC’s coverage of the Andrew Mitchell story. You see, in the morning nobody was asking for Mr Mitchell’s resignation, but the BBC was already getting hysterical with various people about Mr Mitchell, and how he should say what he DID say. David Cameron had a long chat, (yes the Prime Minister), with Mr Mitchell and said he was satisfied that Mr Mitchell lost his temper but did not swear at the officer. Not good enough says the BBC, we are bigger than the PM and WE want to know what he said, together of course with Labour who, have yet to confess they want his head.
After wheeling out person after person all day trying to ‘get’ Andrew Mitchell, including calling Nick Clegg out of conference twice, to his exasperation, they finally had a statement from Labour that Andrew Mitchell should resign. Ahhh! so that was it all along why didn’t you says so? wasting taxpayers money.
The fact that nobody was there except the policeman and Andrew Mitchell and a written statement (unproved) in the Sun, the BBC proceed to be judge, jury and executioner. Andrew Mitchell had already apologised, not once but twice.
This monopoly needs to be accountable to OFCOM, since right now it is accountable to nobody but itself, it even investigates it’s own complaints.
If you make a scientifically academic complaint about the BBC’s Climate Change Bias. It is dealt by Colin Tregear, Complaints Director of the Editorial Complains Unit, who was formally the Project Director at the BBC’s Weather Centre. If it goes on to the BBC Trust, they call it an independent investigation. But there is no proof that the investigation is independent from the closed world of BBC Editorial Guidelines set by the secret BBC Climate Change seminar. It was a bizarre experience, but a useful eye opener for members of the Space Special interest group of Mensa.
‘If it goes on to the BBC Trust, they call it an independent investigation.
Unique, isn’t it?
The BBC: To inform entertain and to educate?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-19699500
“Naila Mumtaz murder: Four family members jailed for life”
“Birmingham Crown Court heard Mrs Mumtaz’s in-laws thought she was possessed by evil spirits.
The trial heard evidence that Mrs Mumtaz was killed during attempts to render her unconscious as family members attempted to drive out a harmful “djinn” spirit.”
Gosh, I’ve read and reread this story but I’m damned if I can see where the BBC explains what this “Djinn” is all about?
Ah, Wikipedia….”The jinn (Arabic: جن ǧinn, singular جني ǧinnī; also spelled djinn), or genies, are supernatural spirits mentioned in the Quran and Islamic mythology”
There, that wasn’t so difficult – was it?
Possibly the best post I’ve ever read, anywhere. Absolutely perfect.
Extra guest on Question Time – answering questions on twitter…
@bbcquestiontime is pleased to announce the introduction of the Extra Guest, the sixth panellist of #bbcqt who tweets during the programme.
The avatar will change once the guest is confirmed each week, along with a real name/Twitter address #bbcqt
The account is a BBC one but the person tweeting from it during the programme broadcast hour will not be BBC staff
Tweets by BBCExtraGuest
…and, as usual…
@bbcquestiontime’s extra panellist, tweeting their opinions (not the BBC’s) during the programme.
Thanks for all your ideas and reaction to the @bbcextraguest idea we’re trying. Certain names have come up a lot more than others #bbcqt
Certain names…I dread to think.
The BBC are all over this Mitchell non-story – their twitters are full of it…
Labour’s Yvette Cooper has written to the Cabinet Sec calling for an investigation into Andrew Mitchells outburst at police
…cos that would be a really worthwhile use of public funds. Labour can drain the public purse even from the distance of opposition.
The real question is whether Ed Balls will write an identical letter to the Cabinet Secretary, you know, sort of like how these two freaks work their expenses.
I would like a public enquiry chaired by a judge. It is that serious.
The BBC wont report this
http://islamversuseurope.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/police-covered-up-muslim-sex-slavery.html
The confidential documents revealed today suggest a failure by police and social services to protect teenagers and bring charges against their abusers, even when agencies held detailed intelligence about the men and their victims.
They also reveal that one young white girl, known by social services to have been sexually abused by Asian men from the age of 12, was offered language lessons in Urdu and Punjabi by Rotherham council. The aim was “to engage” her in education.
Abu Hamza now faces extradition to the USA reports the BBC. But just so we know how wrong it is to lose him the BBC provides a description of the hell facing this poor man in the Supermax prison. These Americans sure are mean with terrorists.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17663629
Ray Luc Levasseur, a former inmate at ADX Florence Penitentiary in Colorado, told the Today programme: “It doesn’t always stop with damage… it doesn’t always have to stop with the mind.
The irony. My comment yesterday mentioning 1960s lefty terrorist Bill Ayers was banned by the BBC. Little did I know that back in April, the Today programme elicited comment on supermax prisons from 1970s lefty terrorist Ray Luc Levasseur.
The article mentions nothing about Levasseur’s past other than the fact he was a supermax inmate. Surely it should mention that Levasseur was a Marxist revolutionary type who bombed buildings?
Naughtie did a bit better in the actual programme. After Levasseur claimed to be a political prisoner, Naughtie elicted an admission about the bombings, though Levasseur claimed they bombed property and never actually hurt anybody. Naughtie let him get away with that. It might be true in Levasseur’s case, but members of his group were convicted of the murder of a state trooper, attempted murder of state troopers and the bombing of a courthouse in which 22 people were injured.
I am currently in a room with Gordon Brown. Will explain later. Yes, saving the world and redistribution of wealth is involved.
i dont know how you’re going to stay awake, but good luck
He spoke for barely five minutes, and it was the usual drivel about how “we must do what we can (insert trendy global issue here)….”. If you’ve heard him speak about any global issue, you can easily imagine what he said. This was followed by a number of dignitaries from war-torn countries (except one speaking on behalf of another), plus an assortment of top mandarins from various international, supra-governmental organizations. All either asking for money to be redistributed to them or white people from wealthy countries reading boilerplate about how they need to redistribute their wealth to the others. Nominally a good cause, and one I would support if I didn’t know what actually resulted, but it was all speeches and less action than a People’s Front of Judea meeting.
Mr. Brown was furiously taking notes the entire time, yet when the forum chair passed it to him for closing remarks (he was the opening act as well), he declined to speak, and that was that. He did appear tired.
I have to say, though, the rictus grin looked rather human in person. I stayed awake only because I was there to work, not because anyone had anything interesting to say.
“Mr. Brown was furiously taking notes the entire time“
I was told that Brown’s notes are always aimlessly drawn doodles.
From where I was sitting, I wasn’t able to see what he was actually putting down on paper. All I saw was his pen very active most of the time, and heard the chairman, who was sitting next to him, say he was taking notes the whole time. I suppose he could have been lying, but it seems unlikely.
…probably scribbled drawings of Gillian Duffy with ‘bigot’ scrawled on her forehead.
I wonder if he still blames Sue.
You’d think I’d know better, but I decided to give ‘Two Eds’ Flanders a chance with her Hayek doco.
I lasted five minutes. That was how long it took for Steph to announce that supporters of Hayek believe you have to look at the roots of the crash. All true, but Steph decided that meant we had to wind the clock back to Jan 2001.
Huh?
What happened then? Ah yes, nothing but it was a chance to run video of President Chimpy McHitlerburton. Yep, that was Steph’s Big Idea: Blame Bush!
But actually we have to wind the clock back to 1997, when Gordon Brown became Chancellor, destroyed British pensions and savings, encouraged everyone to borrow more than they could afford, and did exactly the same for the government.
Did Steph mention that?
Yup. One of the fuels behind the house price boom was people whose pensions suddenly became worthless investing in property – the buy to let boom.
All fanned by easy term, low rate mortgages.
Thank goodness no one is suggesting we make lending even easier …
Wind the clock back a bit further to the mid-90s when Clinton was signing the “No-People-Who-Shouldn’t-Be-Getting-Into-Insane-Debt Left Behind” legislation into law, along with the other Clinton hi-jinks. And I wonder what “Two Eds” thought about how Bubba’s dot-com bubble burst when Bush took over.
i bet when there’s the Labour party conference, we’ll see a lot of BBC employees wearing something red
“Leftist/Islamic supremacist alliance in action: Ahmadinejad to meet with Occupy Wall Street”
-Who will represent BBC-Democrat?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/leftistislamic-supremacist-alliance-in-action-ahmadinejad-to-meet-with-occupy-wall-street.html
“ANOTHER GLENN BECK PREDICTION COME TRUE?
AHMADINEJAD TO MEET WITH OCCUPY WALL STREET.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/another-beck-prediction-come-true-ahmadinejad-to-meet-with-occupy-wall-street/
It’s a toss-up who bathes less frequently.
and piers morgan??!*?
i’m sure if there was an Anal Sex party, the BBC would be in full support
But who would pick the sweet corn off afterwards?
Note that INBBC does not give details of e.g. Abu Hamza’s activities:-
“Abu Hamza and Babar Ahmad extradition approved”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19706404
‘Daily Mail’ does:
“Sling your hook! Hate preacher Abu Hamza to be booted out of Britain within days after final appeal against extradition fails.”
[Excerpt]:
“Hamza, whose vile sermons outside the Finsbury Park Mosque earned him global notoriety, is wanted by the U.S. authorities for plotting to set up a jihadi training camp in Oregon.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2207993/Hate-preacher-Abu-Hamza-booted-Britain-days-final-appeal-fails.html#ixzz27QZnMbWy
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Also, ‘Daily Mail 2006:
“In depth: Abu Hamza profile”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-376438/In-depth-Abu-Hamza-profile.html
“American court orders BBC to hand over Yasser Arafat documentary footage”
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/american-court-orders-bbc-to-hand-over-yasser-arafat-documentary-footage-8168110.html
Of course, INBBC defends Arafat, Fatah and Palestinian Authority.
INBBC is as likely to hand over material to U.S, as it is to publish Balen Report.
Of course, those who work in newsrooms will point out that media editorial independence is a fundamental aspect of a free press.
And I tend to agree (over and above pondering what on earth is going on with establishment bodies in other countries presuming to meddle elsewhere… and seemingly with some confidence).
However, questions do get raised on realities and practices, as with the flawed ideals that are democracy or free speech.
At the heart is who controls what… in or out. Especially via an edit suite.
One only has to ask what would come out into the public domain, and how quickly, depending on the tribal ideologies of those who shot, or were handed footage that was damaging to sources they did not support or approve of.
What journalistic integrity or code covers running something as it suits, but suddenly getting all coy on material known to be in the can, but doesn’t appear to be quite as high on the ‘public has a right to know’ agenda of some all of a sudden?
The ‘news’ seems full of ‘journalists’ demanding of others every single detail of what has transpired over certain events, but here it would appear certain ‘news’ media feels that this cannot apply… depending.
The BBC is fast acquiring a reputation for highly-selective editorial by omission, and it’s hard to see them as anything other than a propaganda organisation backed by censorship as a consequence.
Summed up nicely.
BBC Journalists do not have Editorial Independence. They follow Editorial Guidelines set by secret seminars.
These Guidelines dictate the propaganda, or censorship through a highly-selective editorial by omission policy as decided by these seminars.
The BBC seem to be awash with vanity projects fronted by their big beasts.
Perhaps goodbye presents from the outgoing DG?
Paxo has done it with the British Empire, Marr is doing his History of the World and our Steph Flanders has a three parter on economics: Masters of Money.
Episode 1. Keynes
Episode 2. Hayek
Episode 3. Marx
One from the left, one from the right and the last word goes to the extreme left.
How very balanced.
Sounds like the familiar format for a BBC debate.
I can’t wait for the episode in Marr’s series when he tells us that Muslims invented everything, and we should be grateful to them. He was thrilled to tell us the first hero of China was a public sector employee.
Where the penalty for failure was a garrotting. Certainly made a change from “lessons have been learned”.
But was evidently more effective.
In Part 2, “Two Eds” demonstrated how Hayed was hopelessly misguided. If I get a chance, I’ll watch the Keynes one to see if she similarly tears him apart.
Why do I get the idea that the BBC has a particular view on this story.
“The Queen voiced concerns to the previous government about the inability of UK authorities to arrest Abu Hamza al-Masri, the BBC has learned.”
“The BBC’s Frank Gardner says the Queen told him she had spoken to a home secretary about the issue. ”
So that would be an unattributed (Labour) former Home Secretary. Come on Frank Gardner, shall we narrow down the list of possible suspects?
Hamza was first arrested in the UK in 2004.
So could be David Blunkett, Charles Clarke, John Reid, Jacqui Smith or Alan Johnson?
Do I sense the opening of another creaking door to the possibility of yet another appeal by Hamza. The allegation of “interference” of the Queen in the legal process perhaps?
The Queen’s interest in the Hamza story is predictable, understandable and, more to the point, probably confidential. There was no need (certainly no public interest need) – apart from puffing up his “insider” credentials – for Gardner to disclose this particular piece of information now. It could – probably should – have waited until Hamza is safely in the US.
This whole piece on Today this morning sums up the BBC very nicely.
The murder of a mans wife was “sad”-but the old dupe was there to prop up one Frank Gardner whose “corker of an exclusive” -Jims word “corker”!…will ingratiate him with the “newsmakers”…as for the old woman killed in Yemen…well, if we get an exclusive about the Queen via some Labour Home Secretary-and who would that be then?…then the BBC has its result.
HOw many times need we say it-the corking spiffing chaps at the BBC step over peoples bodies to get their angle on anything-and even Gardners stumps can hang a tale on them…and the widower in the studio served his purpose by speaking to our Frank first…f888in hateful,the Beeb!
I smell a rat……….
Maybe we could all pile onto the CiF website to demand a knighthood for Hookie…victim of Empire racism etc!
If we could get the Guardian to follow our lead(they`re not over bright up there) then they could garrotte themselves in thinking that their readers demand Hamza as a weird air freshener for the Summer Holiday bus of class warfare and nice things.
Anyone care to second my CiF thread to get a posthumous pardon for Bin Laden, and St Obama to confer it in Oslo this December?
Maybe WE should be weeviling through the leftlibbie institutions-they`ve sure hollowed out ours!
A doctor fighting against the cuts in the NHS because they are wrong and feels so strongly he breaks the law.
Militant hackers wanting to bring down the Government because they are in the pockets of the nasty bankers.
Just another New Tricks on the BBC
11:25 bBC news – Interview with oily Vaz, interviewer asked Vaz about reports that the Queen asked the home secretary why Hamza was allowed to preach hatred. Vaz then went on a long tirade about the extradition process, the interviewer had asked why had the Labour home secretaries taken so long to act. Did the interviewer pull up Vaz as say, yopu are not answering the question, did he f***!
It took the Americans to show an interest in him to shame Labour into half-hearted, belated action.
The muslim white girl groomers, were well underway at the same time, the authorities again doing virtually nothing until the stink got too large. More than a coincidence.
While BBC-NUJ (and all MSM) have specified the sex crimes of Catholic Church in recent years, virtually none of that MSM is currently designating the sex crimes of Muslims, in the sex crimes against white girls in England.
Similarly, Mr MacShane, Labour Party MP for Rotherham ( a centre for Muslim sex crimes against English white girls) , is unable to use the word ‘Muslim’, but uses the word ‘Catholic’. Note such avoidance by MacShane here, in today’s ‘Times:-
“The third big denial comes from the South Asian community. As with the paedophilia in the Catholic Church, the intiial reaction is to deny or cover up the crimes that shames the community.”
Incidentally, MSM today (inc INBBC) seems to be still disinterested in picking up the campaign which ‘The Times’ is still running today against the sex crime gangs of Muslims* in England.
(* Often euphemistically, and misleadingly designated: ‘Asian’, ‘British Pakistani’, ‘South Asian’, ‘Pakistan heritage’.)
‘The Times’ seems to forget its self-imposed political censorship in this matter and on page 2, in a Leading Article today, it has this honest sentence:
“That an overwhelming majority of the
predators were of Muslim Pakistani origin appears to have influenced the police.”
“
Uninterested, not disinterested.
Sorry, just a bugbear.
There’s a spike at the tower for Vaz.
He`d slither off it.
You try and stick that oil slick onto anything, and see how far you get.
Labour entitlement, hypocrisy, venality and `uman rights gravy trainery…all in one oozing condom of Raj style caste privilege.
Don`t care for the man, myself!
The Nulabour attitude to muzzy fanatics was very hands-off. Do what you want, where you want – just don’t do it in britain.
Anyone remind me how well *that* worked.
The Queen is more on the ball than INBBC:
BBC headline –
“Abu Hamza concerns raised by Queen”
But note INBBC’s CASACIANI’s political line:
1.) he defers to anti-monarchy minuscule group, ‘Republic’;
2.) he solicits support of Labour’s Vaz for Islamic jihadist suspects;
3.) Casciani censors out the viewpoint of British government;
4.) Casciani also puts case supporting jihadist suspect Babar Ahmad.
It is quite clear which political side INBBC’s Casciani is still on in all this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19709599
I noticed Panorama last night was kicking the government over the disgraceful practices of IT companies exploiting ignorant school heads.
Margaret Hodge (Labour) was the sole ‘establishment’ voice, of course the “useless” government was not represented and Michael Gove chose not to appear — fair enough. Just partisan outrage from Hodge.
Still, there was no attempt to balance the programme.
Where were the questions about Labour local authorities letting these practises repeat themselves OR how this was allowed to grow during Labour’s time in office?
None. Just a free hit for Hodge.
Appalling.
Truly remarkable isn`t it, that the likes of Darling, Hodge, Blunkett, Straw, Prescott continue to get unfettered access to the media to continue the “Their Two Cents” view of anything being done or proposed
Now this Government may well be the second worst one in living memory-but the worst one of all featured the likes of Hodge, Blunkett, Vaz, Harman and all the rest of these latex liars.
Still-the perpetual efforts to give us their toxic brand of pink socialism with a lime green wash will never cease as long as the BBC use our money to pay for these scummers taxis and canapes.
Maybe the Beeb can persuade one of their pet disabling champions to take an Old Boys/Girls/othergendered bus out along Beachy head out -“The Reunion” might be a nice pretext.
No empty seats either please-it`ll be an inclusive bus for all the “talents”..Owen, Polly-room for one more pixie on top!
This INBBC report, although informative, misses out two crucial explanatory words: ‘Islam’ and ‘Muslim’:
“Green on blue attacks reveal flaws in Afghan recruitment process”
By Gerry Northam
BBC Radio 4’s File on 4.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19672852
Alternative analysis by Robert Spencer, ‘Jihadwatch’:
[Excerpt]:
“In fact, these ‘green-on-blue’ murders keep happening because there is no reliable way to distinguish an Afghan Muslim who supports American troops from one who wants to murder them, and political correctness prevents authorities from making any attempt to do so anyway because it would suggest that Islam is not a religion of peace. So ever more U.S. troops are sacrificed to this madness.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/7/america-still-the-target-of-911-jihad/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
BBC still in love with anything or anyone connected to ‘hackgate’…
———————-
Former Lib Dem MP Evan Harris – now a leading light of the Hacked Off campaign – was needed as a guest for Neil’s excellent Sunday Politics prog yesterday.
Unfortunately, Evan was in Brighton.
So what did the BBC do? They got him in a cab and drove him all the way to Broadcasting House – cost one way, a cool £120, I’m reliably informed. After the show, it seems he was then driven all the way back to Brighton (courtesy of the Beeb’s cab organisers One Transport). That’ll be £240 all in.
The licence fee payer may ask why Mr Harris couldn’t just be handed a train ticket and then picked up from Victoria (which may even have been faster). But to be fair, guests aren’t normally expected to make their own way to the studio.
——————————
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/62076/taxi_for_mr_harris!.html
Having seen a few episodes of ‘Doomsday Preppers’, a programme dedicated to people who are certain that total economic and societal collapse is imminent, I’m always left with the impression that these individuals are wasting their entire lives preparing for an eventuality that will never come.
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/doomsday-preppers/
…however…
http://order-order.com/2012/09/25/sell-sell-sell/
Oh bugger…..
BBC apologises after Frank Gardner talks about conversation he had with H.M. regarding old ‘ooky.
Will the BBC mention H.M. had previously raised the issue with a then Labour Minister that did sod all?
How dare the Tory led coalition do nothing about this situation?
http://news.sky.com/story/989328/bbc-apologises-to-queen-after-hamza-breach
Supplementary.
“BBC apologises to the Queen over disclosure of Abu Hamza conversation”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bbc-apologises-to-the-queen-over-disclosure-of-abu-hamza-conversation-8174955.html
Lower-third text on the News Channel just now while they’re talking about it: “BBC learns Queen asked about Hamza”.
No, BBC, the word you’re looking for is “reveals”. She said it to a Beeboid. Nobody believes that he never told anyone, not even in confidence. And there’s a curious lack of interest in who was in charge of “the previous Government” when she raised the issue with them.
Was killed/died.
Learns/reveals.
Meh.
…careful with those ‘value judgements’.
BBC – moral relativism, it’s in our DNA.
Good for the Queen. I can see how just her saying something can be considered influencing, though.
But how is Gardner standing up in that Sky photo? Not the best choice from the archive, if that’s what happened.
He’s leaning on his sticks. You can just see the top of one in his right hand.
I didn’t know his rehabilitation had progressed that far. Good for him, in that case. Last time I saw him on air he was in a wheelchair and had to shift himself out of it into the Mastermind chair.
Barbara Plett just referred to “the Prophet Mohammed”. I know this has been brought up here a million times, but I challenge Scott or Dez or Jim or Nicked or RWB or any lurking BBC employee to explain why this is acceptable when no Beeboid will say “the Lord Jesus Christ” on air like this.
Because he is a prophet. Now I don’t know how you go about getting “Prophet” status — collect cereal packet tops? But I don’t think his status is under question, is it?
As far as I know Jesus isn’t a peer so he isn’t entitled to be called a Lord. He is, of course, a prophet too so they could call him that.
But it is a fair point and Ms. Plett should take care. I didn’t hear the context in which she said it. She could have been using it to differentiate from some other Mohammed (perhaps the 5,000 and 10,000 m Olympic champion perhaps — the Runner Mohammed) but I suspect not …
No, Nicked, he’s a prophet for a specific religion. She was talking about that Innocence film, and that it insulted “the Prophet Mohammed”.
Yes, Mohammed’s status as a prophet is very much under question by people who are not Mohammedan. It’s not offensive to use a modifier in order to differentiate him from prophets in other religions.
On reflection I agree with you. If there is no confusion then it is not necessary to add the words “the prophet” since context will tell us. If there is the chance of confusion then the phrase “the Muslim prophet” is more accurate since it is not open to dispute.
You are right and I was wrong.
You rescued that one, Nicked!
I was going to point out – post our recent ontological to/fro – that it is not known as a fact that he was a prophet!
(Sent in the spirit of joshing banter rather than point-scoring).
Thanks, Nicked. Please see the BBC’s baloney to which Notasheep directs us below. They actually think people might be confused as to which Mohammed they’re talking about.
In view of his consummating his marriage to a 9 year old wife I’ve always thought the shorthand ‘Mo-ped’ would serve to differentiate him from all the other Mohammeds around.
“…why this is acceptable when no Beeboid will say ‘the Lord Jesus Christ’ on air like this.”
False dichotomy. Prophet Mohammed is equivalent to Jesus Christ which literally means “Jesus the Messiah”.
Plenty of references to Jesus Christ (or just Christ) on the BBC, some of which don’t even mention Chris Moyles…
Hello Dez.
Not that many references, dez. And the BBC is not consistent.
For example, this article in the “Religions” section of the website refers to “Jesus”.
While this report about that woman who attempted to “fix” that painting refers to “Jesus Christ”.
I know you saw both of these when you did the same search I just did which included the bit about Chris Moyles as Jesus Christ.
The BBC article about that recently discovered papyrus about a supposed wife refers to simply “Jesus”.
However (I bet everyone else knows what’s coming), the article in the Religions section about the 7th Century gentleman in question says “The Prophet Muhammad”.
What a shock.
“…the article in the Religions section about the 7th Century gentleman in question says “The Prophet Muhammad”
Yes and this article in the Religions sections says “Jesus Christ”. Do you really want to play this game?
http://bbc.in/RVBb6K
If you were consistent, you’d be objecting to the usage of “Prophet” and “Christ”. But you’re not.
Care to explain why?
Dez, even that example doesn’t really work. The first line is:
Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah promised in the Old Testament.
No Christ until the second line.
I don’t understand what you mean by “consistent”. You seem to be missing the entire point. I thought I was asking for consistency.
INBBC’s CASCIANO now acts as counsel for defence of suspected Islamic jihadist, Barbar Ahmad.
And INBBC TV devotes a whole programme on his behalf.
Casciano is strong on his political sympathy for Ahmad, whom he chats with one-on-one, but is light on Ahmad’s jihadist actions.
Of course, INBBC would not afford this sympathetic treatment to someone form e.g. the English Defence League which opposes Islamic jihadism, because that would offend INBBC pro-Islam ideology, and NUJ policy.
INBBC report:
“The battle to prosecute Babar Ahmad”
(-and INBBC’s battle to defend him).
By Dominic Casciani
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17606337
‘Jihadwatch’: Babar Ahmad-
http://www.jihadwatch.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/br0nc0s/managed-mt/mt-search.cgi?search=babar+ahmad&IncludeBlogs=1&limit=20
Further to my earlier comment the BBC has now apologised for breaking this particular confidence solely to big up Gardner. Of course, the report on the apology brings in the quite ridiculous and egregious comment by Republic that this revelation was all a deliberate ploy to make the Queen (rather than Gardner) look good (probably because – in Republic‘s opinion – the Jubilee celebrations showed how unpopular she is!)
Well, that’s bu**ered up the formatting. Take 50 lines.
I must close off my tags
I must close off my tags
I must close off my tags
I must close off my tags
I must close off my tags
I must close off my tags
I must close off my tags
I must close off my tags
I must close off my tags
I must close off my tags
I must close off my tags
I must close off my tags
I must close off my tags
I must close off my tags
I must close off my tags
I must close off my tags
I must close off my tags
I must close off my tags
etc
I’ve just heard it and James Naughtie must be FG’s biggest groupie. FG heard what Naughtie was saying about “wow what have you just said on air!”, and one can almost hear Frank Gardner’s ego enlarge, as he boasts of how he was “yes….I was personally” told this. Its not just FG its JN as well, he baited him. One is reminded of the disgusting dialogue between Jonathan Ross and the other comedian, Russell Brand on BBC radio. That the BBC managed to repeat something just as disgusting is remarkable.
I heard it live and thought it more than a little odd… And I ‘know nothing about the media’ as I’m often told.
Bet the Beeb knew they’d have to apologise but went with it anyway. Wouldn’t surprise me if the Director ‘What can we do to fuck the government today’ General authorised it personally.
Perhaps he has decided to up the stakes.
Text crawl on the News Channel refers to “the Prophet Mohammed”. From now on I will demand that the BBC refer to “the Lord Jesus Christ”, and use the word “Hashem” instead of “God”.
“Islam is Becoming the Official Religion of American Media”
[Excerpt]:
“Have you noticed that in the past few years, and especially in the past few weeks since the murder of the Ambassador and his guards and colleague in Benghazi (a city that Erwin Rommel loved and whose inhabitants he praised), whenever the New York Times refers to Mohammed, they always call him, without quotation marks, The Prophet Mohammed, as if everyone with any sense understands that OF COURSE Mohammed is The One True Prophet and that it’s just understood that Mohammed is The Prophet.
“I see this in other news outlets and on TV, too. Sober-looking newsmen and newswomen mention Mohammed as The Prophet Mohammed. No ifs, ands or buts. I hear it on the BBC World Service, too.
“Now, if Muslims want to believe that Mohammed is The Prophet, God bless them. Fine and dandy. If anyone wants to believe that, good luck to him or her. But why does our mainstream media here in the USA, an overwhelmingly Christian country, refer to Islam’s prophet as ‘The Prophet’?”
http://www.aina.org/news/20120924102211.htm
less biased would perhaps be, “the so called” or “alleged” prophet of the Moslems!
John Pienaar BBC 5 Live Chief Political Correspondent
(on Boris Johnson’s comments about the Police re the Andrew Mitchell story)
‘What would you give to see Andrew Mitchell’s face when he hears that?!’
Well John, it may or may not entertain me. Of course I am perfectly entitled to express my own partisan opinion. Not sure that you are quite in the same position as me however. Perhaps John, you should get a job with the Guardian?