Right, this one arrives early for a stage. Got something to say about the State Broadcaster? Well this is the place to share it…what BIAS have you seen or heard?
FRIDAY OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Nibor May 4, 2024 at 12:40 pm on Weekend 4th May 2024Yes EG , I wonder if all those left wingers/ progressives / libs / woke people who infest the BBC...
- Scroblene May 4, 2024 at 12:39 pm on Weekend 4th May 2024'Brittany Prince' is a cabbage anyway! They even used to be advertised on Capital Radio or similar... And 'Swift' is...
- StewGreen May 4, 2024 at 12:36 pm on Weekend 4th May 2024Ricky Gervais with the message that star actors are the true ecological gurus https://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/1786460425690718459
- Scroblene May 4, 2024 at 12:24 pm on Weekend 4th May 2024All you men, I used to live in London flats//hovels/'pads' etc., in the sixties, and there was never any of...
- StewGreen May 4, 2024 at 12:23 pm on Weekend 4th May 2024I used the search terms : inflacion argentina mensual Now 9 and 10 months ago monthly inflation was still rising...
- StewGreen May 4, 2024 at 12:14 pm on Weekend 4th May 2024The BiasedBBC lives in storytelling land of narratives not truth Hence that report spoke of anti-Israel students and then in...
- Daniel May 4, 2024 at 11:59 am on Weekend 4th May 2024Look at the source of the story a bit more carefully. It is not meant to be taken seriously.
- StewGreen May 4, 2024 at 11:58 am on Weekend 4th May 2024Just a few hours until Sadiq's great victory speech Demographics is destiny .
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
“HERE’S WHAT OBAMA DOESN’T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT LIBYA”
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/heres-what-obama-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about-libya/
-And it’s what INBBC doesn’t want us to know about Libya either.
latest.
Father of security agent killed in Libya speaks out
video.foxnews.com/…/father-of-security-agent-killed-i…
apologies the link didn t cut in
Wow. Sec. Clinton told the man they would go after the film maker, even though she knew by then it wasn’t about the video? That’s even more shameful than I expected she’d be.
Best then, that any undecided vote… er… quickly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20085355
‘The president’s ballot casting on Thursday was part of his campaign’s wider effort to encourage early voting,’
Voter fraud in absentee ballots just might be swinging the election for Him. Good thing the US is coming to monitor us and make sure we don’t check people’s IDs, eh?
“The Real Reason Behind Benghazigate”
by FRANK J. GAFFNEY, JR.
http://familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-real-reason-behind-benghazigate
Its remarkable (1) how little the Bengazi story is being reported and (2) that it is being reported at all.
The BBC loses all credibility in virtually ignoring the Obama’s administration’s role in this affair. Even Hilary Clinton, accepting the role of temporary scapegoat in the short term is sensing a storm ahead and “lawyering up”.
Thank God for Brett Bair at Fox News, Glenn Beck at the Blaze, World Net Daily, Clare Lopez at RadicalIslam.org and Congressman Darrell Issa for shining some light on this scandal. I also valued the article by James Delingpole in the Telegraph the other day. It is a must read.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/jamesdelingpole/
The truth behind the casual reaction of the US Administration in response to pleas for help from its staff in Bengazi in the months before the attack;, the strange (to put it mildly) decision not to rescue them during the course of a five hour fire fight when help was 45 minutes away; the impulse of a failed president to pursue his re-election campaign with a visit to Nevada rather than concentrate his attention where it should have been – on the safety of his citizens; the concoction by (?) of the YOUTUBE cover story – will all be revealed in the course of time.
The charge against the MSM including the BBC is that they are neglecting their duty to investigate. More than that! They are suppressing the investigation until after their hero, President Obama, has be re-elected.
However, we must remember that the BBC is also the organisation that hid Jimmy Savile’s activities from the public for 40 years until exposed by an ITV documentary. The BBC flies the flag for a corrupt environmental movement while it is left to people like Lord Monckton, dissident scientists and pajama clad bloggers.to tell the truth about global warming. The BBC conveniently forgets the legacy of its precious Labour Party. It constantly acts in its own perceived self-interest, not in the interests of the licence payer.
The most dangerous miscalculation of managers is that they underestimate the power of new media. They should understand how close they are to the whole house of cards being blown down. They must be pissing themselves worrying who the other “celebrities” are that the police are investigating. No, I’m wrong. I bet – I bet – they already know.
A journalist’s job is to speak truth to power whether it is manifested in an abusive celebrity, corrupt scientists, or a self-important president. They have failed and failed and failed again.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/joe-biden-to-father-of-former-navy-seal-killed-in-benghazi-did-your-son-always-have-balls-the-size-of-cue-balls/
Incredible!!!! Nothing from the BBC.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/
Jim Dandy will tell you that as along as the NY Times, the WaPo, and CNN aren’t making a fuss about this, the BBC doesn’t have to report it. He and Nicked and especially Scott will also tell you that Fox News reporting it is a reason for the BBC to avoid it.
All that money and staff and power, and they don’t have to report anything that the US MSM isn’t.
‘Nothing from the BBC.’
Well, it seems they have merely duplicated the new SOP from the only true administration to copy and believe, evva.
So The One was merely frozen temporarily as Hillary, Bob, Carol, Ted and Alice all canceled dinner parties to have a focus meeting on how it would look if they actually came to a decision on acting, maybe.
Meanwhile, across the pond, on reporting it, the BBC was frozen as George made a point of not quite hearing what Helen may have been told in the corridor by Peter, who Merion doesn’t like and ignored, while Liz called the whole thing off.
Or something.
Anyway, it’s all quite unique and thus tickedy-boo.
Apparently.
Larks, imagine if those peaceful religious types decided to lob a missile ‘Mercicuh’s way from Gaza?
Other than a few funeral directors seeing a rise in trade, I doubt the US or UK public would ever know.
What I just wrote was meant to be satirical.
Frankly, the truth, just in, is funnier.
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/blade-sharpening.html?
I imagine HIGNFY will be sourcing lower hanging fruit from groves other than Aunty’s ripening harvest.
Its now Saturday night. Bengazi is a missing word on the BBC website. Nothing about the Pres, Hilary or anyone. It never happened. What is truly frightening is that every liberal friend I’ve told about this refuses to believe it. It’s not on the media, so how can it be true? See the power of the MSM? (By the way Fox is not credible they say).
Not a word on the BBC’s US website. Not a squeak from Katty Kay. Everything but.
Benghazi will take Obama out.
He just never got it.
The BBC news website hasn’t mentioned Benghazi for 17 days apart from the Presidential debate.
It may be the clincher leading to Obama’s departure but no-one in the UK will have the slightest idea why the US electorate voted him out.
It’s Libya stupid.
Yesterday evening on Andrew Neil’s This Week he and his guests – Michael chuff-chuff Portillo, John Strickly Sergeant and former Labour Cabinet Minister Alan Johnson all agree that Incurious George is completely beyond reproach for his handling (or non-handling) of the Savile affair at the BBC and that the Tories were out of order for even the merest suggestion that the BBC not be left free to investigate itself.
In other news Bernard Matthews is reported to be surprised and disappointed not to see the expected long queues outside polling booths in Norfolk as his constituents have the chance to cast their vote in the usual seasonal referendum.
Yes the BBC are well down the road of riding out Savilegate.
1.They did the incredibly brave thing of ‘exposing’ themselves with the Panorama programme which drew admiration and gasps of ‘what other broadcaster would be able to do that’ from all sides.
2.They are managing to hide behind the fig leaf of ‘independence’ so they don’t Levesoned.
3.They are finding plenty of paid apologists for themselves who they parade across our screens. Including some who are so much in their pay that they even attempt to deflect some blame onto the girls.
4. They are slowly trying to reduce the coverage of the affair on their news programmes.
5. No doubt they will manage the outcome of the ‘independent’ inquiries so as to do the minimum about of real damage . They may have to sacrifice a few pawns but nothing serious.
It is going exactly to plan. Only continued assaults by the rest of the non left media can make the BBC pay the full price for their key role in this terrible affair. They must keep attacking day after day just like the BBC did to News International.
The government, who should be doing much more than they are, seem paralysed . Surely they should be going flat out ensure that the BBC get what they deserve. Are they so scared of the power of the BBC?
BBC: “Abuse home care workers jailed”
Winterbourne View is a registered residential care home for the elderly, but to the lefties on the news desk it is a (hissss) hated “private hospital”
BBC: “care workers who admitted a total of 38 charges of neglect or abuse of patients at a private hospital”
No doctors no A&E no operating theatres, it is not a hospital, it is a residential home for the elderly, but, hey, why let that get in the way of a pop at the hated “private sector”
You wonder about the standard of education of people staffing editorial desks. Bias and pig-ignorance just oozes out every minute every story. Unfit to serve.
my recent experience at a private hospital which does so much NHS work under contract, is that it treats its private patients as though they were NHS patients.
Not a great fan of sending state funded patients to private hospitals, but if staff attitudes are bad that is no excuse. I hope you complained. Still, at least you have a substantially reduced risk of hospital-acquired infection. The NHS nowadays is still doing special offers – you come in with one condition and they give you another one free.
The hospital in my neighborhood is one of the best in the country, part of one of the top health care – non-government – organizations. They also provide care to US equivalent of NHS patients, on reimbursment from the government. This is right in the middle of two very working class, mostly non-white neighborhoods.
The treatment I got this summer, both in the hospital and in the adjunct outpatient facility, was excellent all round. My friend’s mother is on full benefits and always receives top-notch care from them as well.
I’ll leave it to others to draw their own conclusions as to why this is.
I was disappointed by the way This Week covered it. First I must ask why they had John Sergeant on providing a defence of the BBCs way of doing things while having no counterview – Neil, Portillo, Johnson and Sergeant closed ranks and were all pretty much in total agreement – sadly the first time I can remember seeing that happen on that programme.
I think some of Sergeant’s comments about the BBC’s way of doing things were valid to an extent and do provide some of the background to Entwistle’s handling of it but they were complete weasels in not investigating some obvious questions – if Entwistle’s behaviour was prompted by a policy of non-involvement what was the explanation for Peter Rippon’s decision to pull the story and his blog entry? And Sergeant’s depiction of the BBC chain of command as being laissez-faire and based on a culture of independence certainly doesn’t fit in with the unsolicted and misleading e-mail sent to Grant Shapps by the BBC in advance of his Question time appearance, which of course wasn’t mentioned (although Maria Miller’s intervention the other way was mentioned of course – a bad mistake according to Portillo) . And Neil was also pretty shameless in taking the line that the rumpus about the Newsnight report is taking focus away from the real story concernng Savile’s victims, without any mention or discussion of how the large part of that story is how such apparently widespread abuse carried on while Savile was on BBC premises. The programme at its worst I thought.
I saw the same programme and was left with the question ‘What does the Director General do?’
Everything seems to be going nicely to plan at the BBC. Here we are, it’s Friday lunchtime and there’s not a single mention of the Saville story on Pravda’s “news” front page.
Almost gone now…. nothing to see here folks – oh, Strictly Come Dancing is on soon – look over there, everyone!
I was listening to the Today programme at 6am until 8pm on Thursday and when they “took a look at the front pages” just after 6, Evan Davis? mentioned a Savile headline, looked at others, but was quickly overcome, and uttered something like “we don’t really want to go there”. I think this must have been the headline in a red top about a paedophile ring at No. 10 and further BBC allegations. Notably, any further “looks at the front pages” didn’t mention Savile at all. I agree, they don’t want to go there and think that, as Patten remarked “the feeding frenzy” is over and can get back to doing what the BBC does best: Not reporting the news.
I would add my voice to those expressing disappointment with This Week. Sure, they poked a bit of fun at the internecine conflict within the BBC, but then segued into a “joking aside” mode which tried to make the case that despite the fact that Entwhistle comes across as totally useless and inept, in fact, it’s all perfectly reasonable and understandable.
Well, pardon me, but that’s bollocks. Look at how the BBC “managers” “managed” the issue of the Newsnight piece. Everything seems to have been done on a nudge-nudge, wink-wink basis at “lunches” and “drinks receptions” (Entwhistle and Thompson). No questions were asked. None of the Newsnight material was viewed or scripts read. No-one in the management chain (thus far) appears to have sat down and discussed the issue in a work environment.
This see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil approach is not “managing” it’s “not managing”.
I speak as someone with a little knowledge of large organisations. I once worked in a fairly senior role for one of the UK’s biggest companies. Every Monday morning, there was a “top team” meeting in our division. I, and everyone else present, was expected to report to our Divisional Director anything that she needed to know, and to update her on ongoing projects and issues. Everyone kept manuscript notes of each meeting (quite apart from anything else, you needed to know what she’d be expecting an update on the following week). As and when anything cropped up between Mondays, you’d take a view on whether it could wait, or whether it warranted knocking on her door and briefing her before the next meeting.
In turn, the Divisional Director would sit down regularly with her boss, who was a main board director. And that was pretty much it. The entire chain of command. This is for a company which is an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE bigger than the BBC.
Now, no doubt that company is far from perfect. But it is utterly inconceivable to me that an issue as explosively damaging as the fact that your organisation may well have hosted, enabled and promoted a (soon to be) notorious paedophile is apparently just casually mentioned in passing at a bloody “busy lunch”, especially given that you are contemporaneously about to air sickly, glowing tributes to the creep. Not only that, but the the “manager” to whom this is reported effectively just shrugs his shoulders and says nothing. It is completely absurd and beyond parody.
I can see only three possibilities. Either 1. BBC managers discussed the issue in off-line, un-minuted meetings and decided that, bearing in mind the inevitable and enormous damage the revelations would cause to the BBC’s reputation and the fact the truth had lain undisturbed for decades, the least-worst-option was to contrive a reason to can the piece and kill it off, or 2. 1 above happened as only a series of thoughts in people’s heads; nothing was said out loud, but a nod and wink was given that the piece should not see the light of day, or 3. Entwhistle was completely candid with the Select Committee and the entire chain of BBC management is totally, utterly and irredeemably incompetent. None of these possibilities looks good for the BBC.
So thanks, but no thanks, This Week. I won’t be swallowing the blue dreamer pill labelled on the one side “it’s all jolly reasonable see, like tank commanders” and on the other “Let’s forget the BBC and talk about the victims (or the NHS, or Broadmoor, or ANYTHING else)”. A pill offered to me, I might observe, by four people who take the BBC’s shilling and have a vested interest in sticking up for it.
By the way, I wonder if anyone has submitted an FOI to the BBC to see how much in the way of fees it has thrown Reed Smith in each of, say, the last 5 years? And also how many BBC and “Trust” personnel have availed themselves of Reed Smith hospitality, seminars and training over the years.
I hear what you’re saying about the “no questions were asked” behavior, but that’s due to the way the BBC is supposedly organized – a firewall between departments, and the alleged independence of producers from top-down editorial directives. The question is whether this arrangement is right or wrong.
Of course, we know the claim that there are no top-down editorial directives is bogus, thanks to, for example, the Trust saying that there’s no reason to provide air time to “opponents of the consensus” on AGW, and Mark Thompson’s admission that they tend to treat Mohammedans with kid gloves because of the color of their skin. And we can guess that there was a whole lot of discussion from top to bottom about whether or not to broadcast that Palestinian propaganda “charity appeal”. No way was that the sole decision of a producer. I’m sure we can think of other examples.
This must be taken into account when considering how and why Boaden and Entwistle and Thompson had whatever brief encounters on the Savile issue they claim to have had. However, this doesn’t discredit their firewall line of defense. Yet, anyway. As I’m so fond of pointing out, the angle of reporting on a whole host of issues seems to magically spread across the spectrum of broadcasting, even with said firewall in place. So either there’s a Borg-like hive-mind where thoughts are shared instantly and automatically without editorial or management interference (translation: the BBC just has far, far too many people who share a narrow range of viewpoints), or there’s communication between staff which results in things leaking across that firewall on a regular basis. I might be confusing logistical issues here, but I don’t think so.
David,
I think you’re absolutely right about the bogus-ness of the firewall/silo theory of management that is “supposed” to operate within the BBC. Editorial independence exists only up to a point, I think. You gave some very good examples of “big issues” where there is clearly a top-down editorial line. However, as you say, on mundane, day-to-day stories, you hear exactly the same “line” being taken on stories across the BBC’s output – R4, BBC Breakfast, Six O’ Clock News, News24, web etc etc. Often, this is almost word-for-word.
Now, I suspect that there are “line to take” (note the PR email on the Savile affair) meetings about the day’s stories that take place somewhere, and this disseminates throughout the BBC. Possibly one news department takes the lead, and the rest just follow suit, cut ‘n’ paste stylee. Thus according to the manual, they’re editorially independent, but in practice it’s just follow-the-leader. Result: editorial independence is, on a day-to-day basis, a mirage.
Actually, I always thought that the term “editorial independence” when used to defend the BBC meant independence from outside influence, specifically government. That line is extended when talking about privatizing the BBC to influence from major corporate sponsors. Sometimes this just manifests itself in the form of shouting, “Get thee behind me, Rupert Murdoch!” as loudly as possible.
The editorial autonomy within the Corporation of the various feifdoms/channels/shows is a different matter. It’s obviously real up to point, and can be guarded jealously as a matter of (justifiable) pride if nothing else. But there’s clearly a point where that’s not the case, and there is editorial interference from above.
I thought you all might enjoy this elegantly written contribution from a former bbc employee, lifted from The Speccie.
• “As for Fraser’s praise of the BBC, it may well have once been the envy of the world do dah, do dah; but those days disappeared around the time Alvar Lidell hung up his dinner jacket & stopped reading the WW2 news.
For at least 30 years ( and I know having worked for it twice) the BBC has been a socialist-sympathising, buck-passing, bureacratic labyrinth of toadies, malignant Trots, bien pensant Guardian readers, EU fanatics and ( we now learn) Paedo protectors. Nothing to be proud of there! And to add insult to injury we pay for these freaks.
Its time the whole stinking midden was torn down, starting right at the top with that smug monument to Catholic comp[lacency Lord Fatten. (Appointed by his chum Dave). “
It’s been a lot longer than 30 years. The Telegraph had the obit a few years back of a farmer who became BBC Farming Correspondent in 1945, and who was appointed by Lord Reith personally to provide a counterweight to the already left wing nature of the corporation.
As is well known, much of Waugh’s “Sword Of Honour” trilogy is his own wartime experience thinly veiled, and there’s plenty of BBC stuff in there (what sort of heroes ‘modern’ Britain requires etc) showing that the corp. hasn’t changed much in terms of opinions or attitudes since the war.
Rubbish. Plenty of satire of US newspapers in Sword of Honour, but there’s sod-all about the Beeb.
I haven’t read the Sword of Honour trilogy but I have seen the BBC interview of Evelyn Waugh by John Freeman in which he is asked
J.F. Well, I was going to ask you, have you in fact a particular deep feeling about the BBC?
E.W. No.
J.F. Because it comes again into a number of your books, which is why I ask, always in a slightly pejorative context.
E.W. Well, everyone thinks ill of the BBC, I don’t think I’m more violent than anybody else.
Rubbish yourself, new troll.
There’s plenty of stuff about the ideological workings of radio broadcasting, i.e. Auntie.
Or do you suppose that Capital Gold was up and running in 1940 ? Maybe you do.
Oh yeah? Prove it. I’ve got my copy in front of me. There’s a long section about a manufactured ‘hero’, but the ‘hero’ in question is interviewed by two bored US journalists before being shipped off to the US to do the interview circuit there. It’s a satire on the feebleness of government propaganda and the credulity of the general public.
The official BBC version of the truth is controlled by the BBCs Editorial policy chief David Jordan, that is why he was sitting next to the director general at the parliamentary committee meeting. Also that was the same job that Goebbels had with the Nazi party.
I believe that the BBC website censors (moderators) are causing anger by excessive censorship of criticism.
‘BBC website censors (moderators) are causing anger by excessive censorship of criticism. ‘
Oddly, Newsnight’s ‘Anger & Protests’ Editor Paul Mason is noticeable by his absence.
But he does have cause, as he is investigating, in his capacity as an Economics Editor, accusations of abuse by those abusing authority.
In Greece.
Listening to the news yesterday re: the Jimmy Savile affair. I was struck (I hope this not too insensitive or frivolous) by how much the every increasing number of victims – now approaching 300 – was a bit like watching one of those Blue Peter appeals where they had a target and they would record each week how much nearer to achieving the target the weeks activity had move things forward.
Do think that the old bill have a target in mind?
next week will be squeeky bum time at the bBC.
Well, now it appears it is being taken to the Max…Clifford that is.
The new line is it was a different time, and if you can remember it, you weren’t there.
How the legal system treats that excuse vs. the PR media industry will be interesting.
Ah, yes, can remember that ‘different time’ – there was a paedophile in every street and parents just laughed it off when their kids were assaulted.
Thank God for The Enlightenment, 1997-2010.
According to newly-appointed NY Times head Cash-Grabber, and ex-BBC Cash-Grabber General (who was it that was wondering what the DG’s job is?), Mark Thompson, it really was a different time. That was when the BBC had a “massive left-wing bias”.
Those were the days, eh?
Israel’s Likud Party and Yisrael Beitenu to join forces
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s party will run alongside that of his ultra-nationalist Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, in January’s election. Has the BBC ever referred to any Palestinian group as ‘ultra nationalist’? I don’t think so. What is the difference between ‘nationalist’ and ‘ultra-nationalist’ anyway?
Opinion polls put the ring-wing list ahead of leftist and centrist parties. How does the BBC define who is right-wing, leftist and centrist, anyway? Does the BBC ever refer to any Palestinian group as ‘right-wing’, ‘centrist’ or leftist? I don’t think so. What is the difference between left-wing and leftist? Doesn’t Israel has a ‘left’?
The BBC is not used to dealing with genuinely democratic politics and always gets it wrong.
For instance: in the US, as far as the BBC is concerned, not voting for Obama is a sign of uber-nationalist racism and irridentist capitalism:
here, despite there generally being a cigarette paper’s thickness between Labour and “Conservative” policies, not voting for Labour (or, at a pinch the LibDems) is, again, a vote for uber-nationalist racism and capitalism red in tooth and claw:
in Israel, by definition, unless you vote for a party which supports unreservedly the Palestinian “right of return” and the Hamas charter, you are simply an uber-nationalist racist.
I think that about sums up the BBC’s general standpoint. Apologies if I’ve been a bit too generous in my assessment of the BBC political line but the BBC is going through a bad time at the moment and I wouldn’t want to kick it while it’s down.
The comment preview is – again – hidden behind the “quote footer” at the foot of the page. With the best will in the world – and more strength and my sincere thanks to those who voluntarily administer this blog – the transfer of the site has been, if not a complete disaster, certainly unsatisfactory from the commenters’ (or anyway, this commenter’s) point of view. Moreover, the apparently complete loss of the comment threads of the old system has meant, at the very least, the disappearance of much irreplaceable information as well as a plethora of useful links
Jon Donnison has described a Salafist group as “conservative”, which nicely sanitizes Hamas by contrast.
A search for “Hamas conservative” comes up with this quote from a local journalist about how how Hamas was not going to turn Gaza more conservative because they’re really more focused on positive things like resisting Israel and fixing the economy. Otherwise, the BBC generally refers to them as “religiously conservative”. Do Israel’s factions get that same helpful qualifier?
Radio 4 PM – How interesting! BBC news programme revealing BBC programme makers still as sleazy as they were during Savile’s era! Highlighting & contrasting ’50 Shades of Grey’ to French classic ‘liberating’ pornography such as the evil works of Marquis De Sade. Incidentally much of which concerns paedophile abuse.
Marquis De Savile.
Leading Labour MP Jon Cruddas gets fined and banned for driving without insurance, and the BBC just reports it straight:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20102813
I’m so relieved he didn’t do something truly dreadful like get into a First Class train carriage and pay the upgrade – unconscionable behaviour!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20011736
In Beebworld, bad role-modelling trumps breaking the law heaps more.
Think… of the children!
‘A simple mistake. It was human error. He is very sorry.”
I’ll leave you to figure out where that quote came from, and was allowed to stand.
Unleash the Prescott!
Patten on standby in interference in case any questions dare to be asked.
Reports it straight, but with minimal fuss and tucks the story away on the ‘UK Politics’ page.
it’s on the uk-england-london page, go to the news (not there), UK news (not there) England (not there)…you would not see that Cruddas story unless you really, REALLY tried.
‘you would not see that Cruddas story unless you really, REALLY tried.’
So… an online complement to Evan Davis’ ‘We don’t won’t to go there’.
Interesting precedent.
I don’t want to pay the compelled licence fee, but unlike our BBC hypocrite service and its irony-free beneficiaries, I have no choice to opt out.
Currently.
No M.O.T. either, apparently. He’s either a) an arrogant sod who thinks he is above the law b) no different to the millions sponsored by Labour – lawless chavs and immigrants c) genuinely disoorganised and overlooked it. I’d favour 3 – sheer Labour minister incompetence.
I like how “Labour” is clumsily stuffed in as the first word of the headline, as if to rub it in critics’ noses. “See, we do mention their party when it’s Labour.”
Just listened to The News Quiz. I know, I know, What do I expect? However it seems that every week it is increasingly turning into the Thirty Minute Hate against The Daily Mail. It seems that BBC ‘comedy’ policy is to hurl abuse at mass market newspapers which compete successfully in an open market. Also, the smug, joking ‘credits’ of their own bloated chain of command seemed to misjudge the general mood regarding the Savile affair. I’m not sure they get it.
I heard it CityBlue and it was absolutely shocking.
I was about sexual abuse against children but oh, how the panel laughed.
Sadly the audience had a good laugh as well so it must have been filled with beeboids and lefties.
These victims lives are scarred forever but judging by the hysterical laughter of the panel that is only trivial.
It’s on again on R4 tomorrow at 13.00 if you can stomach it.
‘Thirty Minute Hate against The Daily Mail’
I think Danny Cohen is in process of commissioning Hat Trick to produce it.
Odd editorial selectivity, given..
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bbc-star-watched-as-his-friend-raped-1401755
I guess old habits are hard to shake.
“Obama refused CIA requests for military backup during Benghazi attack.'”
[Excerpt]:-
“The scandal just keeps getting bigger, while the mainstream media tries furiously to distract attention.”
from it.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/10/obama-refused-cia-requests-for-military-backup-during-benghazi-attack.html
BBC-Democrat black-out on this continues.
“Wow! The New York Times Tells the Truth on the Benghazi Blunder (PS Obama Is Losing).”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/10/26/wow-the-new-york-times-tells-the-truth-on-the-benghazi-blunder/?
don t know why this just came to mind … i just had to smile
ironically though it sums up
al bbc /obama … perfectly 😀
more
The BBC doesn’t give a damn. They don’t have to report it because it’s not front page news on the top papers or CNN (except for a link in the header to their Benghazi emails blog, there’s bupkis), and people like Jim Dandy and Nicked emus and Scott will defend them for it. Meanwhile, here’s what he BBC wants you to focus on:
US Econocmic growht up sharply
By way of rough comparison, that means the US grew by about 0.5% from the previous three months on a quarterly basis. During the same quarter, the UK grew by 1%,
Oops. Nasty Tory economy doing better than The Obamessiah? Good thing that was at the very end of the article, after all the good news about everything else, including housing is up and government spending is partially credited for the boost.
Mark Mardell: US economy key to White House job
The blurb: Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney keeps hammering away at the economy in his dying days of the election campaign, writes the BBC’s Mark Mardell.
In whose dying days? Stealth edit is on the way to send that Freudian slip down the memory hole. Mardell himself says that people aren’t feeling that the economy is doing well, even though it really is “moving in the right direction.” In other words, we’re not gonna let a few facts get in the way of how we feel. He’s wandering around a Romney event in Ohio, and doesn’t like what he’s seeing. We’re so stupid, aren’t we? We don’t deserve Him.
More importantly, getting a more prominent position on the home US & Canada (Who?) page: NY nanny suspected of double murder
Benghazi wasn’t a blunder. That implies human error. That some anonymous someone in Libya misread the signs or didn’t see them in the first place.
Benghazi was the inevitable result of Obama’s foreign policy built on ignoring all signs. It is a general failure based on an unrealistic view of the world coming from left-wing theory of anticolonialism. What it is not is a time-specific, location-specific, tighten the procedures for next time blunder.
‘Wow! The New York Times Tells the Truth’
No wonder the publisher is so keen to install the ex-BBC DG.
Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.
For those who want the BBC scrapped, here is the website:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/40667
Good work. Those 3 signatures should make all the difference. And the 337 you managed last time really showed how you represent the popular mood.
PS I think you mean ‘its’. And ‘compulsory’.
Another one? Somebody definitely put the word out to the Justice League.
Personally I think good spelling and grammar are paramount, though kind of unnecessary if powers who need holding to account can arrange that questions don’t even get asked, much less moving to be dismissed by default.
Being popular is so much easier if you ensure no other views even get heard.
Their style betrays their IDs behind that proxy server!
I just want to know how these people keep finding out about this site. It’s certainly not from googling “BBC left-wing bias” or seeing the link from Guido or Daniel Hannan’s Telegraph blog.
Actually, I read both those sites and came here via comments on Guido’s, hoping that the standard of discussion would be a bit more elevated. But it isn’t. I’ll stick to the Spectator and leave you lot to your small-minded Little Englander moaning.
Smart move now fuck off!
Thanks. Congratulations on your banter, this really is the most welcoming place on the web.
Thanks for the response, 442. Nobody’s ever answered that before. So you did come to fight the good fight, then.
‘Little Englander’. Please do explain before you run off like some kid who gets his kicks from ringing old ladies’ doorbells.
“the 337 you managed last time really showed how you represent the popular mood.”
Yes, people love the way the Leftist BBC abuses its power so much they are not even asked if they want to pay for it.
It is a bit like the people’s republic where the ruling Party gets 100% of the vote at each election because nobody is actually asked if they want to vote.
ooo errrrr….mrs !
Pedants corner huh?
or pedants’ corner?
or pedant’s corner?
(that’s enough!…..Ed)
Signed it although I’ve previously told them to stick their licence fee demands up where the sun don’t shine.
Ho said the BBC had no sense of humor or irony..
That’ll be that ‘watertight oversight’ again…
The production assistant who handed that to her is going to be joining Rippon in the sin bin.
Anybody else taken in by what the BBC is doing right now with it’s supposed ‘exposee on itself’ re the Savile scandal?
It seems to have fooled Ron Liddle at The Spectator,
Bullets over the Beeb
which surprises me, as I thought he was more Savvy (no pun intended) than that.
For the record BBC doesn’t stand for Breast Beating Contrition.
It does however stand for Breast Beating Conmen
Just imagine if it would have been Sky that nurtured and enabled the scum Savile for so many years, while at best ‘averting their gaze – wink, wink nod nod’.
And if would have been Sky that cancelled a report that would have drawn attention to this scandal, and highlighted their internal twisted culture that allows this kind of thing to go on.
I wonder what sort of questions the BBC would be asking at every available slot, and what sort of focus they would be trying to attain?
Maybe Ron Liddle thinks the BBC should just get on with ‘business as usual’. They certainly don’t fool me with their attempt to make themselves appear truly repentant, open and honest, especially using it as a diversionary tactic that fails to focus on or reveal just where this internal culture has altered in any way – and what led to that change.
They can’t – because it hasn’t!
In just the same way as Thompson admitting a ‘massive left-wing bias’ at the BBC 30 years ago, but avoiding saying just where and how was this addressed – because it wasn’t.
Rotten to the core and needs to be cast out. Anybody who really believes that what the BBC is doing right now is falling on their sword is delusional or just taken in by their act following getting caught out.
I’m quite a fan of Rod Liddle too – a sort of common sense Leftie, if that isn’t an oxymoron.
Still, I think when the chips are down he will come out fighting for the BBC, and I suspect he thinks the chips are well and truly down with this one. He’s worried.
For all their ‘breast beating’, I don’t see the BBC highlighting this video on their website
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPxs-MynWaU?feature=player_embedded&w=640&h=360%5D
showing Savile abusing a young girl while on Top of the Pops, and the cameraman panning in to cut her out of the frame once he realises what’s going on.
Now if it would have been a Sky programme that it would have happened on….
When the BBC start highlighting their complicity, and show that it is still continuing today in one form or the other, that’s when I might start to believe that they’re ‘stabbing themselves with their own penises’.
In the meantime, it is up to us to stab to them to death, and with our pens, not penises.
The bBC, Islamic victims and how the Jews did it.
Sudan arms factory blast: Khartoum to report Israel to UN
Sudan has said it intends to complain to the UN over an explosion at an arms factory that it claims was caused by an Israeli air strike…BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Marcus says the factory is thought to have manufactured rockets and other munitions for Iran to transfer weapons to Hamas by an overland route….There is much that we don’t know about the alleged Israeli air strike on the Khartoum factory. Indeed there may be much that we may never know. Short of an Israeli admission, which is unlikely, or some hard physical evidence like fragments of munitions that can be identified, it may be impossible to say with any certainty that Israel was involved. But the balance of probability suggests that Sudan’s claims should be taken seriously. The Sudan raid appears to be yet another episode in the shadowy war being waged by Israel and Iran over arms supplies to Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
This article has been bugging me for a few days now. Initially I was working on how the IDF flew 4 jets from inside Israel down to Sudan without getting picked up on Radar. You see Eygpt lies to the West and they not only have Radar which looks deep into Israel, but they have the Jets and missiles to attack anything which flies into their airspace from inside Israel having watched them take off. So this would point to flying over the sea, but Saudi Arabia and Jordan border that region and they not only have first rate radars. But the Jets to look up things. Not only that but Arab Radio chatter would soon expose anything flying above.
The distance from Israel to the arms factory inside Sudan is twice the distance of the F16i and F15i. Not a problem with drop tanks or infight refuelling, however both those options result in a big radar picture.
But here’s what’s been bugging me. The resulting explosion killed 2 people. Now when arms dumps and factories around the world go bang they end up killing lots of people. Congo 2012 =200/Turkey 2012 grenade depot=25/Iran 2011=17/ Syrian arms dump 2007=30+
All those were accidents without warming and they killed lots of people caught by surprise, Yet an airstrike by 4 aircraft on an arms factory killed…2 people. Really, because lets be honest if I wanted to take out an arms dump I would use High Explosive bombs and a 1000Lb bombs blast can be felt from a mile away (I know ) So you would have expected the death count to be a lot more. But say there was a fire at the plant which caught and the place was evacuated the death toll would be a lot less like which transpired in Pakistan last year which killed 1, the huge explosion in Russia this year which killed nobody. and which would explain this statement from the governor of Khartoum state:
“The governor of Khartoum state Abdel Rahman Al-Khidir had initially ruled out any “external” reasons for the blast
As for people hearing a jet (err the arms factory lies 2 miles directly south of the bloody airport) and a quick check show 7 planes landing and 2 arriving from Midnight to 1.
Gee I wonder why the bBC’s so called Defence expert doesn’t mention any of this. Instead he parrots the anti-Semantic line of..The Jews did it.
Really?
The bBC, the traitors in our Midst
and how the African Media reported the above story when it first broke:
Sudan military facilities strike by Explosion and fire
A fire broke out following an explosion where military facilities are located, in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum.
The Sudanese local media says that flames spread to nearby buildings causing panic among local residents. Khartoum governor Abdul Rahman al-Khidir told state media that the area was surrounded by fire at midnight. He also says that there are losses in the building and the authorities are investigating the cause but no-one had died though some people had suffered smoke inhalation. A preliminary investigation says the explosion happened in a store room says Mr Khidir.
It’s the A.O. BBC playing up to it’s target audience.
Isn’t the president of Sudan wanted in the Hague for crimes against humanity relating to the genocide in Darfur?
Or did the b-bbc forget to mention it.
This has been bugging me, too, since a few days ago when I saw a brief mention of this on the News Channel, when some talking head said that it was most likely that Israel was responsible because Sudan had previously accused of them of doing things like this.
How the bbC defends Islamic terrorism
Lebanon’s Hezbollah drawn into Syria conflict
Southern Lebanon is very much Hezbollah country.
The highly-organised Shia organisation garners much of its domestic support from the traditional villages in this hilly region. It runs schools, hospitals and local politics in these parts, not to mention being famed for its military prowess.
Large posters of Hezbollah fighters killed in the 2006 conflict with Israel are scattered around the town of Nabatiya. There are also plenty of images of Bashar al-Assad, president of neighbouring Syria and a key ally of Hezbollah in the complicated, often sectarian world of Middle Eastern politics.
Helping refugees
While reaffirming his support and backing for the government in Damascus, Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah recently denied reports that his organisation’s members were fighting alongside the Syrian military.On a short tour of the town we met two families who had been given considerable support by Hezbollah since making the arduous journey from Syria. One young mother from Homs had given birth – by caesarean section – just days after arriving in Nabatiya. The cost of the operation, post-natal medical care and food for the child had all been taken care of by the group.
The above is how the bBC opens up its news article on reports that Hezb-allah has sided with the Syrian regime.
Hey people look at all the good work that Hezballah is doing and by the way what can we do if our members angry at seeing people forced from their homes go to help them
and here is the Independent version:
Hezbollah crosses Syrian border with bloody assault on Assad’s enemies
It is a fortnight since Amr Al Ali was smuggled unconscious over the border to Lebanon, with a graze to his lips from a ricocheting bullet and deep wounds in his legs and hands after an exploding rocket turned a breeze-block wall in front of him into concrete shrapnel.
Yet the Free Syrian Army fighter says his enemy was not President Bashar al-Assad’s soldiers, but militants from the armed wing of the Shia movement Hezbollah, a long-standing ally of Iran and the Syrian regime.
Rebel fighters and fleeing residents have told The Independent that Hezbollah began a major assault on the Syrian side of the border in mid-October, after the FSA tried but failed to take control of border villages and crossing points. At night Katyusha rockets fired from Hezbollah positions in the Hermel area rain down on rebel positions over the border, they claim.
“Everyone knows they have fighters there,” said the bearded 23-year-old Syrian, from the temporary sanctuary of an old agricultural outbuilding perched over the Lebanese town of Aarsal, a few kilometres from the border. However, he said the situation had changed in recent weeks as even more militants began to flow in.
Evidence shows that Hezbollah is sending ever more fighters across the border to back the Syrian regime. Its supporters have thronged to the Bekaa valley for funerals of militants – including that of a senior commander whom Hezbollah said died on “jihadist duties”, without specifying where.
The bBC, the mouth piece for Islamic terrorists the world over
And Obamas representative was in Dublin yesterday calling on Europe to class Hizbollah as an illegal terrorist organisation.
You see, the beeb can change it’s allegiances when it suits them as long as they promote the eradication of Israel and the genocide of the Jewish people.
I will bless those who bless you,
And I will curse him who curses you;
And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
Genesis 12 3
What god will do when it comes to Israel and the Jews.
And the BBC was worried about Abu Hook’s human rights getting trampled if he was extradited to the US…..
Indicted Imam to receive new prosthetics in U.S. jail
Hamza’s lawyer, Jeremy Schneider, told reporters outside the courtroom his client would have his prosthetics changed on Tuesday. Schneider said the prosthetics he is allowed to wear, only inside the maximum security jail cell where he is being held, cause pain and irritation on his skin.
Oh, the humanity!
Heard the presenter on Sky News describe the people who shot that young Pak girl in the head as fundamentalist nutters.
Something you would never ever hear on BBC.
1. The droids don’t consider these people as nutters.
2. Or ‘fundamentalist’
3. Rather the droids think these people are freedom fighters and heroes of the revolution.
4. Nice
5, You’re paying for it.
Plus their poetry is oh so nice.
The media have handled this case as cravenly and as selfishly as ever.
Poor kid was nearly murdered by Islamic psychos…yet somehow we`re supposed to appreciate their poetry, and give them a berth at some peace talks sometime in the future.
These girl killers are not to be “engaged” by British soldiers out there either….the usual “let them fight with one hand behind their backs” crap so beloved of liberals that play toy soldiers from Brussels.
Apparently the girl requested text books to be brought to her by her dad..and the media think that THIS is the only response that`ll put a chill up the Taliban?
Despicable that the media are happy to keep using the kid and her family as bait for the AfPak pyschos, when they sure as hell will never again have to go back and put their lives on the line unlike the girl and her family.
Cheap gestures that puff up the media-as if the BBC didn`t “enrage local sensibilities” by having her blogging the rest of us for their amusement.
If the BBC must have interns in the front line-let THEM pay them, or else its “Savilating them”-or abusing kids in my lingo.
That we`re prepared to sacrifice families like hers, so we get a cheap gesture of empty defiance to sickos with Stanley knives just shows the Dowler mentality of the BBC…they and Savile just do their abuses in different ways in the end.
I’m not sure I’d agree with your point 3, I think they just see The Taliban and Al Qaeda as some tiny minority lunatic fringe not worth worrying our little heads about and nothing at all to do with ‘the religion of peace’. (Though their programme on Taliban poetry referred to below by Marcus was straight out of their hug-an-Islamonutter/Obama handbook.)
LIBYA.
‘RT’ report:
“‘Death and destruction in Bani Walid’ as media silent.”
http://rt.com/news/bani-walid-syria-militias-genocide-258/
Al-Beeb showing their bias toward Islam as always, this time reporting on “restive” coastal Burma. They don’t very much like their Islamic interlopers there, and in the latest violence, Al-Beeb tells us the “victims were Muslims targetted by non-muslims”
Now, this is factually correct – thank you very much – but do we get this clarity when it’s the other way around, and Muslims are killing non-muslims? Not that I’ve heard or seen. It’s “people” being killed by “militants” or “unknown attackers”. Always.
news 24 dedicated around 5 or so minutes as the second item in the bulletin to reports about the situation in Burma. They had managed to find some before and after satelite photos of the area in question which clearly shows that the buildings have now been destroyed. They didn’t say as far as I recall, who was responsible for the destruction.
And yes they identified the destroyed area as a muslim enclave in which the small minority population suffer dreadful persecution. ( think it was maxine mawhinney reading in studio).
I truly look forward to the newsteam despatching a team to get some on the ground shots and investigate just who was responsible, although they did say in the report access is denied to them.
I have to admit the persection of resident minorities within otherwise monotheistic area made me think again about the Muslim faith and it’s attitude to what they call dhimmis.
I therefore look forward to hearing about such things as the actions of groups like boko haram etc in future INBBC output, to show some balance.
And before anyone groans “oh not he’s whining about muslims again” this is about BIASED BBC coverage OK?
Let’s have some balance guys?
Plus the word dhimmi is VERY relevant to this comment.
Maybe that can of ‘Beck’s’ has gone to my head, but I don’t understand what you’re saying.
My apologies Zemplar. There were way too many uncorrected typos in that observation above. It was intended to reinforce what you had said. I saw the article on News 24 about that region in Burma (or is it Myanmar these days?)
The same area to which you referred I believe.
It was intended to compare attitudes to minorities in other groups, and particularly Islamic attitudes (IE dhimmitude). I felt that in this case the word dhimmi to be central to the issues raised, even tho’ folk on here have been rather critical of my overuse of the term, so I tend to use it less often than I used to.
I hope you enjoyed the Becks!
I’ve seen the carnage the Muslims done in southern Thailand. Entire villages burnt to the ground. Every man, woman and child butchered for the sole reason that they refused to submit to the cult of Islam.
Buddhism is a peaceful religion but enough is enough. Well done to the Buddhists for taking a stand.
If only the clergy in this country would do the same instead of crawling on their bellies trying to appease them.
Most of the Clery in this country now are atheists who think the bible is full of fairy stories.
Benghazi-Obama-Turkey-Syria-Al Qaeda:-
‘Fox News’, not INBBC:
“Was Syrian weapons shipment factor in ambassador’s Benghazi visit?”
By Catherine Herridge, Pamela Browne.
(inc video).
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/25/was-syrian-weapons-shipment-factor-in-ambassadors-benghazi-visit/
Well the BBC has excelled itself this week. I’ve heard everything from the assertion that our elected representatives ought to keep their noses out of internal BBC affairs to resassurance that the DG had nothing to answer for to the classic ‘the BBC was groomed by Savile’.
They really are the ultimate pillocks of the left-wing establishment.
Bizarre Yasser Arafat love from the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20094375
“The West Bank’s most impressive Yasser Arafat lookalike
By Jon Donnison BBC News, Ramallah”
“Decked out in green military fatigues and his trademark chequered black and white headscarf, Chairman Arafat saunters through the crowds pausing occasionally to admire the cherry tomatoes or a nice looking melon.”
You couldn’t make it up, anyone?
Ah, Yasser. The butcher of countless innocent men women and children who croaked with a personal fortune of $2.4 billion whilst the beeb was having us believe that residents of Gaza were starving to death in a concentration camp.
“HOW IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA COVERING FRIDAY’S MAJOR LIBYA NEWS? ”
WE CHECKED, AND IT MIGHT DEPRESS YOU.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/how-is-the-mainstream-media-covering-fridays-major-libya-news-we-checked-and-it-might-depress-you/
And, of course, BBC-Democrat is silent on Libya too.
And:
“Sandy downgraded from hurricane to tropical storm”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/10/27/hurricane-sandy-downgraded.html
You have to take your hat off to the BBC.
Decades of propagating left-liberal self-loathing has certainly taken deep root in the English psyche.
For example the BBC put up an agit prop piece pushing the idea that Scots living south of the border ought to get a vote in the SNP referendum.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20048521
And just look at this comment which the debate elicits….
“I am English and have lived in Scotland for 16 years. I will not be voting on the question of independence for Scotland, because I feel, being English it is not my place to decide for the Scottish people if they want independence or not.”
[Richard B, Roslin, Midlothian]
Excuse me while smash my Diamond Jubilee tea mug on the way to the garden shed, where I syphon off the lawnmower fuel and self-immolate in a pile of autumn leaves in recompence for the crime of being English.
BBC: Job done.
Being left-wing or liberal in 2012 is a mental disorder.
The time will come when in parts of England the English won’t qualify for a vote because they are a cultural minority with outdated laws and values.
Yay, racism!
Thanks for your timely Dandyesque intervention, David – you have prevented a tsunami of xenophobic posts from the Little Englanders who inhabit this website, including my humble self.
You win today’s scottnickdez award for services to Multicultural Harmony and English Self-Hatred.
A change of that magnitude affects us all,so we should all have a vote. (I am half English half Scottish living in England with no vote)
What a pity it is that BBC management can’t recall which of them it was who gave the order that the Savile Newsnight report must be shelved.
Never mind. Plenty of licence payer cash is sloshing about – so the Beeb have shipped in Nick Pollard ‘of Sky News’ to help remind BBC management of some of the stuff that they forgot (or don’t wish to own up to).
I do hope the evidence is there because quite obviously those involved at first hand haven’t a clue. Well be fair, it was a whole year ago.
Perhaps they ought to have got in Channel 4’s Tony Robinson and his Time Team.
I understand his experts travel the country to investigate a wide range of archaeological sites of historical importance….
And they sometimes get the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to dig in hallowed grounds. They don’t hang around either – just 3 days to do it!
Its day one and Phil (that westcountry bloke with a feather in his hat) might be digging deep into the email trail – what a shame he would be unlikely to find much. The records will have disintegrated over time and in anycase not every conversation is commited to writing. If only these old Beeboid bones could speak to us. What a story they might tell.
The BBC would like to know our views on its proposed changes to its ‘purpose remits’.
They suggest changing from their current
You can trust the BBC to provide high-quality news, current affairs and factual programming that keeps you informed and supports debate about important issues and political developments in an engaging way.You can look to the BBC for help in using and understanding different kinds of media.
to
The Charter and Agreement note the importance of sustaining citizenship through the enrichment of the public realm and obliges the Trust to ensure that the BBC ‘gives information about, and increases understanding of, the world through accurate and impartial news, other information, and analysis of current events and ideas.’ In doing so, the Trust is obliged to ‘have regard to the need to promote understanding of the UK political system (including Parliament and the devolved structures) including through dedicated coverage of Parliamentary matters, and the need for the Purpose Remit to ensure that the BBC transmits an impartial account day by day of the proceedings in both Houses of Parliament.’ The Trust is also obliged to have regard to ‘the need to promote media literacy’, and the importance of sustaining citizenship through the enrichment of the public realm.
No, I don’t know what it means, either.
” No, I don’t know what it means, either.”
I do, it’s called bullshit.
The Charter and Agreement note the importance of sustaining citizenship through the enrichment of the public realm and obliges the Trust to ensure that the BBC ‘gives information about, and increases understanding of, the world through accurate and impartial news, other information, and analysis of current events and ideas.’
So the US bureau is in blatant violation, then. Well, okay, they do provide plenty of “other information and analysis”. Which is also the problem.
Sustaining(prolonging) citizenship(nationality) through the enrichment(concentration) of the public(peoples) realm(kingdom).
or
Prolonging nationality through the concentration of the peoples kingdom
I think it could be from a humanist chant recited at BBC Trust meetings.
A way of confirming that all BBC Trust members are left wing guardianista/humanist types.
‘…the importance of sustaining citizenship through the enrichment of the public realm’.
Deluded, arrogant, Orwellian.
On the topic of ex-DG Mark Thompson taking over the NY Times, and seeing as how so many of us have joked that he’ll fit right in, I give you this from last year that I just stumbled across on Iain Dale’s blog:
Many of us have long suspected that the BBC gets its editorial line from The Guardian and vice-versa. The third part of this unholy trinity is The New York Times. For one to undermine any of the two others is sacrilege. And yet that is what happened yesterday.
In my article critiquing Warren Buffett’s latest demand for the rich to pay more tax, I mentioned that the BBC had described The New York Times as “left-leaning”.
Imagine my surprise, therefore, when I reviewed the link to the BBC article in question only to find that the words “left-leaning” had been removed from the start of paragraph two – airbrushed from history at the behest of a left-liberal editor who must have suffered a fit of the vapours when the cat was let out of the bag in this way.
The cached version Blaney links to has been overwritten by a more recent version, after the stealth edit. But here’s proof from a site that fortunately for us copied and pasted the full text.
I know it’s not even remotely possible, but it’s fun to imagine that Thompson pointed to this as an example of his qualifications for the job.
Damian Thompson, ‘Telegraph blog’, talking about the political ‘left’, the National Council of Civil Liberties, and incest in the 1970s:-
“Incest – a favoured cause of old Lefties”
[Excerpt]:-
“NCCL is now better known as Liberty and run by Shami Chakrabarti, Chancellor of Oxford Brookes University and secular saint of the Guardian/BBC conglomerate. I’d be interested in her take on this chapter in her organisation’s history. Has anybody thought to ask her? She likes to talk.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100186741/incest-a-favoured-cause-of-old-lefties/
Imran Khan.
Of course, INBBC has a political liking for Khan because he opposes American foreign policy, and he has political sympathy for ‘militants’, aka:- Islamic jihad Taliban.
So we get this friendly INBBC political plug for him today:
“Pakistan’s Imran Khan says US questioned him on drones”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20108232
A recent enlightened view on Imran Khan:-
“Imran Khan, knowingly or unknowingly ‘Taliban’ Khan”
By Ibrahim Pataudi.
[Excerpt]:-
“Imran Khan is guilty of one of two things. He is either guilty of deliberately and knowingly legitimising the Pakistani Taliban as a political force for what he perceives to be his own populist gain, or he is guilty of colossal naivety and unintelligibility.”
http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/14206/imran-khan-knowingly-or-unknowingly-taliban-khan/
Bill O’Reilly, ‘Fox News’:-
“O’REILLY GOES OFF ON BRIAN WILLIAMS, MEDIA FOR LETTING OBAMA OFF THE HOOK WITH BENGHAZI:
‘NO ONE WILL ASK HIM.’”
(Six min video; scroll down)-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/oreilly-goes-off-on-brian-williams-media-for-letting-obama-off-the-hook-with-benghazi-no-one-will-ask-him/
Maybe Paxo can ask him?
No?
It’s fallen to local news reporters to ask the tough questions these days. And the President can’t even answer them.
The media knows they can help the President run out the clock on this issue. That way it can’t hurt Him enough to enable Romney’s surge to get over the top.
“The game changer.”
By Melanie Phillips.
http://melaniephillips.com/the-game-changer
interesting as always from ms phillips,
about whose reporting what? …
which brings us to just what? … is the al bbc reporting over these 100s of different reports, getting to be THE growing publicity issue this near to
election …
talking of al bbc reports …. where is the report on this …. seeing as they love to report that the EDL is being stigmatised by the forces of the law
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/darkness_descending_in_england.html
whether you agree with their protests or not, it is patently obvious that the EDL are being denied a/. their right to protest and b/. to free and open speech.
They are also labelled fascists by the (fascist ?) leftists who can protest where and whenever they like with full police protection.
it appears mr weston of the burgeoning brit freedom party, was also arrested? …. whether you like mr lennon or not, agree with him or not … this is an atrocious situation, and only shows have far the integrity of our political society, and indeed their “tools” (the police) has fallen.
“Update BF/EDL Arrests”
Posted by: Paul Weston.
http://britishfreedom.org/update-bfedl-arrests/
noggin,
“talking of al bbc reports …. where is the report on this”,
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/darkness_descending_in_england.html
Here:
http://bit.ly/Srjlqi
Was that really too difficult?
“Lord Patten is the last man I’d choose to clean up the BBC”
By Christopher Booker.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9637484/Lord-Patten-is-the-last-man-Id-choose-to-clean-up-the-BBC.html
‘one of this elite’s most alarming traits has been the contempt they show for the BBC’s legal duty, under its Charter, to report on the world with “due accuracy and impartiality”. ‘
Hence making Patten the perfect choice in terms of conflict of interest to ‘oversee’ the BBC informational and educational ‘output’ on our behalf.
Is this being reported anywhere in the UK?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/darkness_descending_in_england.html
“The arrest of over 53 people in the United Kingdom is the beginning of the end for once-great Britain. The leaders of the English Defence League (EDL), Tommy Robinson and Kevin Carroll, were among those arrested, as well as Paul Weston of the British Freedom Party (BFP).”
Is there a D-notice on it?
If so, that wouldn’t prevent the BBC from reporting that the arrests took place, would it? Actually, one would have thought that the BBC would be eager to show that Thompson et al allegedly did something illegal. I mean, think of the Breivik mileage they could have gotten out of it. Maybe even the Beeboids know that this is probably trumped up crap. Alternatively, they seriously don’t want to do anything that could even remotely be considered siding with the Tories cracking down on people unapproved thoughts, especially if it makes them appear sympathetic towards minorities. Somebody made a decision to leave this alone, and it would be interesting to learn why. There could be a valid reason, I’d just like to learn what it is.
Span Ows,
“Is this being reported anywhere in the UK?”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/darkness_descending_in_england.html
Here:
http://bit.ly/Srjlqi
Was that really too difficult?
“Bitter infighting sweeps the BBC”
By PAUL CAHALAN, JONATHAN OWEN.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/bitter-infighting-sweeps-the-bbc-8229384.html
But one senior broadcasting figure responded: “I think, to all these people who say ‘I suspected he was up to no good’, my question is: what did they do about it? If you know somebody is doing something bad and you don’t help to identify that, then you are complicit in the further harm that individual causes.”
I suspect that self-preservation is going to keep a lot of people silent, so much so that not much is ever going to be revealed in the looming investigations.
Spot on. As we saw from the Labour government, Lefties will go to any lengths to save their own skins. The most odious examples that immediately spring to mind:
– ‘Outing’ David Kelly.
– Smearing the old lady who was stuck on a trolley in an NHS hospital for hours on end as a ‘racist’.
And of course the most common one – blame someone junior to yourself.
And then there’s the ‘good day to bury bad news’.
Etc., etc.
Mr. Thompson’s Sunday may be less than comfortable, belief-wise, if he reads the Sunday Times.
Meanwhile, in other news..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2224199/Can-REALLY-inside-smug-BBC-knew-psychopath-doing-Chairman-Lord-Patten-questions-corporation-represents.html @MailOnline Chairman questions the corporation he represents.
Nice, considering he just warned all others off asking any.
I reckon someone has had a word with him and told him he’s in big trouble.
Yes, late in the day, part-time ‘Trust’ man, PATTEN, attempts to distance himself from BBC’s ethics.
‘“Bitter infighting sweeps the BBC”
These right wing rags appear to be disinclined to let go.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/bbc-bosses-should-be-ashamed-8229274.html
I have just read this paragraph in the Independent twice…does it really say
“She had told Mr Rippon, Mr Entwistle added, that “just because Jimmy Savile was dead, it didn’t mean there could be any skimping in journalistic standards”. Journalists on the original Newsnight investigation interpreted this as a signal to Mr Rippon to kill the story because “Boaden placed an impossibly high barrier”.
So not skimping on journalistic standards is an impossibly high barrier? Explains all BBC reporting.
Gallup: Obama’s Job Approval Drops 7 Points in 3 Days
Oh, my. Anyone think maybe there’s something the BBC hasn’t been reporting? Over to you, professional journalists who like to defend the indefensible.
Good article here at Takimag about the end of the BBC… though a bit extreme for me:
http://takimag.com/article/in_defense_of_english_civilization_sean_gabb#axzz2AW2h1hBf
One para:
[b]
On the first day of our government of conservatives, we should close down the BBC. We should take it off the air. We should disclaim its copyrights. We should throw all its staff into the street and cancel their pensions. We should not try to privatize the BBC. This would simply be to transfer the voice of our enemy from the public to the private sector, where it might be more effective in its opposition. We must shut it down—and shut it down at once.
[/b]
OT to the extent it’s based on what I just saw on SKY, but where the liberal MSM goes in the ME, the BBC usually overtakes.
Their Alex Crawford ‘reports’ that because West didn’t arm those peaceful Syrian jihadis in time, they’ve become ‘radicalised’ (code for barking mad pyschotic blood-crazies) our enemies too… now. Uh-huh.
The whole Taliban thing worked sooo well.
Gone native much love?
Oh, and as an aside, if anyone knows where 3 missing anti-tank mines are, that would be just super.
Doesn’t such ordnance not being in the correct hands warrant a bit more concern?
http://www.channel4.com/news/anti-tank-mines-stolen-from-freight-train
The thing that astonished me was that these were on a train unguarded. Not even alarmed.
If that’s the case I’m off down the sidings to pick up a Polaris or two …
Ah yes, it’s our fault for not arming them of course.
Just as it’s our fault that locking up gang leaders allowed other leaders to emerge into the vacuum. And if they were worse than the previous lot, well that’s all our fault too huh?
announcement from some “think tank”.
Someone’s making a wonderful living making up this crap, and the INBBC peddles it like it’s the gospel!
To be fair, SKY was trotting out this logic-lite BS too.
‘Don’t bang up evil crims… the next batch might be… er… evil crims’?
Then again, I don’t have to pay ’em, and when I write to remind them of this they seem to adopt a less Pattenronising attitude given that if their service attitude slips they end up a bit poorer by me exercising free choice.
Following the shocking revelation that the NYT has come out for Obama, they must be desperate to get a guy in charge who will restore their journalistic integrity…
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/newsuknewssavileinquiry/article1156803.ece
The NY Times is unconcerned about their integrity. They believe they’re getting it about right. And they’ve already cleared Thomspon of any wrongdoing. The NY Times is in desperate need of new revenue, and that’s what Thompson is there for. As much damage as he did to the BBC’s internal culture and journalism, he did manage to bring in loads of evil profits from new revenue streams. That’s all they care about at 40th St. & 8th Ave.
The only way he’ll lose that job is if if looks like he’ll get indicted on this Savile deal or is found in bed with the cliché dead woman or live boy.
‘The only way he’ll lose that job is if if looks like he’ll get indicted on this Savile deal or is found in bed with the cliché dead woman or live boy.’
Hate to quibble, but while the indictment or dead woman may do it…
In the light of teh current Savile scandal and the questioning of the “climate and culture” of the BBC in the 1960’s and 1970s, perhaps it is worth rereading an interview published by the Daily Mail on 111 May 2012 with ex Play School presenter Rick Jones.
What may have seemed a laugh the now looks a lot more sordid now.
An edited extract :
Play School presenter, Johnny Ball, has said that Rick Jones and their colleague Lionel Morton went on air ‘stoned out of their minds’ after smoking cannabis. Other former Beeb stalwarts suggest that in the supposedly golden era of British broadcasting, the HQ was a hotbed of illicit sex and alcohol excess. Jones admits he used the dressing rooms to bed women — and so did many, many others
He also recalls returning to Television Centre on one occasion in a trio of chauffeur-driven cars: ‘I tumbled out of my limo, obviously having been in flagrante delicto with whoever the girl presenter was. I looked back and another presenter was doing exactly the same from his car — this time with a guy. And the same was happening in the car behind that, too.’
Jones said of Blue Peter stalwart Peter Purves, “was probably worse than me, probably worse even than Lionel”. David Attenborough, then the BBC2 controller, would complain that parts of TV Centre reeked of cannabis fumes in those days. Were drugs as rife in other parts of the BBC Jones was asked ?
‘I knew a couple of people in the features department who were always stoned but I can’t remember their names. The bosses turned a blind eye to it. ‘My guess is that was because they were doing it themselves. It was cultural”.
Despite this “tolerant culture”, drugs finally prompted Jones’s sacking from Play School in 1973, after an encounter with a dope-smoking groupie. The head of Play School, Cynthia Felgate summoned Jones in and told me: “Not at the BBC, Rick.” She was old-school”
Hows about that then guys and gals
Mr. Bacon’s role models.
When was the last time Macaulay Culkin showed you the daily star in his review of sunday papers front pages?
Hard to remember huh?
Well, he did this morning, and guess what, they managed to link paedos and thatcher! What a surprise.
Catching up on BBC Editor’s blogs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-20105881
Sadly this one is closed, but still amused given the headline as he Humbert Humberts his way around the anger and protest community…
‘The British author Laurie Penny has captured the situation in a recent memoir of a trip to Athens’
Not all this nubile ‘author’ has captured?
Only on Marr could macaulay culkin move from talking about the problems over savile, to the harriden harperson, and then move seamlessly to Leveson and not make any link to Leveson and the BBC.
I didn’t see all the interview, so obviously i missed the bit where macaulay asked her about her time at NCCL in the 70’s. Damn, I wonder what her answer was?
Quaint..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9638680/Jimmy-Savile-investigation-BBCs-reputation-on-the-line.html
‘The BBC chairman said the two independent inquiries that have been set up – one into the Newsnight report, the other into the BBC’s culture and practices in the years Savile worked there – must get to the truth of what happened.’
One by an ex-Beeboid he appointed, that no one thought to mention.
ps: the risk of losing public trust is long passed, matey
bbc SML savile — blunkett is “so glad we are debating children not the bbc, its turned into a bit of a witchunt”
…. hmmm i BET … you are 😀 on SML anyway dave.
oh and “look at me”uber-mouth m hasan is suddenly very subdued 😀 …
how strange, as he then leaps to life to be first off the mark, to “drone” 😀 on about drone strikes
usual pap … off switch …………….. click!
I`m not happy about the “detention of a man in his 60s”…the coy and prurient arrest of Gary Glitter, as smugly described by both the Beeb and the Met.
How come it`s not OK to list a bunch of Muslim sex groomers (and after conviction, they STILL don`t always name them!)…or not to name the white van nutter killing everybody in his sights in Cardiff for days after arrest?
You know something?…I`d not be surprised if the BBC and the Met have run up a banner that allows their chums to get that long-arranged 60s/70s revival tour of Uzbekistan organised…or return to search out that plectrum they dropped back in Varna, 1975.
I smell a rat-Glitter is the most obvious of the low-hanging fruit; and the Leveson protocols may well be in operation here….as the likes of Mitchell and Glitter are fair game, the creeps higher up in the BBC have been given due warning to get out of Heathrow pronto.
It`s just a hunch-but really hope that emigration is noting the names of all BBC types, DJs and “pop stars” of old that suddenly have had their warning via the obvious showy arrest of Glitter.
Leveson able to tell why some leaks are “more appropriate” than others?…the BBC won`t be asking if we don`t.
I despise the BBC and the Met for knocking along the prison pipes to give each other the nod, if this is what is going on….who can trust them at the moment?
Funny that the media were camped outside his flat at 7am?
an odd thing or perhaps a tipoff?
what? … is the al bbc reporting over these 100s of different reports, from Benghazi and the Obama admins complicity/ denial, its getting to be THE growing publicity issue this near to the election …
and talking of al bbc reports …. where is the report on this …. seeing as they love to report that the EDL is being stigmatised by the forces of the law
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/darkness_descending_in_england.html
whether you agree with their protests or not, it is patently obvious that the EDL are being denied a/. their right to protest and b/. to free and open speech.
They are also labelled fascists by the (fascist ?) leftists who can protest where and whenever they like with full police protection.
it appears mr weston of the burgeoning brit freedom party, was also arrested? …. whether you like mr lennon or not, agree with him or not … this is an atrocious situation, and only shows have far the integrity of our political society, and indeed their “tools” (the police) has fallen.
When was the last time those of the extreme left were rounded up and banged away to stop them demonstrating?
When was the last time extreme Islamists were rounded up and banged away to stop them demonstrating?
Little wonder there is so much resentment and division in this country, aided and abetted every step of the way by our impartial public broadcaster.
Exactly.
The U.K political class (inc Labour Party,
Lib Dems, Tories), together with their allies
‘left’ media (inc INBBC), enforce the Islamic political agenda of criminalising and prohibiting criticism of Islam.
EDL-
“Tommy On Remand”
http://englishdefenceleague.org/edl-news-2/1813-tommy-on-remand
Interesting stuff re Beeb history, the latter-day attitude towards underage sex, Savile etc. (hat-tip Wendi)
http://www.lrb.co.uk/2012/10/27/andrew-ohagan/light-entertainment
I hope the book gets published! I recently read the following article below that mentions again the story of room 106 at the BBC and the activities of MI5 Liason Officers as well as the celebrated figures of Brigadier Ronald Stonham and Christopher Martin, etc. It was well known that they “vetted” BBC staff, I just wonder if in any future enquiry will get to look at the files, or will all of this be conveniently ignored, and the subject of the BBC Stasi forgotten? Savile’s hobnobbing with the royals never raised an eyebrow, or a pencil?
Her Majesty’s BBC Saville Cesspit – MI5 ‘ll Fix It
http://irelandyoutube.blogspot.de/2012/10/her-majestys-bbc-saville-cesspit-mi5-ll.html
I read on another thread that you praised Anna Raccoon for her Hillsborough piece. I have friends, survivors….Shame on you. You have no clue and I will never debate with someone who cannot read facts.
All mouth, no knowledge. Sickening.
“All mouth, no knowledge. Sickening.”
Know thyself. I guess Anna’s post got to you, as it should have done. These friends/ “survivors”, have you sorted out the shits that were pushing from the back yet? The one’s that know they did it and are known by others. Until the Liverpool fans man up and admit what they did it will never be settled. You’re a fool and in a tiny minority if you think the report absolved them in any way AT ALL. If you’re happy with the report (and from your comment here I guess you are) then you are doing your friends a great disservice.
Have you found the ones that did it yet? Have you tried or are you just happy blaming police and ambulance crews and a few dodgy journalists, all from events after the deaths. If you haven’t then just fuck off with you dumb comments.
Absolute fallacy. Find another gong to bang to reveal your ignorance. Men, women and children where crushed to death. Blood alcohol reading shows you to be an ill in formed, nasty piece of work
The fire service at 9/11 ran away. I read that on a blog. The ones who stayed pissed all over corpses. But that is life, you despicable man.
Not fallacy and I suspect you know it. By the way, I didn’t mention alcohol, funny that you should.
I have one question (before I go to bed, any reply I will see tomorrow except I doubt you will reply, you see, my question is a simple one): “who was more to blame for “Men, women and children where crushed to death”? Was it (select one answer please):
(a) Liverpool fans
(b) late ambulance crews
(c ) the Police
(d) Sun newspaper journalists
Span Ows,
Where you there at the time?
If not, how do you know what happened or who (if anyone) was to blame?
Your in-depth knowledge is based on what exactly?
eff off out of it Dez.
Thank you Mr Owls!
Managed to get the link finally.
A brilliant read-and the kind of deep thought and history that sets the BBC and Savile together as the bacillus in the agar gel.
Would recommend this to anyone falling for the BBCs newsbitesize crapola at the minute.
This runs very deep indeed-and I was too young to know what Janie Jones actually meant to blow the lid off back in the mid-70s.
All I got was a Clash title from it….this article is a great read indeed.
And we pay Marr a fortune to write his own stuff?
Why not Andrew O Hagen-who clearly has something worth saying at proper length!
Great quote by Christopher Booker in today’s Telegraph:
‘Peter Oborne trenchantly observed how “the BBC in recent years has been colonised and captured by a narrow, greedy, self-interested and self-perpetuating liberal elite, contemptuous of ordinary people and of ordinary morality”. In other words, the unspeakable Savile affair is a symptom of a deeper corruption that has pervaded the BBC for years’.
With a bit of re-wording, it could be adopted as the BBC’s mission statement (and unofficially, it probably is).
i thought it was the new BBC charter
Bah, another extremist Right-wing opinion, not representative of anyone in the country except a few people in this little echo chamber which nobody reads. They do keep adding up, though.
‘the BBC’s mission statement’
Well, certain words keep cropping up.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9639898/Less-BBC-swagger-and-more-accountability.html
‘For a public institution funded entirely by licence-fee payers, the BBC fosters a wholly unacceptable culture of opacity and unaccountability.’
Hence, basically saying only they ask questions and hold others to account, and internal inquiries are how best to ‘get comfortable in belief they get it about right’, does not really equate in reality to what is being claimed about credible accountability.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/28/jimmy-savile-bbc-not-hide?CMP=EMCMEDEML665
Truth does, of course, get filtered to becomes ‘truthiness’ in the hands of some.
Then it gets called, uniquely, ‘editorial ‘judgement’.
Amazing how that gets deployed by the BBC, especially in what goes in… or gets left out.
Interesting where further questions do get asked, and conclusions drawn:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/28/savile-bbc-asking-wrong-questions
‘ it is difficult for those who respect the corporation’s output to support the organisation.’
Hardly a ringing endorsement of an entity ‘most trusted’ to educate and inform us. Especially given the source (a named one).
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/bbc-bosses-showed-cavalier-attitude-to-culture-of-harassment-8229941.html
Hattie vs. Cherie, with some Shamie and Laurie thrown in?
And it looks like the mud has already been slung to prepare the ring.
May even be worth the bill we’ll all be expected to foot…. if we decide to keep on funding it.
Guessing this is a commentator whose ABC representation is also not going to be deemed suitable by the BBC to ‘speak for the nation’?:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/article4614758.ece
There’s also a poll in the paper that may not make happy reading if the Trade Descriptions Act is applied to the BBC’s claims on trust.
And with the Graun now offside, I can only presume the LSE will need to team up with Ariel to get one with the ‘correct’ result… again.