241 Responses to MONDAY OPEN THREAD..

  1. Daphne Anson says:

    Worricker has been worrying me for the reason I indicated on the end of the previous Open Thread
    Did you read about Jezza Bowen here? Great stuff!


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Oh, my, Beeboid Twitter accounts sure are coming under a lot of scrutiny lately. Poor dears. 🙂

      Personally, I think retweets can and should go either way. But the professional journalist pretending to impartiality ought to indicate one way or the other. Bowen’s just covering his ass now, as I haven’t seen him RTing any pro-Israel stuff.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Forgot to mention that Bowen doesn’t have the “views my own” get-out-of-bias-free card. Nor does he have the BBC logo. However, because he’s a titled “editor” (a loaded term), it’s probably an officially sanctioned account, which means he has to behave properly, unlike all those with “personal” accounts.

      Unfortunately, Bowen seems to have won another award for his “reporting”, thus confirming his and the BBC’s position that he’s great and got it about right, no bias there. Amusingly, it’s for one of his reports on Syria. Hasn’t the BBC been under fire a bit for their reporting bias on that scene? Bowen’s award-winning report, oddly enough, is just the kind of propaganda for the opposition stuff critics have complained about.


  2. Umbongo says:

    While informing us on the 8:00 Radio 4 News that the Home Secretary is minded to walk out of 100+ regulations imposed by the EU (she won’t because the LibDems won’t let her) , we were told that these derogation opportunities were “negotiated by the previous (Labour) governent”. Oddly, the BBC generally ignores, and thus fails to inform us that, the rest of the Lisbon sh*tfest and a whole raft of other crapola (including the surrender by Blair of the Thatcher rebate) resulting in further and more intrusive regulation and expense was also “negotiated” by the previous government. BBC incompetence or bias or both – take your choice.


    • johnnythefish says:

      ‘..we were told that these derogation opportunities were “negotiated by the previous (Labour) governent”‘. .Just as Blair re-negotiated i.e. gave away, our EU rebate in exchange for reform of the CAP. Still waiting for the reform of CAP, of course.


  3. noggin says:

    BBC News –
    Anti-Islam film protest outside Google’s London HQ

    oh 10,000? … 3,500??? somebody run out of fingers
    at the bbc … if its left to them, it wouldn t only be fingers chop chop 😀

    hmmm! free speech ….
    people in the UK better wake up …

    Muslims protest ‘age of mockery’ as thousands descend on Google HQ,” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9607763/Muslims-protest-age-of-mockery-as-thousands-descend-on-Google-HQ.html
    Oct 14.
    (just to show that threat/violence works, ahhh! … the ahem “innocence” 😀 of muslims)

    maybe a couple of them should nip over for tea and cakes to al bbc hq with R.P.Head Aquil Ahmed to discuss the best strategy on the “offence” eh!

    maybe dvd daves odious compatriot, warsi s buddy, the old chip shop baron himself, (texting crash murderer) lord ahmed, could chip in with his 10, 000 men ….

    look this should be a turning point, the biggest of wake up calls … but with media like the bbc … it won t be


    • George R says:


      “10,000 Muslims at Google’s London offices demand removal of Muhammad video”


      “The Islamic war on the freedom of speech and quest to compel the West to adopt Sharia blasphemy laws continue. Will the West stand up for the freedom of speech, or capitulate? Smart money is on the latter, but some of us will never, ever give up.”



      • noggin says:

        hmmm just the latest rushdie-esque stylee excuse for what? …
        the next 20 odd yrs of whining deceitful and faux offence?

        age of mockery ???? ….. which age?
        or for all ages?


        • Owen Morgan says:

          In Martin Gilbert’s book about the Holocaust, there is a photograph which I find especially heart-breaking. Oddly enough, it’s not one from the Polish ghettos, from Auschwitz, or from Bergen-Belsen, but a photograph of a Jewish family leaving Memel, as brownshirts jeer in the background (and, I suspect, from the direction of the photographer, too). The two little girls look toward the photographer in complete bewilderment, their expressions clearly conveying the question, “What harm did we do to anyone?”

          The other thing that really distresses me about the image is the thought that the fugitives may not have gone far enough to be out of the clutches of the nazis.

          The video link above shows that the same evil mentality as motivated those brownshirts is back. Unlike in the thirties, today’s equivalent fascists in Britain number hundreds of thousands and boast the support of the biggest broadcaster (as well as two of the smallest newspapers).


          • Wild says:

            The Left were on the side of the thugs in the Thirties, and they are the side of the thugs today.


          • noggin says:

            other link above goes to ch4 doc on muslim antisemitism mandated by the koran, even with the protectionist tone of it, (sadly not surprising) the evidence itself is totally conclusive.
            oh yes, the “innocence” of muslims? … you know there is so much fluff and bluster about that so called movie ….
            hmm … after all the wails of absurd “offence”… just how many of those statements from the script are incorrect? …
            one wonders?


  4. musosnoop says:

    I’ve been reading this site for at least four years. It was the site which lead me to understand much about the BBCs left bias. However, a newcomer today would have to be reasonably politically savvy to get what this site and its purpose is all about. Almost everything I read on this site now is no different from almost any political blog – except at times the writers and the comments come across as an ‘in crowd’ and to anyone who isnt clued up on the politics wont understand. The site is preaching to the converted. It used to stand out from the crowd. It was unique in its message (it was an eye opener for me) – not now.

    Whats missing – There is never any talk of how the BBC can be dismantled. I cannot recall in over two years this goal ever being mentioned on the site. Be assured if it were the left that would be top of the agenda constantly. But right wingers rarely understand the lefts determination and their sixth grade tactics.

    My opinion:
    The BBC will never be abolished. We could scream and demand this for a millennia and it wont happen.

    The only way we can reduce (substantially) the BBCs sphere of influence is to have it dragged kicking and screaming in to a subscription model. The British public will swallow that if presented correctly. They will never swallow abolishment because they have been utterly brainwashed in to believing the BBC is a benevolent, can do no wrong organisation.

    It would be nice on occasion if the prime directive were actually discussed on the site. Also, don’t forget some people who stumble on to the site may not be fully immersed in politics. There is a good chance much of what is said on this site will completely fly over their heads.

    Right now, be assured the BBC are very happy with this sites lack of focus/message.


    • Wild says:

      I am guessing that the people who run this blog are not inspired by Saul Alinsky. They just believe in free speech.

      Until the Left close it down people will use this place to express their observations and thoughts about the BBC.


      • Brett Jermaine says:

        This site now appears to be simply another right-wing rantfest devoid of any humour. You used to see flashes of humour but the site now resembles nothing more than a group of drunks shouting at each other in the pub car park waving their cocks at each other whilst members of the public cross the road to avoid them. You aren’t changing or challenging anything because you are operating in a vacuum. Talking (or rather writing) about free speech whilst at the same time challenging those views that are different as being extreme.


    • Guest Who says:

      ‘..be assured the BBC are very happy with this site’s lack of focus/message.
      Much of what you write may have resonance, but I am interested in how that statement is arrived at, given the only critics of this site so far appear to come here either to shoot themselves in the foot and/or highlight BBC bias or incompetence still further, or keep returning to say how pointless it all is and no one at the BBC reads or cares.
      I’m erring on your hint that they do read as they have actually taken to moaning directly about ‘their little secrets’ getting an airing here and showing them up in public, which rather suggest they do care too. That near 12M counter also suggests a few others do too, including those who pick up on what is here and project further, such as Guido, who in turn does appear to get noted in the corridors of ‘power’ (albeit many that know they are safe from being held to account… for now).
      Breaking up the BBC is for others to do, and with public support. I wasn’t interested in any such thing a while ago, but too much is too rotten not to now be erring that way now as well.
      However highlighting bias, inaccuracy, sharp practice, hypocrisy and the antics of the ever-risible BBC Complaints>ECU>The Trust ‘system’ of making anything critical go away is a valued function of this site… and given what’s in the media at the moment, and showing no sign of abating, eroding a level of unaccountability and arrogance that is crumbling daily in the face of fact and evidence and testimony.
      It’s also gratifying the sole avenue of defences are falling apart as various thieves and fellow travellers in defence of the BBC’s indefensible fall out:
      At this rate Newsnight will only have Prescott left, and I am not sure their credibility isn’t now tanking below even his.


    • bodo says:

      I am tempted to agree with much of what you say. Sometimes this site can become an echo chamber. It’s a shame that the undoubted talents of many contributors can’t be harnessed more effectively. There used to be regular contributions from BBC staff defending their position. They no longer post, and I don’t think that is a compliment to the site.


      • Leha says:

        they probably no longer post here because they have been told not to post here.

        The bBC – HALF the news, ALL the time.


        • Earls court says:

          The BBC probably told them if they kept posting here they would stop their free supplies of coke and rentboys.


          • Nicked emus says:

            Stop projecting your predelictions onto others Earls (may I call you Earls. I feel like we know each other so well now.) what you spend your money on is entirely up to you.

            Plenty of room in that old lake of Eternal Fire you know.


            • David Preiser (USA) says:

              I’m renting a house boat. Very comfy.

              I agree that too much time spent on political opinion without connection to the BBC can cause us to lose focus. What’s more, it gives defenders of the indefensible an excuse to keep from having to defend the BBC’s bias.


              • johnnythefish says:

                Not that they make a very good job of it, choosing not to reply to the vast majority of posts on here….


                • GCooper says:

                  Indeed, yes. The deafening silence from Emus and his pals over on the Harman thread is remarkable.

                  They must know the Beeb is bang to rights… they always lose the ability to type when that happens.


                • Nicked emus says:

                  Because the vast majority of posts on here are either someone stating an opinion — everyone is entitled to their opinion how ever bonkers it might be — or are on a topic about which I don’t have the facts (the Harriet Harman story) — or are so offensive that I don”t wish to have anything to do with them.

                  Plus unlike you lot I seldom watch the BBC. You lot seem to revel in being outraged by it. It is almost as if it gives your lives purpose.


      • johnnythefish says:

        ‘There used to be regular contributions from BBC staff defending their position. They no longer post, and I don’t think that is a compliment to the site’.

        I disagree. All they ever did was perpetuate the BBC line, never admitted to any bias despite the compelling evidence presented on here, and gave the impression they were so convinced of their cause they could turn our opinions round to conform to the BBC mindset.


        • Teddy Bear says:

          You’re spot on Johnny 🙂

          I recall back in 2005 when Paul Reynolds visited the site for a time. I saved the exchange that I had with him at the time. Other than repeat the ‘party line’ in his vain attempt to answer to genuine evidence of bias by the BBC, and then resort to insult or other means to avoid answering he really had nothing to contribute.

          I would say that the reason the BBC don’t visit here now is because they know they are out of their depth, or ‘not fit for purpose’, as appears to be the popular expression for it.


    • chrisH says:

      I`m with you to a point, sir!
      I myself would love to see campaigns setting off from what we all know to be true about this liberal leviathan that blows us all out its hole and charges us for the ride.
      1. A Friends of Rupert Day, where we compare the globalised dream of NewsCorps, that globe trotting grandad and his mulicultural family…with the likes of Caroline Thomson, Russell Brand and Jimmy Savile.
      2.A Campaign to withhold so many /365ths of our licence fee, and the money going to Sky or to your local hospital/school radio…support your analogue!
      3. A Craig “media studies” consultancy to be sold to the useless Tories about just how skewed the BBC can be shown to be (% interruptions, first and last words etc…as Aitken, Sissons and Jay have shown us still continues).
      Just ideas-but it only takes a few to act and we can puff it up into an Occupy-style global movement…even if there`s only two of us.
      Just get the Met to count us…wasn`t it a million at Milibands speech or such?


    • TigerOC says:

      There is absolutely no doubt that the BBC monitors this site very carefully. It’s amazing how many times contributors here (including myself) have made comments about bias and errors, especially on their Internet output, and these have been corrected/removed pretty rapidly.

      The truth is that we are merely fleas on the dogs back causing minor intermittent irritation to the beast. The beast is now way too big and powerful. They are so big and have so much clout that even No. !0 would hesitate to take them on.

      There might be ways of taking them down. The current situation with Jim’ll Fix It might do some serious damage to their public image if senior individuals become legally entrapped by the scandal. At that point it may well call for political intervention and a wholesale investigation of the structure and accountability.

      The other option might come out of News Corp. They have been hurt by the dirty tricks of the BBC and one might just see the Murdochs taking revenge in due course by launching a very conservative News outlet in the form of a Fox UK.

      In the absence of heavy weight real conservative backing and support of this site we will continue to be fleas. Politicians like celebs are only too aware of their need of “co-operative” reporting to further their careers and are very aware of the power of the BBC to hunt them down and ruin them should they wish to do so.

      In the meantime we need to continue being irritating to the beast. I, like most people here, became so frustrated and angry about the unadulterated trash coming out of this rancid organisation that I sought B-BBC out. The numbers will swell although many might feel intimidated to comment. They will tell their friends etc, etc.


      • +james says:

        “They have been hurt by the dirty tricks of the BBC and one might just see the Murdochs taking revenge in due course by launching a very conservative News outlet in the form of a Fox UK.”

        The problem is that by Law TV and Radio news has to be impartial. In the US that law was got rid off in the 1990s and led to the rise of FOX even though it was always argued that the MSM had a liberal (rather than Democrat) bias. On MW Radio this also led to Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage etc etc.

        Obama and the Democrats are trying to introduce the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ because no one wants to listen to leftist Marxist radio shows.


        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          They’re trying to introduce that Fairness Doctrine more because they know too many people are listening to opinions they don’t like. It’s about censorship. They tried a far-Left radio network – Air America – and it failed miserably (although I think that had as much to do with the personalities as the political positions). It’s the same reason MSNBC is tanking. The merit-based free market didn’t work for them, so they’re trying to force their way on us by other means.

          Part of Fox News’ appeal – aside from the red meat for the Right and the bottle blondes and the shouting Irishmen in the evenings – is that they report and discuss things the MSM won’t, or tends to play down. Specifically things that make the President look bad. That’s lost on those who hate Fox News and disparage its audience, but is definitely one of the reasons for the Fairness Doctrine. The other is that political talk radio is dominated nationally by the Right. There are of course two views of why that is.


          • Reed says:

            “although I think that had as much to do with the personalities as the political positions”

            No doubt – there’s only so much one can take of the sanctimony of Janeane Garofalo and the odoius Al Franken, I’m sure.


      • Teddy Bear says:

        Take heart from being ‘fleas’ in that case.

        The Pit-Bull Terrier has no fear of a Golden Retriever, but they sure get bothered if they’ve got fleas.

        The largest of any species do not fear the second largest – what kills them is usually the smallest.


    • Louis Robinson says:

      Good points, well made. Two points:

      1. This blog is a source of information and links. In order to make salient arguments in other places one needs information. Good posts have both facts and links. Bad post are simply abuse. I’ll forgive the latter to have access to the former.

      2. I agree that we will never lose the BBC, no matter how corrupt or wasteful it becomes. There’s too much vested political interest in its continuing. However, people who read the good posts are informed and can use this info to address other forums and to confront politicians.
      I know this sounds frustrating but its reality.


    • John Anderson says:

      Actually quite a few of us have argued that the BBC should be put on a subscription basis. Maybe with a phased approach – cut the licence fee by 50% / 60% and let the BBC find the rest. With the licence fee set to terminate entirely after 5 years.

      This could be presented as a move towards today’s technical realities – plus a de facto tax cut of £1 + a week for most families when every little help.

      Yes, you can’t abolish the BBC. Just let it wither on the vine.
      There is no need at all for BBC2 and BBC3, or a lot of the radio stations – especially the regional ones. And the website could be cut by two-thirds.


    • Richard Pinder says:

      True, I have never seen any leaked emails from BBC staff on THIS site, such as emails about the BBC’s use of a bogus Climate Sceptic on Newsnight. But for the moment, that is only a rumour.


    • The PrangWizard of England says:

      Forgive me if this comment appears twice but I lost my connection. I thought it had been sent.
      Could the BBC be split into entirely separate independently financed and managed units? One for each of the nations of Britain. It is believed the SNP want their own broadcaster. This would also help solve another problem, ie. descrimination against England. The BBC regularly refer to Britain and British when the are reporting about England and English.
      Surely the managements could not conspire on policy cross-border.


  5. chrisH says:

    Shouldn`t all BBC employees now have to wear a Jim`ll Fix It medal with his creepy mug laminated to it by way of a lanyard for ID?
    Until, that creepy organisation scoots from Mitchell, from Clagg/cable inanities and focusses on what exactly it was allowing to happen(as it `appens!) on its premises and in its car parks.
    Maybe-just maybe-fat Pang Patten could drop his many other earners and focus on child abuse that became a scandal on his watch.
    I sense Patten is distracted and `not fit for purpose`…apart from muddling along from crisis to scandal, then back to a “cheeky red” in the boardroom…Owen Jones perhaps?
    Scuttle the buggers!


  6. Alex says:

    DV, good performance on SML yesterday. I think you clearly expressed the views of the majority (Again!). The feminist epitomized everything that has become wrong with this once great country. People like that have been allowed to feminize the fabric of this country – I really do believe that extremist gay and feminist politics (along with Marxism) is the problem; one only need to look at the collapses in discipline in schools and society as a whole to see that the feminist equality mindset has saturated every echelon of power in this country.
    It must be lonely up there in BBC house, what with being surrounded by lefties!


    • noggin says:

      very true, just a shame alex, that he wasn t there for the next portion of SML … THAT i would have liked to see


  7. Umbongo says:

    I notice that although it was introduced on Today as a “think tank”, the “UK Drug Policy Commission” – like the “High Pay Commission” – is completely unofficial (despite its grandiose title). Unfortunately its mask of liberality (in the original meaning) in recommending an, in reality, minuscule change in the application of the drug control laws, slipped as Roger Howard (its right-on chief executive complete with the demotic absence of the final “T” in his diction) gave a drive-by kicking to the freedom (just) to drink alcohol and smoke. The UKDPC is a bien pensant outfit whose major financier is the Esme Fairbairn Foundation (a charity generously endowed by a City figure and captured in a model Gramscian coup by the left).
    The discussion on Today was another instance of Chomskyan avoidance of the real issue: that issue being the statist assumption that governmental power to approve or disapprove – and back up such disapproval with legislation and enforcement – is the unacknowledged basis for any debate on any matter. Accordingly, we were allowed to eavesdrop on a discussion between two statists (and a “neutral” journalist) about our personal freedom from the state.


    • bodo says:

      I’m undecided on the drugs issue, but I had to laugh at the BBC Radio 5 presenter at about 9.40 this morning, probably one of the most leading questions I’ve ever heard;
      “Do we need to have a more reasonable approach to this, a less panicked and paranoid approach to drug use?”.

      Not hard to guess what the BBC line on drug legalisation is. You think they would at least try to give an impression of neutrality.


      • RCE says:

        That’s worth a complaint, if only for the smug self-satisfaction of getting a ‘we don’t think it was a leading question’ reply (despite the fact that it is very clearly as obvious and blatant a leading question as you could ever see).


      • Guest Who says:

        ‘a less panicked and paranoid approach’
        Isn’t that what some BBC grandee was trying to serve up over the Savile response?
        When they think they have found a winning phrase, they sure like to get their money’s worth.


    • Umbongo says:

      Just to clarify: the report of the UKDPC recommends a liberalisation of the drug control regime on a step by step basis which, in general terms, seems OK to me. Furthermore Colin Blakemore – who is a “commissioner” – is quoted in the Times as saying that the first thing needed is to keep politicians well away from the whole subject (which, again, is eminently sensible). However, this was not the way it was debated nor the way it came over on Today.


  8. Brother Duquette says:

    I see the BBC are as pro-SNP as ever. Not surprising really… I suppose they instinctively root for anyone who wishes to tear apart the UK.


    • uncle bup says:

      I’m pro-scottish independence.



      • Alex says:

        I’m English and I can’t wait for Scotland to go… I am sick to death with their ‘we the poor oppressed’ crap and their bloody infantile moaning. Close the gate behind you and we English will gladly lock it!


        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          Before you guys send Scotland packing, can someone please tell me if their independence will make single malt imports more expensive in the US? Gotta have priorities here.


    • London Calling says:

      Bro, remember it is only the forty labour MP seats in Scotland that prevents an English parliament with a natural conservative majority. You might ask why Cameron to date has considered it an imperative to keep Scotland at Westminster while they spending English tax receipts on uniquely Scottish policies eg no prescription charges or student fees for the Scots.
      Remind me which party Cameron represents? It keeps slipping from memory.


    • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

      Of course, it would be just another step closer to having an EU run group of “regions” on these islands of ours.


    • Dave666 says:

      I’ve seen all day this the “historic” day. No mention of giving the English a vote on wether we want them or not (we don’t seem to get a vote on anything. In the unlikely event of us getting a vote could the voting age be reduced to 3 as this will effect the 3+ in the future..


  9. Earls court says:

    I remember from last week on the BBC at the Conservative party when they interviewed David Cameron. They were showing shots of the back of his hair. The back of his hair is grey so they are trying to suggest the stress from being prime minister is getting to him. In BBC world this means he is not up to the job.
    If Ed Milliband leader of the labour had grey hair on the back of his head they won’t show it.
    The BBC needs someone like Doctor beeching do to it what he did to the railways.


    • johnnythefish says:

      And they kept showing the teleprompters (or whatever they’re called). Message: Miliband did his speech without, doncha know (though the time he spent memorising it might have been better utilised formulating some policy).


  10. George R says:

    BBC-NUJ: pro-black, anti-white:-

    From BBC-NUJ ‘report’:-

    “Black voters urged to take part in election by church.”

    [Opening extract] –

    “Black church leaders are launching a campaign which they say could inspire a million more black voters to go to the polls in the next general election.

    “Non-party lobby group Operation Black Vote has recruited church leaders to persuade people to register and vote.

    “It says having more black voters making their voice heard will end discrimination against the community.”

    There is NO chance that BBC-NUJ would ever run a story discriminating in favour of WHITES, not blacks, such as:-

    ‘White voters urged to take part in election by church.’

    [Equivalent extract to above]:-

    ‘White church leaders are launching a campaign which they say could inspire a million more white voters to go to the polls in the next general election.

    ‘Non-party lobby group Operation White Vote has recruited church leaders to persuade people to register and vote.

    ‘It says having more white voters making their voice heard will end discrimination against the community.’


    Are Beeboids (and others) consciously discriminating against WHITE people, and for BLACK people? Or is it politically subconscious?


  11. Umbongo says:

    During Montague’s interview of Brian Ferry on Today about his new record of 20s music she inserted a “tick the box” piece of Labour propaganda. She noted – gratuitously in the context of the discussion – that “a political leader” had gone to a comprehensive school and the other “leader” had – like Ferry’s son – gone to Eton. Ferry coolly noted that his father (a miner) had wanted the best education for his children (as did Ferry although he had been embarrassed at the time he put his son’s name down for Eton) and implied that sending your children to a crap comprehensive for political reasons is not the best way to ensure this. He added that demonising good education is crazy and typical of left-wing political correctness. Montague changed the subject.


  12. Daphne Anson says:

    Jerusalem – holy city to Muslims … and Christians
    No mention of Jews


  13. George R says:

    Government Minister to be dismissed by Police, with BBC-NUJ approval?

    The (liberal!) BBC-NUJ and Labour Party, acting as judge and jury on bits of ‘evidence’, support Police Federation in bullying Mr Mitchell out of Government.

    “The bully isn’t Andrew Mitchell – it’s the Police” Federation.”

    By Paul Goodman.


    ” I cannot for the life of me see why the Police Federation should dictate who serves in the Cabinet or not. ”





    • uncle bup says:

      still at it the BBC. Every Tory is now greeted with

      ‘While we’ve got you on, worraboutandrewmitchell’.



      • Demon says:

        They should reply with “worraboutsaville then?”


        • Guest Who says:

          Ah….but… all Jimmy and the merry crew got up to was statutory rape, lying and a botched cover-up*.
          That utter bounder Mitchell… and words near fail in having to commit to the ether… used rude words* to a grown policeman.
          It’s easy to see why, when you control the narrative, and the broadcast airwaves by compulsion, the obvious priority becomes clear to any professional market rate talent of integrity.
          It is what makes them so… ‘unique’.


          • london calling says:

            Is “pleb” a rude word, (or were there other words attached to it?)
            Oxford dictionary defines it as “an ordinary person, especially one from the lower social classes” Classes championed by Labour. as their core vote. Sounds fairly accurate at the rank of PC. Gate duty doesn’t sound very managerial and professional.
            Foot soldiers.
            Where is “Prole” when you need him?


            • The Cattle Prod of Destiny says:

              Just exactly what is wrong with being a pleb?

              The Cattle Prod is a Pleb and Proud!


      • Demagogue says:

        On a similar thread, Richard Bacon’s regularly p*ss-poor show this afternoon…
        He was talking to one of their political reporters about the statement in parliament regarding Jimmy Savile and moaned that it seemed some people were carrying out a bit of a witch hunt on the BBC’s failure to act. In the very next sentence he asked the reporter for the latest on Andrew Mitchell, continuing the BBC’s very own witch hunt. Nowhere else in the media would you find such sustained reporting on the issue.
        I don’t think he saw the irony in his comments…


        • Guest Who says:

          Ah, but… there are witch-hunts, and then there are BBC unique witch-hunts.
          Huge difference.
          By all accounts.


        • Mike Fowle says:

          Yes, the Mail (Daily and Sunday) are just as intent. I think they want to prove they haven’t lost control, as they didn’t manage to get Jeremy Hunt sacked.


  14. Guest Who says:

    Have to love the mindset that governs what the BBC ‘news’ wallahs who decide the British public most want to hear even before their Editors get to drop… ‘enhance the narrative negatively’.
    Via their FaceBook page (the only mechanism they have now to interact, with twitter, the exploding ‘news’ source), with all there is around, the premier current affairs programme appears to think a whole new era of reportage is heralded by the massive event of the year… a new logo.


    • Guest Who says:

      Meanwhile, The Editors thread seems stuck in a timewarp at the last post (appropriate) of Peter Rippon, dated Oct 2, and closed at 42 comments (Douglas Adams, of ‘Beware the Leopard’ fame, would appreciate the irony).


  15. Old Goat says:

    Most of us are sick to death of the BBC, and it’s agandas and adherence to common purpose. They are a thoroughly corrupt, left-wing organisation, and have turned completely on its head their original remit. They are a slippery, biased den of iniquity. Lord Reith would turn in his grave.

    That the British who have the temerity to watch television are taxed by this organisation (on pain of prosecution), and are continually fed the BBC’s opinion on everything rather than actualities, and subjected to continuous political doctrine, lied to about climate change, and now it’s confirmed that at least “one of their own” has been up to paedophillic skulduggery (which has been systematically covered up), should give the public at large serious cause for alarm.

    The BBC should be disbanded, and many of the participants in this hive of self-interest prosecuted


  16. chrisH says:

    Did I hear that right?
    Some Scot called Blair Jenkins tells me that the referendum question needs to be simple and not to be worried about.
    He says that the question is “Do you agree that Scotland should become an independent nation?”
    Even the stubbornly stupid Oxbridge types like Martha Kearney must know that that would be a “leading question”, and biased very badly.
    But it went without any comment.
    Will the SNP really get away with that?


    • Scottish independence = bye bye Liebour (and bye bye huge Scottish welfare bill!) says:

      The SNP are getting away with too much. I have quite a few Scottish friends as I lived and worked in Edinburgh for many years – it is a highly Unionist city, very anglicized indeed. Not many I worked and socialized with expressed a wish for independence; I just didn’t meet many out and about who did. The ones who wanted independence were always the loser types, you know? The one’s standing by themselves at the bar with bags of chips on both shoulders etc. Also, BBC Scotland were disgrace; it was they who woud constantly pump up the bagpipes at England V Scotland rugby/football games and stir hostility between the two etc.
      Personally, I think there might be an underhand Tory agenda here because as others have mentioned, if the Scots get independence then it will be highly unlikely that Labour will ever get a decisive majority again. It’s a win, win situation…. we get rid of El Presidente Salmondo and his spending sprees (funded by the English) as well as Labour!


      • Brother Duquette says:

        Oh! Thou speakest wiser than thou art ware of. Pray continue, pray more wisdom!


    • uncle bup says:

      need a supplementary question.

      2. Where are you going to get £57bn a year and rising, to fund your welfare bill from.


      • Scottish independence = bye bye Liebour (and bye bye huge Scottish welfare bill!) says:

        Well, for a start we will save 38 billion of the money that goes North to you lazy public sector-addicted Scots as a result of the disgraceful Barnet formula. The wealth that London makes in one month is more than Scotland contributes in a year (including ‘your’ beloved oil) – Barclays Bank statistics by the way. The sooner we get rid of Scotland the better in my opinion!


    • Rueful Red says:

      Blair Jenkins was in a past life the Senior Beeboid in Scotland. ‘Nuff said.


  17. Maturecheese says:

    Is it just me or does anyone else get a sense of loathing whenever Richard Bacon opens his bloody mouth. He really must hate his own country and people.


    • uncle bup says:

      no – it’s not just you 🙂


    • Guest Who says:

      ‘He really must hate his own country and people.’

      To be fair, I think it’s a job spec.

      One of those ‘unspoken’ ones mind… in case of subsequent wrist-slapping inquiries by a tame Sir Humphrey.


    • Scrappydoo says:

      If Richard Bacon or Dotun Adebayo come on the radio, I have to switch off. Rod Sharp on the other hand is a pleasure to listen to.


  18. George R says:


    What’s INBBC doing giving him house room still, given his endorsement of Islamic Republic of Iran via his ‘Press TV’ contract?

    “EU imposes new sanctions on Iran”



  19. will says:

    Alan Johnson

    The Left ignores the victims of Soviet terror; instead, it pays lavish tributes to Eric Hobsbawm


    No not Alan Johnston, former houseguest of Hamas


  20. George R says:

    A brave Pakistani girl victim of Islamic jihad violence in Pakistan is receiving medical priority in a Birmingham hospital.
    Who is paying for this?
    Is INBBC interested in finding out?


    • Ian Hills says:

      Bit different to the NHS’s under-reported “Liverpool Care Pathway” for exterminating people with Downs, the elderly, etc.



    • Nicked emus says:

      The Pakistani government is paying as was reported on the Today programme this morning.


      • George R says:

        ‘Daily Mail’:

        “Brave Malala, 14, who survived being shot in the head by Taliban for going to school arrives in the UK from Pakistan to begin life-saving treatment.”


        “A Downing Street spokeswoman said in a statement: ‘We offered last Thursday our help to the government of Pakistan in caring for her because she does need particular specialist care,’ said the spokeswoman.
        “‘The authorities in Pakistan have taken us up on the offer, so she is on her way and she will be at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham.’
        The spokeswoman said that ‘security has been taken into account.'”

        Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2217786/Malala-Yousafzai-Schoolgirl-survived-shot-head-Taliban-arrives-UK-Pakistan.html#ixzz29ODFnwZk
        Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


        • Nicked emus says:

          The Daily Telegraph
          Malala Yousafzai: Pakistani girl shot by Taliban to be treated in Birmingham hospital that treats wounded soldiers

          A Downing Street spokeswoman said: “We offered last Thursday our help to the government of Pakistan in caring for her because she does need particular specialist care.
          “The authorities in Pakistan have taken us up on the offer, so she is on her way and she will be at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham.
          “The Pakistani government is paying all transport, migration, medical, accommodation and subsistence costs for Malala and her party.”

          “I imagine Pakistan has skilled surgical teams quite practice at treating bullet wounds.”

          A statement released by Pakistan’s military, which has been caring for her ever since the shooting, said she would need to have bones in her skull repaired or replaced as well as long-term rehabilitation.
          “Accordingly, the panel of doctors recommended that Malala be shifted abroad to a UK centre which has the capability to provide integrated care to children who have sustained severe injury,” it said.


          • Nicked emus says:

            In fact from the Daily Mail article you linked to:

            ‘All expenses including transportation of Malala by specially equipped air ambulance and treatment abroad will be borne by the government of Pakistan.’

            So you knew the answer to your own question already. So why ask it?


            • George R says:

              The British taxpayers are footing some of the bill, it appears, because Hague is expressing our generosity to the Pakistan government for all its assistance in e.g sheltering Osama bin Laden, etc.

              Of course, the ‘Security’ cost of this could be considerable, given past experience in a Birmingham hospital:

              “Muslim accosts injured Para in hospital” (2006)



              • Nicked emus says:

                Which bit of All expenses did you not understand?


                • johnnythefish says:

                  And which bit of ‘foreign aid’ do you not understand? Not to mention welfare benefits, NHS treatment etc etc enjoyed by tens of thousands of economically inactive Pakistanis who have migrated here, courtesy of Labour’s legislation.


              • Andy S. says:

                George, that brave young girl isn’t part of the duplicitous Pakistani government. She’s shown the world that the Taliban are so scared of her influence that they marked her for execution. The world has now seen that these Islamist fanatics will make war on innocent young girls whose only aim is to demand an education. Big brave jihadists indeed!

                I have no problem with the NHS helping with her treatment. I think she deserves it more than some drug-addled chav taken into casualty after a booze induced punch up outside a shabby chip shop, or an African NHS tourist coming over here for treatment for AIDS after raping an unfortunate local prostitute.

                At least her injuries are a result of standing up to Islam-fascists. Her stance is something we on this blog should cheer.


                • David Preiser (USA) says:

                  This poor girl sure as hell better get the best care the UK medical community has to offer, fully paid for by the license fee, as difficult as that may be for some here to swallow. After all, she’s only been shot because of the situation the BBC put her in. They started this, by getting her to write a diary for them. That’s why the Islamo-nutters shot her. The BBC is 100% responsible for this girl’s life being in danger, and should be 100% responsible for keeping it safe now.


      • london calling says:

        BBC bat the point away, easy to say, but I await with interest to learn of the bill run up by NHS Birmingham, whether it is ever sent to the Government of Pakistan, and whether it will ever be paid, or just quietly forgotten about. £100,000 plus?
        £1,000 a day specialist intensive care plus multi-consultant surgical teams, got only knows for how long, followed by lengthy rehabilitation.
        I wish her well, she’s a brave lady, but money is never a consideration when it comes to “eye-catching initiatives”
        There are other people to treat, called the population of Great Britain and its soldiers, the cost of whose care will not be subject to the largesse of PR headlines.
        I imagine Pakistan has skilled surgical teams quite practice at treating bullet wounds. It can afford nuclear weapons after all. You have to ask, whose idea was this PR stunt? MOD win hearts and minds initiative?


        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          The BBC created this situation. They are 100% responsible for it. They got her to do that diary, they got her feeling empowered enough to go public with her activism, which is why she got shot. This is a BBC creation, full stop. Funded by you the taxpayer via the FO grants to the World Service, by the way. It’s only fair that you the taxpayer should pay for her care now.

          If they don’t do right by her now, it would be almost as much of a disgrace as how they handled Savile’s victims. I wonder if any of the Beeboids actually feel responsible for her well being? I’d feel awful if I was involved.


  21. capriole, peter says:

    Just watched one of the latest Jimmy Savile revelations.

    It struck me that alleged remark here that he made “We know where you live” can be none other than the BBC, and Savile clearly used this leverage as a BBC employee and his BBC programme ‘Jim I’ll Fix It’ The fact is that the BBC resort to the law to enforce people to pay the licence fee, they threaten people with imprisonment. The poor boy aged 9 year of age abused by Jimmy Savile at the BBC also probably thought that if he said anything (just like those people who refuse to pay) I will be imprisoned.

    This is the role of the BBC here in child abuse, a sick and disgusting one, but the nature of the BBC is always threat and “we know where you live”. Imagine what the poor boy thought seeing those adverts of “detector vans” in the street, no doubt he thought that if I report the abuse I have suffered by a BBC employee they will send out men and detector vans and I will be imprisoned. “We know where you live”. Of course the BBC and Jimmy Savile knew.


    • Guest Who says:

      ‘alleged remark here that he made “We know where you live” can be none other than the BBC’

      BBC CECUTT and TV Licensing/Capita may rue that rather Stasiesque sound bite more than the many others emerging, as more and more actual on-record evidence is coming to hand that this is EXACTLY the way the BBC behaves not only internally, but across its traditional droite de segnieur playground: the UK.
      This may need to change.


  22. George R says:

    BBC: forever propagandising for E.U.

    In the following, FIVE of the ‘Viewpoints’ are pro-E.U, only ONE is against the E.U:-
    “Viewpoints: Experts comment on EU’s Nobel award”


    Alternative ‘Viewpoints’:-


    “Giving the Nobel Peace Prize to the EU is beyond satire”


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2217013/As-protesters-dressed-Nazis-riot-Athens-ruled-Brussels-stooges-giving-Nobel-Peace-Prize-EU-satire.html#ixzz29Nri9B3U
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



    By Leo McKinstry.



    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      And that lone voice is Farage, the epitome of “well, he would, wouldn’t he?”, and an open invitation to the reader to skip it. They couldn’t have gotten something from someone who might make people pay attention?


    • Harry says:

      Well spotted. What an absolute farce. The BBC is such a joke it is unreal. Add this to the pile.


  23. Guest Who says:

    If you fancy a laugh, check out this, and especially the highest rated comments.
    20,000 staff whose careers are on the line, and Frank Bough has so far managed 25.


    • Guest Who says:

      Oh, and of course, this one is pre-modded.
      They may want ‘your’ views, but like to vet them first.
      Nice to control that edit suite still.


  24. Guest Who says:

    In the wonderful post-Clintonian world of semantics in news, is ‘inappropriately canceled’ the new term for ‘self-censorship’ (not a great reputation to have if you’re a self-proclaiming professional news provider of integrity).


  25. Pounce says:

    In answer to my post off the other board regards the girl who got shot in the head and is now in the UK

    Please feel free to disagree with my post. The fact remains her immediate family will all come across and we will all end up funding them. As for her representing free speech and the need to protect her. I totally agree. However and a big however the only way to combat religious bigotry at home is to fight it at home. In otherwords the only people who can do anything about Pakistan are Pakistani people. At the moment Pakistani people are more than happy to flirt with radical Islam. (Have a look at how Imram Khan is in trouble with Afghanistan by claiming that the Taliban are fighting a just war. Yes that Imran Khan who also refuses to condemn the Taliban for shooting this girl. He is (so I am told) the voice of reason in Pakistani politics , yet he represents people who are not only refusing to stand up for free speech but they give succour to Islamic terrorists.)
    But hang on here’s a little snippet about Pakistan , they have more nuclear warheads than the UK, they have more front line fighter jets than the Uk and they have more front line tanks than the Uk. We give them £1 billion in Aid every year and yet they cannot build a hospital which deals with head wounds. Maybe there lies the reason so many Pakistan muslims come to the Uk for medical treatment and good minding people like yourself say we should take them in.
    Err Pakistan has made its bed with China, how about the Pakistani people start migrating to…China.


    • Pounce says:

      Without wanting to sound evil regards the young Pakistani girl with a head wound coming to the Uk. Here are 2 stories concerning Pakistanis in todays news:
      1) 5 members of Pakistani family killed in arson attack on home. Police say answers lies within Islamic community.
      2) Pakistani man jailed for murdering his second wife of days after she told him she was pregnant to her first husband.

      Pakistani Muslims the most blood thirst fuckers on the planet and the bBC employs so many of them, they have installed Islam as the majority faith at the beeb


      • Nicked emus says:

        Let me ask you a question. Suppose someone was coming to this site for the first time and they saw a comment like your bold paragraph. Do you think comments like that add to the credibility of this site, or detract from it? What impression do you think that would leave of (a) you and (b) this site?

        Apart from the obvious racism it is simply factually incorrect. What do you think racist lies add to this site?

        You do make it so very easy don’t you?


        • Larry Dart says:

          What ethnicity do you think Pounce has?
          If you had been reading this site for any length of time you would know the answer.


        • johnnythefish says:

          If he had said ‘Many Pakistani Muslims are amongst the most bloodthirsty f****s on the planet’, would that have been racist?


    • Teddy Bear says:

      She is a spirit that enriches this society, I only hope she chooses to stay and becomes an MP. She puts many indigenous residents, including those populating the BBC, of this land to shame.

      Thank you Malala for your courage and welcome. May you enlighten many with your spirit.


    • MD says:

      She has paid a huge price for her stand against religious bigotry. No doubt she would agree with many of the things you say about Pakistan. Your response is to turn her way. Ignoring the lack of compassion, where is even the logic in that approach?

      In terms of the long term rehabilitation required for a head wound like this then the capabilities of the UK health care system far exceed those of Pakistan. And for that reason this is the best place for her.

      The intolerance, violence and hatred of Moslem fundamentalists is abhorrent, I agree, but I can’t reach the same conclusion as you in this case.


  26. George R says:

    For INBBC to censor:

    “Muslim gang-rape in France”


    “The thing is.. the convicted men are all Muslims. At least, they have recognisably Islamic names. Yet the mainstream press are not reporting this fact. Is this religio-cultural aspect of French gang culture taboo? As much as it appears to be in the UK? Why the whitewash? Why the ethno-religious censorship? Why is the issue of gang-rape committed by young men identified as belonging to a particular minority background consistently suppressed? Are there reporting restrictions? Infringement of their human rights? A conspiracy of silence?”



  27. Simon Gorst says:

    I find it just astounding that the government are attacking the BBC about the Savile issue and how the BBC appears to be complicit in the cover-ups over the years, when the government have been complicit in many cases of abuse against its own people . After i read this expose in the Guardian Link http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/13/abuse-teenage-boys-detention-centre-crime
    I can not trust even the government to do things right.

    They are all as bad as each other and heads should be rolling. End of!!!


  28. Zemplar says:

    What I’m really looking forward to now is the BBC’s bias toward Obama over the next few weeks. They will ‘Lord Haw Haw’ it any which way they can to spin it that he’s going to win, when he’s going to get hammered. Mardell will be in full ‘The God-King’ overdrive. I can’t wait for the lefties at the BBC to go into apoplectic meltdown on November 7th. Even they will have to admit Obama is finished. Although we may have to wait until Romney says “I do solemnly swear” in January, because the delusion is so deep seated.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      I’m just waiting for them to call me a racist again. That’s the BBC’s bottom line on this. Watch for the upcoming series of special reports from the US by Andrew Marr, Tim Stanley, Greg Palast, and Allah knows who else they’ve sent over here to “inform” you. They’re even trying to use poor Trayvon Martin as a political football, with a special report for Panorama. Remember, it’s okay to keep shtum about the ongoing fiasco over Libya because the NY Times didn’t want to politicize it, but it’s proper and just to use Martin as one. Of course, only one of these is useful to push the Racist! Narrative. Too sad.

      Get ready to be sickened.


      • zemplar says:

        The democrats are about to be hit by the electoral equivalent if a freight train running at full speed. The leftie parts will be flying all over the place.


      • Beeboidal says:

        Allah knows who else they’ve sent over here to “inform” you.

        Sometime closer to election day, the USA will have the pleasure of Richard Bacon’s presence. Can you keep him there please.


        • feargal the cat says:

          With his previous for substance abuse will Bacon get by US customs?


          • David Preiser (USA) says:

            We let Jonny Dymond in, so yes, Bacon will be let through unless he’s stupid enough to have some E in his luggage. He probably knows people here who can score for him, and doesn’t need to try that, though.


  29. dustonfats says:

    myself and my wife are trying to think of somewhere to move to because we cannot stand the idea of r little boy being bought up in this country. our local school is 90 per cent immigrant kids and obviously its a muslim bias. this is northampton, anybody got any ideas. im a christian consvative


    • Old Goat says:

      I escaped retired to France. I’m glad I did, I shan’t be coming back, ever. It may not be your cup of tea, but standards in everything are so much higher, and I never feel under threat from anyone.


  30. Pounce says:

    How the bBC goes out of its way in which to bring you sanitized reporting of peaceful Islam:

    So how many people knew that thousands of Muslims marched through London yesterday in which to protest that video which shows Mohamed as a pedophillic warlord? No but they did report on how 4 Women held a protest for 4 hours inside St Pauls.

    How many people heard about how Muslims went on the rampage in Tanzania on Friday and burnt down 5 Churches. This was after a 14 year Islamic boy told his friend (also 14) that if he pissed on a Koran he would turn into a snake.

    Oh and how many people here have heard how the BBC is to celebrate songs of legendary Pakistani singers,<b. NoThe songs of Pakistani singers Noor Jehan, Musarrat Nazir, Reshma and Nazia Hasan are to celebrated through a series of events.

    The BBC Philharmonic and BBC Asian Network are set to collaborate for the first time ever in the celebration.

    Presented by Noreen Khan and Tommy Sandhu the concert will take place at the ALCC in the heart of Bradford and will also feature music from other renowned South Asian performers. This Queens of Melody concert is part of the 2012 BBC Philharmonic presents season.

    Yup the bBC which feels the last night of the proms is too patriotic, has no problem playing Islamic tunes as the way forward.

    The bBC the traitors in our Midst


  31. Reed says:

    A couple of BBC related topics are briefly mentioned on the Commentator’s most recent podcast.

    Savile scandal:
    Apparently, Tom Watson – scourge of Murdoch – thinks there should be no investigation of the BBC! The guest says that, having spoken to lots of people who have worked at the BBC for decades, he’s astonished at just how glibly they relate that Savile’s activities were well known by many of them – some who will no doubt be much higher up the ladder today. No wonder they are so defensive and deflective!

    Spinning for Hamas:
    A Human Rights Watch report has highlighted the abuse of Palestinians by Hamas, and a BBC report has given right of reply to the deputy foreign minister of that organisation, in which he dismisses the claims. That not being enough for Beeboids, they then do a follow up story in which they give the same individual free reign to put his case.

    Scroll to about 30 minutes in…

    We Need To Talk: About Presidential Debates, Tory Conference and Venezuela


    I think this might be one of the articles mentioned…



  32. John Anderson says:

    Perhaps I am going deaf in my old age – but I am hearing virtually nothing on the BBC about the double scandal of the Benghazi killings. The Obama administration refused repeated requests for better security in Libya – a major Al Q location – and Obama and his people tried to keep up for several weeks the pretence that the attack was somehow linked to spontaneous demos about the stupid Mohammed YouTube video. When there was NO demo outside the Benghazi consulate, when the President of Libya said on Day 2 that it was an out-and-out terrorist attack.

    Apart from the election debates, this is by far the biggest story in the US – again this Sunday all the news shows were discussing it, discussing the damage it has been doing to Obama;s chances, discussing the blatant lies and cover-ups.

    But on the BBC – virtually zilch.

    BBC still in the tank for Obama, I suppose.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      The NY Times decided to sweep it under the rug because it had become “politicized”, and the rest of the MSM are resolutely defending the President, so the Beeboids don’t have to report it much at all. That Congressional hearing? Just a witch-hunt, nasty old white Republicans grasping at any straw they can in their desperate attempt to bring Him down. Nothing to see here, move along.

      The BBC is merely following their thought leaders. Lemming journalism rules! No need for original reporting unless it’s one of those “bespoke” video magazine pieces.


      • John Anderson says:


        Yes, the New York Times relegated to Page 3 the reporting on the Congressional hearing last week where whistleblowers gave sworn testimony that repeated requests had been made for much better security out in Libya – and refused by the State Department.

        This video clip by the estimable Laura Ingraham says it all – she accuses the media of being part of the cover-up, and is saying it directly bto the NYT reporter sitting next to her :



        • John Anderson says:

          And here is Rudi Guiliani today ripping a CNN host to shreds when she tries to defend the cover-up :


          He asks if she is part of the Obama campaign. In fact she was caught some toime ago reading out White House talking points, and the best put-down I have seen in a while was John Sununu asking why doesn;t she wear an Obama campaign sticker on her forehead !


          • Louis Robinson says:

            The media is now Obama’s Praetorian Guard. How disappointed the previous generations of true journalists must feel. Once the guardians of democracy, speaking truth to power, holding feet to the fire, no matter which party or interest group, journalists are now trained monkeys – and I’m not sure “trained” is applicable.


            • David Preiser (USA) says:

              Nobody died from Watergate, yet a Presidency was brought down by it after the media made a big deal out of the cover-up. Four people, including an Ambassador, were killed in Benghazi, and most of the media are helping with the cover-up.

              And the BBC still takes their lead from these people on what’s worth reporting and what isn’t.


  33. Mice Height says:


  34. Pounce says:

    Can somebody please explain how the bbC has no problem referring to white people with a penchant for little girls as paedophiles
    Paedophile ring members jailed indefinitely
    But when the perpetrators are so called ‘Asians’ they are never referred to as Paedophiles but rather as groomers,. members of a sex ring or even men convicted of sex offences against children. But never paedophiles.

    Anybody know the answer why?


  35. jonsuk says:

    please, please, please i hope the American population see some sense and vote for Romney


  36. Dave666 says:

    So panorama..what was that all about. I don’t live in America. If they have a no retreat shoot you law then it’s the law. I really didn’t get the point..or did I. I notice they had a ” re enactment” of the traynor incident. However I did notice an absence of certain points, wonder what they were..or do i?, Has it lowere the crime rate for example.
    I’m confused…or am I?


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Just part of the “Racist US” Narrative, preparing the way for you to understand why The Obamessiah was not given a Second Coming. It’s not because He did anything wrong, or that the public will reject His policies, you understand. It’s all about the underlying crypto-racism of the country, its laws, and its people.

      Lie back and enjoy the onslaught of special reports telling you this for the next three weeks.


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        Upon further reflection, this is also an example of the BBC pushing a story that nobody else is. But since the Beeboids have a gun-control fetish, they project that onto the US. Attention BBC: We have far more important issues to focus on right now than your petty Nanny-State shibboleths. That’s why nobody’s talking about it right now.


  37. George R says:

    @KattyKayBBC via Twitter-
    “Am I wrong, or has this been two gaffe-free weeks for Mitt Romney?”

    -Yes, you are wrong: it is two weeks since leftist MSM, inc BBC-Democrat, ran out of excuses and ruses.


    • John Anderson says:

      Wouldn’t it be more appropriate for Katty Kay to twitter about the appalling failure of the Obama administration to provide proper security to its Ambassador in Libya – or about all the attempts at cover-up that have followed the murder of the Ambassador and other Americans ?

      Oh – I forgot. Kay a just a shill for Obama, not a balanced journalist.

      People died. Obama and his entourage have lied

      They continue to lie – we saw it yet again in the Biden/Ryan debate.

      I posted earlier a clip of Laura Ingraham attacking the media for complicity in the cover-up. Obama is trying to kick it all into touch, trying to play out the clock until after the election. Laura Ingraham got pretty animated for such a cool lawyer lady. How’s about Michelle Malkin really calling out the “lying liars and crap weasels” in Team Obama.


      The BBC is studiously avoiding all this, even though it is probably the top story and has been for weeks. There is even a UK angle – the security for the Benghazi consulate was delegated to a small newish firm based in Wales, with just one of their employees on site and the rest delegated to local Libyans on a few dollars an hour. John Humphrys is Welsh – isn’t he interested in the biggest running story in the campaign at the moment ? the story that opened the Biden/Ryan debate, the story that Romney will be hammering in the debate Tuesday evening ?

      If Benghazi had happened under Bush the BBC would be all over it. Just like Abu Ghraib. But it is Obama – so we have typical BBC bias by omission. Suppresio veri.


  38. jonsuk says:

    if anal sex didn’t exist, then the BBC and Hollywood wouldn’t exist


  39. Romulus Trent says:

    please, please, please i hope the American population see some sense and vote for neither Romney or Obama.

    Seize the day and take your country back from those snake oil salesmen.


  40. Romulus Trent says:

    Oh and Ive just stopped my direct debit to the tv license too.


  41. Teddy Bear says:

    Just how far is the BBC prepared to go to promote its institutional bias and hatred towards Israel?

    That’s a question asked at the end of the article by Honest Reporting below.

    As you read it, and listen to a clip of the interview in question, ask yourself too if you can imagine the BBC asking somebody to appear on one of their programmes who held similar views towards Islam, even though that would be closer to the truth.

    BBC Airbrushes Atzmon’s Anti-Semitism
    by Simon Plosker

    Why did the BBC give a platform to an anti-Semite? On 14 October, the BBC World Service, in a discussion on the links between music and politics, interviewed Gilad Atzmon, a studio guest described as an

    …acclaimed and controversial jazz saxophonist… a London-based Israeli jazz man… whose political criticism of Zionism and the Israeli state has made him many enemies.

    But as is so often the case with the BBC, a piece of vital context has been omitted – Gilad Atzmon is a dye-in-the-wool anti-Semite.

    And, in this case, the BBC has no excuse whatsoever for confusing criticism of Zionism or Israel with actual Jew-hatred. For Gilad Atzmon’s Holocaust denial and support for anti-Semitic conspiracy theories have been well-documented. Indeed, some of his “many enemies” include some of the most rabid anti-Israel agitators on the fringe left who have found Atzmon’s beliefs to be beyond the pale even for them.

    Here are some of Atzmon’s views, which can be viewed in more detail here:

    Jews were responsible for their persecution by the Nazis
    Burning synagogues is a “rational act”
    Jews try to control the world, as predicted by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion
    Jews are inhuman and they are destroying the planet
    Jews caused the Credit Crunch
    The history of the Holocaust is questionable and is used to conceal plots by Zionists and Neocons
    Israel is worse than the Nazis


  42. David Preiser (USA) says:

    It’s laugh out loud at the pathetic Beeboids time:

    Obama and Romney prepare for New York debate

    Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are hunkered down with advisers ahead of Tuesday’s debate in New York, with the US president under pressure to bounce back after a languid first performance.

    “Languid”. LOL. This presumes He had something of substance to say and just didn’t manage to do it. He didn’t Without the class war and racial and demonization stuff, He had nothing. He was trying, but it was a child armed with a pea-shooter going up against an adult wearing +10 plate armor. But that’s not even the laugh-out-loud part. ‘

    ‘Come out swinging’

    First there’s a throwaway line about a lot of early postal votes flooding in, “including some that could decide the election,” What the BBC doesn’t want you to know is which way it looks like they might decide it. It’s funny because the Beeboids who put this together probably felt cocky because this Washington Post um…post said that things were looking up for the Democrats, because more Dem voters were sending in early ballots than at the same time in 2008, highlighting Florida specifically. Although, the accompanying spreadsheet shows Republicans leading there. Oops.

    Never mind that even if we assume for the sake of argument that whatever the early voting trend is will tip a given State, the national trend (based on what little info there is so far) favors Romney electoral college-wise so far.

    Now for the laugh. Guess which message you’re meant to take away from the following:

    Ahead of Tuesday’s debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, Mr Obama has been preparing with a three-day debate camp at a golf resort in Williamsburg, Virginia.

    On Sunday, during a break to meet volunteers at a local campaign office, he said: “It’s going great.”

    Mr Obama’s aides and the president himself have acknowledged he did not do well at the first encounter in Denver, Colorado.

    Obama adviser Robert Gibbs told CNN on Sunday: “I think you’ll see somebody [on Tuesday] who is very passionate about the choice that our country faces.”

    And the opposing point of view?

    Republican Senator Rob Portman, who has been preparing Mr Romney for the debates, told ABC News: “I think President Obama is going to come out swinging. He’s going to have to compensate for a poor first debate.”

    Don’t despair, true believers. He’s going to come out fighting. He won’t let you down. Put your faith in Him. Seculam seculorum, amen.


  43. Guest Who says:

    Speaking of laughing out loud, I am off on my next overseas assign… ok… a 2 day business trip to Barcelona (invention shortlisted in an international award show…wish me luck).
    Just watching SKY. If Ed Miliband has at last decided which bandwagon has the best chance of prevailing, I’d say the house of cards has pretty well collapsed.
    And not necessarily in favour of the BBC and its stout defenders.
    Be interesting to see the fallout come Thursday.
    Keep up the good work. The powerful do need holding to account.
    And if a penny of my licence fee is used in compo to the lawyers, then that’s the last they will ever see from me.
    That would be a ‘unique’ bit of funding too far.


  44. +james says:

    The BBC is using the word ‘conservative’ for something it does not quite approve of. This time it is the ‘conservative’ Salafists and the Arab Spring.

    But surely these Salafists are imitating the ‘prophet’ who according to the BBC was the most progressive and liberal human being who ever lived,


    • Zemplar says:

      According to the BBC, those in favour of Shari’ah law are ‘conservatives’, while those in the west who oppose it are also ‘conservatives’. Neat bit of semantics, eh?


  45. Jeff says:

    Did anyone catch last night’s Panorama? This edition was titled “Kill at will” and hi-lighted several recent cases where our American cousins, who finding themselves being mugged, burgled etc have shot their assailant. There were the usual sympathetic interviews with grieving parents and members of the “community.” Never was it suggested that had the original crime not been commited the mugger/burglar would still be alive. Dear old Auntie was clearly aghast that such things could happen. What really ticked me off was the presenter, one Raphael Rowe. I thought that I recognised him and then the penny dropped. He was involved in a high profile murder case a couple of decades ago, convicted and then it was deemed that some of the evidence was “unsafe.” Having just googled him I’ve discovered that even if he is innocent of that particular crime he has a record as long as your arm; robbery, malicious wounding etc. So in the States they shoot them and in Blighty we give them nice cushy little jobs, at our expense!
    I’m emigrating.


    • Stan Arnold says:

      I’ve emigrated! It’s great. Looking back at the UK it looks like a madhouse going down the plughole. I’ve always liked mixed metaphors.


  46. Old Goat says:

    Slightly off topic, bit I continue to have problems with this site – usually slow, but often it won’t load at all and I have to try later.

    Also, is there any chance these threads can be paginated – as they get longer and longer it takes ages to scroll, and if you reply to a comment, you have to wait ages again to be able to scroll and read that it has been received OK.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      I know what you mean about the comments loading. Things are getting stabilized behind the scenes at the moment, speed should improve soon (The All Seeing Eye and a couple of others are putting in a lot of work to get this right). I haven’t noticed any database errors and haven’t had any trouble loading the site for a while now, sorry you’re still having that difficulty.

      Once the server-side stuff is done, we’ll see if that comments issue is still a problem.


  47. njl100 says:

    Inflation figures are out and the inflation rate is down. A good thing you’d think. Oh no – headline on BBC News page: Inflation Slowdown Hits Benefits.


    • njl100 says:

      An hour later and they’ve fixed the headline (“UK Inflation Rate Slows to 2.2%”), even though they’ve left a negative connotation in the text about the impact on benefits. Perhaps they monitor Biased BBC 🙂


  48. Doyle says:

    On Radio Manchester this morning, I actually heard someone talking sense about the pointlessness of HS2 and so-called global warming. He won’t be on again.


    • Doyle says:

      He was called Brian Gregory; he’s the chair for The Association of British Drivers and he was answering the question ‘Do drivers get a rough deal?’ This was all to do with an AA audit on potholes. Gregory suggested building more roads, Heather Stott countered with the usual green bollocks and then he said it – there’s been no global warming for nearly two decades – which silenced the presenter. Great stuff. If you want to listen it’s about 15 minutes in.


  49. George R says:

    High-cost greenie BBC:

    1.) windfarms-yes; 2.) shale gas-no.

    Subject to its chums’ FoE approval, BBC says yes to this further wind farm scheme-
    “Greenwire £6bn plan to import Irish wind power”


    So that BBC does not censor out shale gas development, here is an update from Cuadrilla:




    Yes – Because it’s Happening Now.
    “Everybody would say, ‘what evidence have you got?’ I would say, ‘well I don’t have enough evidence to ever prove to anyone that he’s guilty…I just feel that I have huge responsibility, a huge need, to go and ask a lot of questions’.”

    David Walsh, the journalist who, in 1999, first questioned Lance Armstrong’s remarkable performance in the Tour de France.

    At a moment when the BBC is being forced to confront the toxicity of its intrinsically compromised “networked” and “club-like” nature – in which uncomfortable facts can be hidden in plain sight if that’s what suits a number of people – I was most interested to read a parallel story; one which has echoes of the BBC’s omerta.
    On the 11th October, the Press Gazette carried an interview with sports journalist David Walsh, who was the first person to publicly question the plausibility of the startling performance of cyclist Lance Armstrong. What struck me most about Walsh’s story was not so much that he was a person who walked a lonely and demanding path, against the groupthink of the day (there are always a few) but, rather, his grounds for doing so.

    He wasn’t leaked dynamite information – he didn’t obtain access to secret medical reports – he had no “deep-throat” source back then, in 1999. Instead, he coolly observed what he was witnessing – and asked himself the plain and obvious question: “is this plausible?”
    He didn’t think so. Following Armstrong’s victory in the 1999 Tour, Walsh wrote “This afternoon I will be keeping my arms by my side because I’m not sure this is something we should be applauding.” His only ground for writing that provocative opinion in the Sunday Times, was his intuition for the plausible.

    Walsh incurred widespread damnation for his comments. But as he said in the Press Gazette article, “Everybody would say, ‘what evidence have you got?’ I would say, ‘well I don’t have enough evidence to ever prove to anyone that he’s guilty…I just feel that I have huge responsibility, a huge need, to go and ask a lot of questions’.”
    And David Walsh carried on doing that thing which is actually surprisingly rare amongst the journalistic profession – he went to his subject – and simply asked the obvious questions.

    Lance Armstrong invited Walsh to interview him in 2001; “He rang me because he knew I was asking a lot of questions and he thought that if I come along, and he’s really nice to me, and he gives me a one-on-one interview, I’ll be as happy as every other journalist and I’ll become his friend,” Walsh says.
    “I didn’t feel any desire to be his friend because I had a sense of what he was like, and I felt there were lots of questions that needed answering.”

    Walsh’s first words to Armstrong when he arrived at the hotel were: “I don’t believe you’re clean, but this is why I’m here, because I have questions. But the only questions I want to ask you are about doping. I won’t be asking you one question about cycling outside of the context of doping.”
    David Walsh had those suspicions – and he simply went, and bluntly asked the obvious questions. And carried on asking them. And he was right.

    Now that so many people in the BBC are mumbling about how the conduct of Jimmy Savile was so widely suspected – and that there were so many rumours – and, indeed, actual victims to be spoken with, as we now know – why did no BBC journalists go and ask – and persist in asking – the plain and obvious questions of Jimmy Savile – and ask the same obvious questions of those who had employed Savile, and those who persisted in enabling him to be around children?
    What is it – about that simple foundation-stone of journalism – just asking the damn question – that is so difficult for 99% of today’s journalists?

    Well, as an example of the modern phenomena that so increasingly threatens the entire relevancy of traditional hacks – a citizen’s media journalist – I am going to ask some damn questions.
    Some obvious questions – arising out of things that sit in plain sight, yet which go unremarked, uninterrogated.

    For example – why are BBC journalists still – this very day – silently permitting the scandalous and corrupt concealment of decades of child-abuse to go unquestioned?
    What are their motivations – their reasons – for doing that?

    Could it be – like the use of performance-enhancing drugs by Lance Armstrong – the most plain and obvious explanation?
    That corruption is widespread amongst BBC staffers?

    Indeed – I’m asking – I’m pointing at the elephant in the room – and asking the question: “is, in fact, corruption endemic in British journalism?”
    That is my gut-instinct – just as Walsh had his about Armstrong.

    Gaby Hinsliff, former Political Editor of the Observer, wrote in a tweet at 1.37 on Friday 12th October, “Whatever failings of BBC management, BBC journalists are doing an exemplary, unflinching job of reporting Savile case.”

    Well – now that it is safe and undemanding to do so – maybe a number of BBC hacks are reporting the sordid details of Savile’s conduct. But are they asking THE important – the plain and obvious questions, a la David Walsh?
    Are they questioning the very “culture” of the BBC as a traditional institution – and all the baggage that brings?

    Are they asking – “is corruption and concealment a common currency in the BBC?”
    Or – “why has the BBC played the role it has, in so strongly assisting the Jersey establishment to cover-up child abuse – including abuse by Savile?”

    Well, let’s hope one or two them might be planning to do that, though I haven’t yet seen any sign of it. And to help any budding David Walshes in the BBC – I’m going assist, by laying out some the stark and extraordinary matters that require – that demand – questions.
    And the failure of the BBC to deal competently or honestly with current child-abuse scandals in Jersey is one of those matters that demands interrogation. Consider yourself to be a serious and ethical BBC journalist? Then come to Jersey – and ask the damn questions of the BBC management and staff here.

    The plain and obvious questions.
    In the previous posting – I wrote of the “currency of concealment” in respect of child-abuse.

    But the currency of concealment applies to most walks of life – most situations. Let’s face it – knowing stuff – embarrassing stuff – or problematic stuff – about people – having done them favours, or they having done you favours, by keeping schtum about certain matters – and helping each other up the career ladder, is how influence is peddled in Britain; it is how the nation “networks” – and, frankly, it has been for hundreds of years. Corruption, and the concealment of corruption, is endemic in the UK.
    And in so many ways – the way the traditional media has worked, is simply a giant, technicolor, unsubtle cartoon version of that workaday custom – that way of “doing business”.

    Don’t take my word for it. The journalist who broke the phone-hacking scandal, Nick Davies, said at the Leveson inquiry, “journalism doesn’t begin with checking facts, it’s about selective decisions on what to cover”.
    That’s as good a one-sentence description of how journalism works as you will ever find.

    Here’s something I noticed, when my career was in politics; journalists look down on politicians with contempt. And, in most cases, you couldn’t blame them. But lacking in the perspective of those journalists, is the realisation that they too float down the same gutter, perhaps clinging to a fractionally more elevated turd. And maybe not even that.
    The blunt truth is that most journalists are lazy, uncourageous and useless. 95% of them are unspeakably crap – yet without even in mitigation, the self-acceptance that you might find amongst most politicians. The smug self-regard of broadcast journalists in particular is a revolting wonder to behold when you have the misfortune of attempting to work closely with them.

    One of the questions that must be asked, is actually, “do we need to re-assess what we think journalist are for?” Our customary answer to that question might have been ‘reporting important news’, or, ‘holding power to account.’ But in reality, today – hell, for decades, the real function of most of the mainstream media has been to act as a ‘filter’, a kind of ‘control-mechanism’ on public discourse. As Nick Davies said, journalism is “about selective decisions on what to cover”.
    And there can be fewer more pertinent examples than the corrupt concealment of child-abuse in Jersey – and the concealment of that corrupt concealment, by the traditional media – the BBC in particular. The unacknowledged key, power of the traditional media – that of omission – has been both exposed, and rendered redundant by Jersey bloggers.

    One of the things the media, even at a national level, still does not seem to have grasped, is that their major power (and perhaps their most serious cultural failing) namely the power of omission, is dead.
    Let’s be clear – the power of the British media is simply immense, absolutely immense.

    For all the fears, some justified, some not, the British media has of a post-Leveson world, in order to be reasonably confident of retaining their freedom, influence – and respect – the mainstream media has to wake up to a whole new paradigm.
    That paradigm is this:

    The editorial “freedom” that the media used to enjoy – to pick and chose what stories it would not run – that freedom to “omit” – that great power to filter the very type of stories to be published, and thus control the terms of debate – is gone.
    Gone forever.

    The World Wide Web has killed it; killed that power of omission, stone-dead.
    I’ve been an un-paid blogger, writing journalistically since February 2008. Consider this fact: during the time-period since then, to the present, I have written and produced more evidence-based investigative journalism – than every journalist, from all of Jersey’s traditional media – in all of the post-World War II years – combined.

    Take, for example, just the following three blog-postings:


    In those articles you can read approximately 94 pages of explosive and damming evidence – direct from THE key, centrally involved source – the actual Police Chief who was illegally suspended by Jersey’s government of shady spivs.
    Suspended – for several complimentary purposes of the Jersey oligarchy – primary amongst which was the local establishment’s wish to prevent the full and proper investigation of decades of concealed child-abuse. Child-abuse including that by Jimmy Savile.

    The illegal suspension of the Jersey Police Chief took place, not in 1978 – but in 2008.
    You are worried about child protection?

    You wish to comfort yourself with, “well – most of the Savile crimes took place in the 1960s & 70s – it couldn’t happen today.”?

    It happens today. It has happened.
    A Police Chief who was exposing decades of child-abuse and cover-up was illegally suspended – without due process – on no even faintly credible grounds whatsoever – and was then unlawfully denied legal representation. This happened in November 2008.

    The Police Chief trying to expose the failures that led to decades of child abuse concealment – illegally suspended.
    And the two Jersey politicians who led the executive responsible for this crime – were both subsequently awarded OBEs.

    And what has been the response of the BBC to this contemporary and on-going scandal involving child-abuse cover-up?
    The BBC in Jersey provided copious air-time to the politicians responsible for the corrupt suspension of the Police Chief, and proceeded to peddle – wholly unchallenged – a plainly false, obviously dishonest account of events. This is the BBC – pro-actively engaging in an illegal child-abuse cover-up. In the present day.

    And no – before you ask – the BBC cannot claim to be the victims of some monstrous and manipulative fraud, some cunning exercise in hoodwinking them. The facts and circumstances surrounding the illegal suspension of the Jersey Police Chief were so patently extraordinary – so obviously devoid of due-process – so wholly lacking in any credibility – that the most cursory consideration raises many obvious and immediate questions – gut-instinct questions of the kind David Walsh asked – without even the need to engage in any investigative work.
    Consider the situation: Jersey has only one Police Chief; under his leadership, for the first time, decades of child-abuse and failures by the public authorities are being investigated; the local politicians have made no effort to disguise their anger and irritation at the “bad publicity” and the questions raised about their competence and stewardship of public safety; suddenly – a couple of weeks before a Jersey general election, which might have gone badly for the traditionalists – the Police Chief is suspended with an attendant high-level attack by the local establishment upon the entire credibility of the child-abuse investigation, and a lot of spin to the effect that “there was no big problem after-all”.

    As a journalist – what kind of questions immediately spring to mind when faced with that situation?
    “Partisan politicians – suspending a Police Chief – who has been investigating decades of failure by those politicians? Could this be a profoundly dangerous and corrupt abuse of political power, to undermine and sabotage good, modern policing, for self-interested political purposes?”

    “What – if any – credible reasons, or plausible justification, do those politicians have for going straight to such a “nuclear-option” of suspending the Police Chief? They have to explain.”
    “Given the obvious and profound public interest questions that arise – was due process followed?”

    “Just how plausible were the various assertions made in the press-conferences in the immediate wake of the suspension? Were those claims credible?”
    “Given the obvious scope for the suspension being a politicised act – did the Jersey politicians seek any external advice, from Whitehall?”

    “What was the state of knowledge concerning these events of the Crown’s representative in Jersey, the Lieutenant Governor?”
    “Was that Office fulfilling its role lawfully, namely that of ensuring that her Majesty’s subjects in Jersey are protected from corruption and abuses of power?”

    Those are just a few, a mere handful, of the plain and obvious questions that any serious journalistic endeavour on the part of the BBC would have asked.
    Even before dramatic, documentary evidence was supplied to them on a plate, as I will explain below.

    And this is not some criticism based upon a theoretical debate concerning the political economy of the mass-media. There are real people – real children – now real adults – who suffered appallingly, and who, in some cases at least, may have been protected from suffering – if what passes for the ‘Fourth Estate’ in Jersey had ever done its job properly.
    Amongst BBC Jersey’s accretion of am-dram luvies, trustafarian brats, cocktail party air-heads, “Christian” social-climbers, and bicycling surf-nazis – not one of them, not one – has sought out and spoken with, and striven to get an understanding of what the dozens of victims of institutionalised child abuse in Jersey went through. Not one of them has tried to discover –and convey to the Jersey audience, what it was like to be raped by a well-connected freemason at the age of 12 – or sodomized by a civil-servant – or have your arm broken by another civil servant – or have mental health issues at the age of 14, and then be locked into solitary confinement – for two months.

    It is worse, even, than that. Not only has the BBC in Jersey utterly failed to do any of that basic journalistic leg-work – they’ve actually refused – flatly refused – to report stories – and use evidence – when it’s been actively handed to them on the proverbial plate.
    The child protection scandal first erupted as a public controversy in Jersey in July 2007. I was the Health & Social Services Minister, and had spent the previous six months working with whistle-blowers and survivors, in investigating what was an ever more alarming catalogue of abuse, incompetence, failure and cover-up; a wretched history that plainly involved the senior civil servants routinely lying to me and other politicians when we asked questions. Having discovered some of the atrocities, I happened to be asked a question in the Jersey parliament – and I gave an honest answer, stating that “if I was being asked did I have any faith in Jersey’s child protection systems, frankly, I would have to say no, and I would be commissioning an independent inquiry.”

    This triggered an illegal plot amongst the malfeasant civil servants, and the rest of the Jersey cabinet, to engineer my dismissal on the supposed grounds that by “publicly criticising the service”, I was “undermining staff moral”. We subsequently learnt of the illegal plot – because the civil servants in question attempted to co-opt the Police Chief Graham Power into supporting it. He rejected any such involvement, and wrote a file-note recording the incident. That file-note can be read at the following blog-posting:

    Here’s a brief quote from the file-note:
    “Bill Ogley and the others were persistent and I was left with the clear impression that they were attempting to draw me, in my capacity as Chief of Police, into a civil service led attempt to remove a Minister from Office.”

    That file-note is as apocalyptic a piece of evidence of a high-level, quite deliberate – and criminal – conspiracy to conceal child-abuse as you are likely to come across in any of the noted child-abuse scandals in Britain.
    How much reporting – indeed, how much reference at all – has the BBC made to that piece of dramatic, documented evidence?

    And I can’t say I was surprised that the BBC refused to report that evidence, when it came to light in late 2009. You see, I had realised just how wholly corrupted and decadent was the BBC’s operation in Jersey back during that summer of 2007, when I was fighting single-handidly to expose the child-abuse cover-ups. Back then, none of us were aware of the covert police investigation, so it seemed to the civil servants and oligarchy politicians that they could cram the lid back down on the decades of abuse and suffering and carry on the concealment – if only they could discredit me. The then Chief Minister, Frank Walker (who until recently had been the boss of the company that runs Jersey’s only “newspaper”) tabled a vote of no-confidence in me as Health & Social Services Minister. Knowing that this would be debated in September, in late August I e-mailed the then boss of the BBC in Jersey – Denzel Dudley – and suggested that the issues were plainly so important – accountability and standards in child-protection – that the BBC should have me and Walker live in the studio on the Sunday phone-in, to debate the issues, and answer questions from the public, before the Jersey parliament debate. The response of Dudley, in the name of the BBC, was to write back to me, saying, “Thank you for your offer, but the BBC does not host political debates in case it might influence the decision-makers.”

    The exclusion, the deliberate marginalisation of opposition opinions – the ‘omission’ of any meaningful alternative to the entrenched local oligarchy – is the established modus operandi of the BBC in Jersey. That incident in particular was simply a corrupt act, on the part of the BBC in Jersey, designed to protect Walker and the rest of the Jersey oligarchy from meaningful scrutiny and challenge, in respect of their decision to support child-abuse concealing civil servants, rather than prioritising the protection of vulnerable children.
    But that was back in 2007; surely, you may ask, the BBC must have recognised its mistakes since then? No, not the BBC Jersey outfit. It is certainly correct to say that for a period of maybe six months or so, the BBC at a national level started taking the matter seriously – and had to do so over the heads of the “gone-native” local operation. Some good TV coverage took place, including a Panorama program. But the corrupted “network” of influence within the BBC swung into place behind the scenes – and when Jersey’s good Police Chief Graham Power was illegally suspended in November 2008, the BBC, including at the national level, became entirely passive – wholly and extraordinarily supportive of the Jersey oligarchy position – notwithstanding all of the many very obvious, gut-instinct questions immediately arising in the face of the suspension.

    All of those very obvious, and fundamental questions concerning the very safety and independence from political interference of policing in Jersey – questions concerning the protection of the public by the police, from the corrupt and illegal actions of government departments? It was as though none of those questions existed as far as the BBC was concerned.
    And thanks to the internet and blogging, we needn’t entertain the customary lame excuses of the traditional media for not asking the obvious damn questions – like “well, we can’t possible ask such questions, because we have no evidence”; for as real journalists like David Walsh show, you don’t need evidence to at least ask the questions. But, as it happens, the BBC do have evidence. Dramatic and sensational evidence. They have that 94 page interim statement by the unlawfully suspended Police Chief Graham Power.

    I know the BBC has that statement. I know – because it was me who supplied it to them. I am their source.
    I e-mailed it to current BBC Jersey boss (though hopefully for not much longer) Jon Gripton, on the 22nd September 2011. After some prompting, I eventual received a brief e-mailed acknowledgment from him. Then nothing.

    To cut a long story short, my various attempts to discover what, if anything, the BBC planned to do with the dynamite document, ended with me writing these words to Jon Gripton, Laura Ellis and Rachel Hallett of the BBC: –
    “Sadly, I note I have not received so much as an acknowledgment from Mr Gripton, to my e-mail of the 16th, in which I asked why the BBC had not fulfilled its various obligations in respect of the evidence concerning the unlawful and repressive suspension enacted against Jersey’s then Police Chief Graham Power, Queens Police Medal.

    You know – it’s a funny old world. Never in my most fevered imaginations – at least not until I started to witness it a few years ago – did I ever think that THE BBC would become so starkly and evidencedly collusive in the hushing-up of an unlawful sabotaging of a child abuse investigation.

    Especially when THE BBC has been furnished – on a plate – with very dramatic documentary evidence, upon which it could base very substantive reports.”

    There we have it – in grim coincidence, at a time when the true nature of influence, concealment and omission as practiced in the BBC – in respect of something so awful as child abuse – has had the spotlight shone upon it. Evidence which shows – even now, in 2012, in a child-abuse concealment scandal that actually includes Jimmy Savile as one of the abusers – still the BBC is covering-up the truth.
    Even when they’ve had the evidence handed to them on a plate.

    The conduct of the BBC gets no better. BBC Jersey hack Simon Jupp, when asked by me on twitter a few days ago why the BBC wouldn’t report the Graham Power statement, responded by saying, “Not a question for me, Stuart.” But, as I replied to him, “Simon – it most certainly IS a question for you, like this culture of non-reporting IS a question for ALL BBC staff now.”, and, “You, & other individ’ BBC staffers, can’t hide in the mechanism anymore. The moral responsibility to do something is yours.”
    The BBC and its defenders at a national level, largely rely upon a claim that the Savile abuse, and the culture that enabled it, “was all so long ago. It couldn’t happen now. These days, our journalist would ask those questions – would not be afraid – would pursue those very obvious lines of inquiry.”

    Do you want to know how many BBC journalists have asked me what must be possibly the most A1, vital and primary question which arises from the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster? How many BBC journalists have approached me and said: – “Mr Syvret, you were – as Jersey’s Health & Social Services Minister – THE legally empowered “public authority” with responsibility for child protection and for investigating child-protection failures; when you were seeking to exercise those legal powers, as you were actually obliged to by law, you were pro-actively prevented from doing so by the senior civil servants and your cabinet colleagues. How can vulnerable, isolated children in the system expect protection by the actual legal authority responsible for that ultimate oversight, if it can be obstructed like that – and could it happen again?”

    How many BBC staffers – in the pre, or even post-Savile era – have asked that core, obvious question concerning the systemic obstruction of the proper discharge of the Children (Jersey) Law, and the structural collapse of legal accountability in the child-protection apparatus?

    That’s how many.
    Not one, single, solitary BBC journalist has – from the beginning of the controversy five years ago – to the present day – asked me that key, and obvious question. Not once.

    We are swift enough – perhaps with justification – for assuming that various public officials – and politicians in particular – will frequently be corrupt. Why so rarely indeed, is the same thought publicly expressed – in the media – about journalists?
    You’re asking me the question? Asking me to just look at how things obviously appear – and make a judgment-call? You want me – like Walsh, with Armstrong – to say what I think? What my gut-instinct is?

    I think corruption is widespread in British journalism.
    I think it’s endemic.

    I go further: I think – upon any sober and wise consideration – it would actually be quite remarkable if it wasn’t.
    It is axiomatic – that wherever you find power – of any kind, and any kind of influence over that power – you will find corruption.

    I have no doubt – no doubt whatsoever – that amongst the many national journalists I have communicated with over the course of the last five years – when trying to expose the Jersey child-abuse cover-ups and other crimes – a number of them have been straightforwardly corrupt.
    I believe they’ve been in acceptance of payments – of bribes – of some form of benefit or other – in order to skew stories in favour of the powerful – in order to relay, as spies, back to the powerful, what campaigners like me were saying – to work as private detectives, and convey what evidence we had back to their employers. In particular, I believe journalists accept bribes, in order to simply omit certain stories, certain evidence. Bribes to exercise that ultimate media power – of simply making sure the damaging stories just “don’t appear”.

    Why do I think that?
    Because there can be no other rational explanation for some of the frankly astounding conduct on the part of various news outlets that purport to be straight and rational and honest.

    As with David Walsh, and his deduction concerning Armstrong, you can demand of me “what evidence do you have for that?” And like Walsh I say, “well, I don’t have the evidence to prove anyone’s guilt – but I just feel that I have huge responsibility, a huge need, to go and ask a lot of questions”.
    And I do. Because, when all’s said and done – putting in a spectacular performance in the ascent of Alp d’Huez – even though cheating your competitors, is still just entertainment at the end of the day.

    Knowing that children have been battered, raped, sodomized for decades – but then allowing immensely powerful politicians and judges to conceal such gross crimes by refusing to ask them the obvious questions – and refusing to report the available evidence – is a bloody atrocity.
    Ask me – who is the bigger villain? Lance Armstrong? Or BBC staff who are – today – enabling the concealment of grotesque degrees of child protection failure and the political corruption that underpins it? The BBC staffers – without question.

    Are we supposed to believe that rife corruption can exists amongst, say, MPs – most of whom are, let’s face it, pretty individually powerless in the big scheme of things – yet journalists who work for national media outlets – and who thus can exercise absolutely crushing, awesome power over certain events – for example, by exercising the power of omission – are rarely, if ever corrupt?
    That they don’t take dramatic bribes – don’t have “pension settlements” established for them – don’t have BVI trust-funds with mysterious sources – that some of them don’t have lucrative “secondary employment” with the security services – or that they don’t have various tax-dodging arrangements set-up in places like Jersey, hence their reluctance to rock-the-boat of the tax-haven? Because, let’s face it, it could be very embarrassing – or worse – for senior BBC figures if their use of Jersey’s off-shore finance arrangements became known. I mean, we could be speaking of far worse than, say the mere embarrassment that befell Jimmy Carr. When all’s said and done, his Jersey arrangements were at least legal. He wasn’t evading tax. Unlike a lot of Jersey’s clients. It’s worth remembering, the notorious gangster Al Capone was eventually nailed for tax-evasion. Just imagine – just how “influential” it would be to have knowledge of the tax-fiddling of senior people in the media, such as the BBC?

    Let’s face it – if you’ve “done business” through Jersey – the Jersey mafia know about it. Don’t ever think otherwise. “Client confidentiality?” You damn fool.
    Consider; a couple of weeks ago, the Lib-Dem party was involved in some justified scrutiny of Jersey; Vince Cable had spoken of the need to combat tax-avoidance through off-shore centres – and Lib Dem MP John Hemming had spoken in the House of Commons against the concealment of crimes by Jersey’s authorities. Then – hey – wouldn’t ya know it – the media get hold of a story about how a major donor to the Lib-Dem party is, in fact, based in Jersey. A co-incidental revelation? Or a shot across the bows of the three main UK parties – from the Jersey oligarchy, whose traditions, abuses of power and frequent overt criminality are unsustainable, and who are feeling embattled?

    Just how many BBC staffers, journalists, editors, directors, trust members etc – have such things as “tax-efficient” remuneration arrangements?
    How many BBC people have “off-payroll” remuneration set-ups, or are employed through “service companies”? Maybe through arrangements based in Jersey?

    How many of them have had, and still have, “additional” sources of “employment” or remuneration – from third-party activities? And, to state the bloody obvious, what impact do such third-party influences have upon the conduct of the BBC?
    What, indeed, have been the specific employment and remuneration arrangements for BBC Jersey staffers, editors etc during, say, the last 15 years?

    How many of them – who have operated under “brand-BBC”, have, in fact, been “freelancers” – generating very handsome wealth-streams for themselves – in exchange for what the BBC in Jersey does – or does not – cover?
    What commercial or financial arrangements have these people “working” under (or at least “using”) the BBC name, had with spin-doctor firms – of which there are many, with large budgets, in Jersey?

    I don’t have any evidence – just like David Walsh with Lance Armstrong – but I too have the gut-feeling – and draw the obvious conclusions just from seeing the reality I am watching – and am going to ask the obvious question – are some BBC staff corrupt?
    If David Walsh can ask that question of Lance Armstrong – I can ask it of the BBC in respect of its staff in Jersey – and those in the UK who are responsible for letting the BBC Jersey operation become just so – obviously – corrupted. Corrupted – and collusive – in the concealments of child-abuse.

    So corrupted, in fact – so startlingly and plainly – that it is actually quite remarkable that so many BBC people, and others, still maintain the collective fiction that this performance is “normal”, is “good” – like all those people in the parable of the emperor’s new clothes.

    This is not right.
    This performance is not plausible.

    Indeed – it’s so implausible, there has to be an explanation for it.

    The BBC – certainly in respect of Jersey, at the least – is corrupted.
    Corrupted to the point of actively participating, today – in the year 2012 – in the concealment of child-abuse cover-ups.

    There are some blindingly obvious possible causes of this appalling conduct by the BBC.
    And I am asking that question.

    Will some decent “real” journalists do the same?
    And if they will not, well – as with the Lance Armstrong drug usage – at least someone will have asked the obvious question, a question drawn from the obvious appearance of things.

    The BBC today? A different culture to that which protected Savile over the decades?
    No. Not unless it purges its entire Jersey operation.

    Not unless it investigates, at a national level, the relationships and contacts of all of its senior or influential people, with the Jersey establishment, and their financial arrangements with Jersey.
    Not unless it finally holds the Jersey authorities to account for their plain and evidenced corruptions, oppressions and concealing of child-abuse. And in that regard, the BBC could make a start, by reporting the issues arising from the 94 page statement of the unlawfully suspended Police Chief Graham Power – and asking the Secretary of State for Justice just why he has failed to ensure the proper rule of law in Jersey?

    Like David Walsh with Lance Armstrong – I’m looking at the BBC, and I’m saying I don’t believe you’re clean.
    Stuart Syvret.


    • Leha says:

      This is dynamite and needs to be read widely, I expect it will be ignored in its entirety by the bBC however.,


    • Seasider says:

      Please could the above article be used to start a new thread. Far too important to be tucked away down here.


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        Mr. Syvert has his own blog for that. He’s just copied and pasted an entire post from there to here. A link would have sufficed.


      • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

        I agree with seasider! I’m so pleased to see that post on here.


    • Nicked emus says:

      In particular, I believe journalists accept bribes, in order to simply omit certain stories, certain evidence. Bribes to exercise that ultimate media power – of simply making sure the damaging stories just “don’t appear”.

      Well Mr. Syvret, is of course entitled to his opinion and if he has any evidence to support this claim then he should share it so we can test it.

      However I am not sure that Mr. Syvret would be considered a reliable witness given his rather interesting past.

      Nevertheless I am sure that won’t stop you lot from rallying around him as if he were some sort of Delphic Oracle.


      • johnnythefish says:

        Mr Sylvet asked many questions of the BBC in that post so you might like to start answering a few rather than dismissing the guy in a couple of short paragraphs (including the usual ‘play the man not the ball’ tactic).


      • You Lot says:

        I think he’s some sort of Delphic Oracle. We should all rally round.