Thanks to Alfie Pacino in the comments for pointing this out:
BBC left-wing political bias illustrated through UK political funding revelations
A freedom of information (FOI) response seen by The Commentator has revealed unjustifiable bias in the BBC’s approach to UK politcal parties.
The freedom of information request shows that over the past 10 years, the BBC has spent £335,000 with the Labour Party, £295,000 with the Liberal Democrats and just £96,000 with the Conservatives.
No comment needed really.
…er…perhaps I was wrong about no comment needed…at least one Tory politician has the right idea:
Boris for PM!
Climategate Revisited on BBC Radio 4 at 9pm.
Somehow I do not think it will be about the science, let us see, the scientific method.
Once you make an assumption, you then try to prove the assumption right or wrong. A warmist is someone who is only trying to prove the assumption right. A sceptic is someone only trying to prove the assumption wrong. A scientist is someone who is trying to prove the assumption both right and wrong at the same time so as to obtain the truth. Because most people on this website are aware that the few scientific papers that actually deal with the core assumption, ( for me this is the use of the carbon dioxide atmospheres of Mars and Venus as proxies for calibrating carbon dioxide warming in the Earths atmosphere) prove that the assumption is wrong. Therefore the warmists cannot prove the assumption right and win the argument.
The warmists are therefore mentally obsessed with only the warming bit of the assumption, and this mental inferiority means that they think we are denying that Climate Changes. As Global Warming has ended, and the speed of the plasma in the Sun slows due to Planetary movements. We are now due for a Global cooling in the 2020’s. Hopefully this will turn the warmists at the BBC insane.
BBC journalists cannot do their job in investigating the reasons for the loss of scientific integrity in the IPCC process, as exposed by journalist Donna Laframboise, because the BBC is more of a left-wing environmental activist organisation than the IPCC.
As I repeat this response to a publication of a complaint to the BBC Trust.
Surprisingly the most blatantly biased statement by the BBC said that “Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fact” the IPCC using an assumption says “very likely” and the BBC which claims to be impartial says “fact“. This also does not come from the Royal Society. This evidence proves that the BBC takes a more extremely Biased view than the IPCC or the Royal Society and conflicts with the BBC Trusts claim that impartiality is important. This also now leaves open the possibility of legal action against the BBC Trust which has continually refused freedom of information requests for details of how this decision was made by what the BBC calls “the best scientific experts“.
Today, preserving what reputation the BBC had, is reliant on secrecy, but that does not seem to be working any more. Treating an assumption as a fact in science is technically scientific fraud, for the BBC to try and influence public opinion and parliament by actively promoting this fraud, it is unclear whether this breaks the law, but as far as I know, there are moves by fellows of the Royal Society and Members of Parliament to take to task the BBC’s biased position on climate change by the middle of next year, whether or not this legal action succeeds or fails.
Wrong thread mate.
…but many seemed to like it…
‘many seemed to like it’
But, but…[splutter]… even so, it’s OT!!!!!! This cannot be allowed! Even , or especially if people… like it! Ask Paul ‘toys out the pram’ Mason, or Lord ‘you’ll shut it if you know what’s good for you’ Patten.
Infers one of the guys who keeps coming to a blog he doesn’t own, or apparently like very much, or thinks anyone pays attention to, to get into points of order on rules that don’t exist. Well, outside the rarified world of international investigative news rooms at the East Cheam Advertiser.
Such irony failure is quite sweet.
Just imagine if the site owners advertised for thread moderators… his brain would explode.
Even so, have a go at answering it.
What’s a ‘thread mate’, Jim? An accomplice in a sewing circle?
Its like a Black and Decker Workmate only virtual – allows hands-free trolling.
The bBBC appear to be trying to hide their dirt away from a disgusted public, and using £100,000s of the public’s money to pay the lawyers to do this!
Just google the string in bold below and see what the bBBC is trying to do to ensure their secrecy from investigation:
Boaden “chatham house rule”
Yes, that is Boaden (bBBC salary £345,000 pa) as in the Savile reporting.
Well done Alan, this is well up to your normal standards of selective quotation. The document you link to continues:
However, the figures above show only direct spend with the political parties themselves. As
noted above, political parties can, and do, enter into agreements with 3rd parties to run their
events and collect all fees on their behalf. For example, the organisation of the Conservative Party
conference is routinely contracted out to a third party supplier.
It is hardly surprising that a party committed to free enterprise would subcontract major operations like this. By failing to acknowledge this important qualification to the document you are guilty of, erm, significant bias.
Red,
Good to see you all back on line.
If you to bothered put some work in and read the PDF properly you would have realised that the BBC knows exactly why the FOI request was made…and their reply was shaped to try and deflect what it knew was coming….hence the spoiler about the Conservative Party….but of course all Parties do the same…but no mention from the BBC here…but they do hide behind 2.5 days worth of work to claim they can’t provide the evidence to back up their claim…very convenient….and of course that is purely a workload estimation made….by the BBC itself…again how convenient.
And yes we do have a bias here…it’s in favour of truth in the news, freedom of speech, thought and expression….as well as exposing the hypocrisy of an institution that has appointed itself the moral guardian and final arbiter of what is fit and proper for the Public to be allowed to see and hear.
Quo Vadis Red, you may not follow me now but you will.
It was the BBC who supplied these figures, so if they really are paying cash to ‘Conservative Party Services Ltd’ or some such, why didn’t they point that out? More to the point, why is an alleged public service corporation apparently so incapableof giving a straightforward answer to questions from members of the public?
Another boneheaded Alan classic, as you point out. Read the letter people. Nothing to see here.
Well I’ve read the letter and see no problem with what Alan has written, taken into account rw&blue’s comment and I STILL think there is ‘a lot to see here’.
BBC always say they are ‘holding the government to account’ yet seem to favour the party that was in government for 8 of the last 10 years (the period of this FOI)
Who are the ‘letter people’, Jim? Where can I read them? Is it a book about mankind’s first stuttering attempts to formulate a written language?
‘Nothing to see here’
Well that’s me convinced, even with another ‘you’ attempt that has gone awry.
By any chance was a position as floor manager on Top of the Pops part of your past CV?
Interesting that Nigel Etienne, Projects & Planning Manager, does not indicate if Labour Party and Lib Dem conferences are organised directly by the political parties or by a 3rd party provider, which would certainly flesh out the observation about the Conservative conference. I think that would be a minimum requirement in an FOI response to indicate that there was no defensiveness in the response.
Also and given Nigel’s work title if he feels that the headline figures give a false picture, yet workload does not permit investigating all 10 years, why not do a sample year – say 2005 – were funding to 3rd party providers is also included etc.
Anyone with just a tiny bit of intelectual curiosity would certainly do it. But maybe Nigel’s is lacking in that attribute, or maybe he is concerned that the outcome would not be significanly different so doesn’t want to go there.
Furthermore, since we are dealing with the BBC I actually think as a matter of professional pride they should be concerned not only how their relationship with the 3 main political parties appears, but if there are any indication through proxy measures that the BBC leans towards a particular political party. But then again could you imagine what would happen to Nigel if he started running around the BBC pointing out that the BBC appeared to be spending more money on Labour and Lib Dem conferences than on the Conservatives and spending should be brought into line so that the BBC could give the apperance of impartiality.
Poor old Nigel I think he’s gone to get his coat and clear his desk.
If anyone bothers to download the PDF it makes it perfectly clear what these amounts refer to why the Tory amount seems low
Trust Alan to be incapable of reading the letter but as usual jumping to groundless conclusions. I salute your indefatigable pursuit in reducing this blog go a laughing stock!
” I salute your indefatigable”
I’m sure you admire that wonderful turn of phrase!
Now I wonder what role model you learned it from?
OK prole and redwhiteblue.
That being the case-when these “third party subcontractors” are included…do they add up to £300,000/400,000 then as they do for Liberals and Labour respectively?
Do give us the breakdown, and let us know your conclusions!
You can believe what you like about the BBC-only an obtuse nitpicker could ever suppose that the BBC gives all parties the same degree of coverage, of fair treatment and…likely as not….the same amount of money.
Your continual playing the man and not the issue raised leads me to believe that Alan/Alfie etc are dancing on your corns…but if it makes you feel that little bit more alive, then job done.
And whilst you`re there…Savile, Brand, Carr….Savile , Brand, Carr…repeat until you`re certain that the BBC is worth your continual shoring up with borrowed sandbags….desperate!
I’m sure it would be revealing to see the detailed figures for election years.
Also, following up the list of ‘third party supplier’ might lead to some interesting party donations made by these suppliers.
It’s difficult to believe that if the BBC thought they were spending indirectly hundreds of thousands of pounds covering the Tories, that they wouldn’t then see if there was a ‘donation scandal’ to milk.
Of course, if the BBC did that then the BBC would also have to check on the £ibDems and Nu£abour.
If you bothered to put some work in and read the PDF properly you would have realised that the BBC knows exactly why the FOI request was made…and their reply was shaped to try and deflect what it knew was coming….hence the spoiler about the Conservative Party….but of course all Parties do the same…but no mention from the BBC here…but they do hide behind 2.5 days worth of work to claim they can’t provide the evidence to back up their claim…very convenient….and of course that is purely a workload estimation made….by the BBC itself…again how convenient.
Hope you can understand that. Its simple enough.
Unless figures are directly comparable they’re meaningless. You have no idea how much was spent on third party organisations. With that data you could draw some conclusions. By deliberately missing out an important qualification you mislead the readers of this blog and present the results you want to find, rather than what’s there.
The first figures are perfectly clear and that’s why it hurts I guess.
The only meaningless part is the BBC’s qualification which was intended to muddy the waters and direct attention to one Party…why only mention the Conservatives as an example and how many contractors also do the same job for Labour and Libdems?
The BBC have been caught red handed….and just as with Savile they try every trick in the book to deflect any censure.
As someone said…follow the money.
‘The BBC have been caught red handed….’
No, you have.
Oh, all right, I’ll say it…
‘Has not’.
It’s like a QI episode.
We can do ‘pinch-punch’ today too, so… ‘no returns’.
I’m also dab hand at hopscotch if it’s down to kindergarden rules.
Muddying the water
From the pdf:
“We have therefore looked at monies paid direct to a political party, and those we have been able
to identify as major contractors on behalf of a political party.”
but
“However, the figures above show only direct spend with the political parties themselves.”
“Unless figures are directly comparable they’re meaningless.”
The BBC giving meaningless answers? Say it isn’t so!
“as usual jumping to groundless conclusions. ”
**said with straight face !** bbc, all the comedy you’ll ever need.
Having read the pdf, it does seem to be a case of getting your excuses in first. It would be good to see what indirect contributions the BBC makes to each party. The document implies that it is more towards the conservatives but I would not be surprised if it was as much or more towards the BBC’s more favoured parties.
Info requested:
“the total amount of money
the BBC has spent with all registered political parties in United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, during the
last 10 years?” (My emphasis
Info provided:
“the BBC has spent the following amounts with registered political parties in
United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, in the last 10 complete financial years”
Apparently, for the BBC, there are only three registered political parties in the UK&NI (luckily for the bBBC they are all pro-EU).
Actually the figures are comparable if not easily. How much do the other media e.g. Sky spend directly with the political parties? If the amount they spend is in broadly the same ratio the BBC answer is OK. If not? Furhter questions.
The commercial networks are not covered by F.O.I. Does anyone have an idea how to go about asking?
Not relevant the BBC is there to give a balanced view,not to balance the editorial position of SKY
Independent news channels may have an editorial position,as do news papers, the publicly funded BBC may not
All broadcasters are required to be impartial in news coverage. You know that don’t you?
Really where is that royal charter jimmy?
Oh, Jim and redwhiteblue etc.
If I give money to my kids, that`ll be direct funding I imagine.
If I spend it in the pub, but they get a paper delivered from the shop where one of my kids once worked as a paperboy…now that would be me the same thing will it?…albeit “indirect funding”?…and that`s “fair”?
And if one of my daughters gets bar work at the pub?…would you or the BBC reckon that I paid both my kids just the same way…”indirectly”?
Let`s not be too surprised if the BBC stuff money directly to the Labour Party in as direct a method as possible…but because they buy their drugs from a bus stop near an old Tory Party HQ; they`d account for the transaction as “indirectly funding the Tories”…
You see ,lads: the BBC determine their own rules and the likes of Wark, Bruce, Paxman and Carr all do very nicely from their “creatives” in accounts….the John Birt Rule Book.
You`re just a pair of naive dangleberries….this needs to be a local site for local people sometimes!…arf, arf!
Are you saying I’m wrong? I’m not. Have a read of the ofcom website.
Dave’s going to be upset with Boris for insulting his UAF comrades!
Yes weren’t they a pleasant, reasonable looking bunch?
Boris apparently called them “crusties”, though I would have thought “violent, anti-social intolerant, unwashed, left wing scum,” might have summed them up better.
There`s a lot of this Toriphobia flying around these days.
I believe Boris was the victim of this “hate crime”-and I myself have been hurt and offended by having to watch it.
Therefore I`d like to sue the leftytossers-presumably hiding behind mummys Guardian somewhere in a London uni.
Boris has been hurt-and I for one feel his pain, and am now suffering alongside him.
If you too are feeling fragile, vulnerable or challenged…feel free to join me in a class action against the hate mongers Toriphobic BBC and Guardian…anyone got Matrix Chambers number, `cos I`m feeling a bit poorly now?
Time to “Occupy” the BBC (but London, not Salford please. One has standards)
Maybe I am too stupid for this conversation, but why would the BBC pay ANY taxpayers money to ANY political party, and how does that fulfil the requirements of the BBC’s Royal Charter and meet their six public purposes??
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the BBC wished to respond honestly to the FoI request and, moreover, wished to supply such information as would prevent the kind of suspicion raised in Alan’s post. If such assumptions were true then, even if it cost the BBC a bit more than it claims, it would be worthwhile to spend that money (or, rather, devote the time of somebody already on the BBC payroll) to clear up any misunderstandings concerning inordinate payments to some political parties compared with others.
That the BBC chose not to commit resources to clarifying such issues speaks for itself. An organisation seriously concerned about its reputation for impartiality would go to almost any lengths to sustain that reputation. Mutatis mutandis an organisation seeking to hide its bias would obfuscate and/or provide a limited response. The reply to the FoI which is the subject of this post – and the reason for this post – raises more questions than it seeks to respond to. Consequently, the response that the BBC chose to deliver actually deepens the suspicion that the BBC favours – by payment in cash – those parties whose policies in general the BBC (evidenced by endless examples on this blog and elswhere) approves and seeks to further.
Also lets not forget that the bbc like most other large bespoke organizations would have software capable of retrieving all of this information with a few carefully chosen SQL statements…. especially as by its very nature everything is costed in advance it would be easy to see how the budget costs were allocated prior to any commissioning.
Heck they could probably tell you to the nearest pound how much was allocated and then spent on sugar, tea, and coffee for every episode of any series or program they produce… such is the nature of how they work internally.
I wouldn’t be surprised it they didn’t also use internal invoicing so that when an item in program A was used in program B then program A could show a profit (or reduced cost) to show how much its nominal value was worth; after all if you were in charge of program A then you wouldn’t want to be seen as nothing but an expense in the grand scheme of things…. else you could kiss your little empire good bye.
OK Prole and Redwhiteandblue, perhaps you can explain why Alison Hastings, an existing BBC Trustee, claimed in the past expenses from the BBC for her travel to a Labour Party conference – Did any trustees claim for travel to a Conservative conference? Although I also notice that once Trustees’ expenses were to be put in the public domain, Alison stopped claiming for her party politics.
Oh Deborah!
I`m afraid that the likes of prole and rwb aren`t here to explain anything.
Simply blown in on the wind like dead autumn leaves, to deflect, distract and niggle in their Beeboid fashion.
A cry for attention indeed….just follow the ball bearings and the grease gun/paintball trail and you`ll find them.
Be great if they stopped being show ponies acting as picadors, and helped us deal with the bull that is the BBC.
Sense they don`t like the plans that any sane world
have for Mithras up there dumping on us from its bankrolled pedestal…the BBC just likes to shit on the dopey mugs that fund it.
These Beeb needlers we suffer only care if the meat is halal…we don`t care, and demand the BBC bull ends up at Fray Bentos…and good old farmer Savile has done us all a great favour.
According to the hospitality register (first link) The BBC Trust hosted a lunch at each of the main party conferences. The entire Trust didn’t attend each lunch. Instead a representative group went to each conference. Not all the Trustees were able to attend every lunch. Thus I’d imagine if you just took individual expenses you’d see some attended one lunch and not the other. But the BBC Trust had an equal presence at all.
https://www.google.com/search?q=conservative+party+conference+BBC+Trust&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Shame we don’t get a more complete list of BBC monies versus political parties; I’d be very interested in how much the BBC expended on the likes of UKIP, Sinn Fein, SNP, BNP, Respect and the Monster Raving Loony Party!
Guardianistas http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1328489&l=5941509ab9&id=165460240178275
Superb link.
Perhaps I’m missing the point here, but why would the BBC farm out the organizational work only for the Nasty Party conventions?
It’s also baloney, in my opinion, for the BBC to claim it’s too much work to go through all those accounts over 10 years. All they have to do is ask each contractor to do the figures for them and hand it in.
It’s not the BBC who’ve farmed out the work but the Conservatives – they outsource events management, unlike the other two main parties. In addition, they don’t use the same contractors each time. As anybody who’s worked in an accounts department will appreciate, it’s quite easy tracing payments made to a single organisation over several years, but not so easy when you’re dealing with dozens of different entities. Look, if there’s proof that the BBC have been favouring one party over another, fine, I’ll join in the catcalls. But the qualification needed to be acknowledged in the original post. Selective quotation is something that Alan and others love to point out when it happens on a BBC webpage – but maybe he should try to observe the same standards he preaches here.
Quite. Plus could be one party charges more than the other. These aren’t political donations!
Soz to be a pain , but does admin know if ASE is gong ahead with livechat tonight?
No idea, Billy. I was wondering the same thing myself.
Have got pc , so if not will be at mine.
OT: yet another disgustingly lefty biased QT, tonight, with the whole audience bursting at the seams with Obama love… How can the BBC protest the impartialness of QT when every left-wing comment receives uproarious applause whilst conservative speakers endure heckling or silence. Disgraceful! And what a lefty panel with David ‘I care more about the affairs of Malaysia than my own constituency’ Miliband and Liberty leader and so on… The BBC is so anti-Romnet it’s untrue and utterly disgraceful. I am sick of it!
Oh well, Floyd on Spain is on instead… that’ll cheer me up! PS. Where’s Mr Vance, these days? I miss his posts!
I was sharing your annoyance with the seemingly biased audience, but unfortunately I don’t think it was an example of a rigged audience, more of an example of the ignorance of the sheeple of Britain who have been drip fed left wing bias from the British broadcasting media all their lives. Not only the BBC either, Channel 4, ITV, even Sky news are similarly biased. It is assumed Obama is the best thing since Kennedy, and this Romney guy = anti healthcare, rich capitalist, redneck warmonger.
Kennedy?
Blair Mk 1.
If Conservatives, other politicians of the right and right-leaning commentators were all to boycott QT in protest at this audience-rigging (which, even if it wasn’t the problem last night is nevertheless pretty much the norm) it would wreck the show completely. That’s what the Left would do if things were the other way round.
Panellsists of the the Right rarely receieve a fair hearing on QT and it baffles me why they want to go into that bear pit: they’re never going to convince the rabble of bussed-in, know-it-all lefty goons that make up the majority of your average QT audience about anything, and perpetually being unable to get their points across effectively due to the hostility of the audience will do nothing to enhance their personal reputations.
Trouble is that most of them are far too naive to realise that simply by saying “no more QT” would deprive the Left of one of its principal vehicles for broadcast propaganda.