Never mind Hail to The Chief, here’s a NEW Open Thread for YOU to hail BBC bias! The floor is yours..
WEDNESDAY OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Fedup2 Nov 16, 12:25
Weekend 16th November 2024
Sometimes I have low blood pressure – so I listen to BBC moneybox . This week the feckless get their… - Lucy Pevensey Nov 16, 12:20
Weekend 16th November 2024
It’s a shame Farage has gone soft. https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/1857680283526475896 Rupert Lowe- “Put yourself in the shoes of the parents of a… - The Mouse Nov 16, 12:11
Weekend 16th November 2024
Mark Mark, They are not police they are TOCs (Tools of Control) - vlad Nov 16, 12:04
Weekend 16th November 2024
So now the little weasel Khun’t says ‘Let’s give Donald Trump the benefit of the doubt’. Oh, how very gracious… - Fedup2 Nov 16, 11:24
Weekend 16th November 2024
She must be arrested and charged and the CPS decide on the ‘public interest ‘ … then she should sue… - Fedup2 Nov 16, 11:22
Weekend 16th November 2024
Let’s hear it for Laura Helmuth . Ms Mr / miss/mrs whatever – was the editor of Scientific American -… - MarkyMark Nov 16, 11:06
Weekend 16th November 2024
from order-order.com JUST IN CASE THE POLICE ARE READING THIS AND WANT TO KNOW THE SOURCE! HA HA HA A!… - MarkyMark Nov 16, 10:59
Weekend 16th November 2024
Good morning Lazy Cat – that was a funny rant for a lazy cat! - MarkyMark Nov 16, 10:56
Weekend 16th November 2024
“put her on a plane to Iraq” – oh dear – “Iraq to lower the ‘age of consent’ for girls…
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
I’ll repost what I put at the end of the last Open Thread:
Apologies if anyone’s already linked to this.
“A jolly little piece by the BBC’s ‘environment analyst’ Roger Harrabin has a new report ‘blaming the government for leaving the UK’s water resources at the mercy of the weather’.
…
The originator is an outfit called the Wildlife and Countryside Link and very quickly it emerges that it is a green front organisation, claiming 38 members who collectively ‘employ over 11,000 full-time staff, have the help of 174,000 volunteers and the support of over 8 million people in the UK’.“
You never have to dig far, do you.
I have just found out that the BBC Climate Change seminar had representatives from business, campaigners, NGOs, communication experts.
When the BBC said “the best scientific experts“ I though they meant, Atmospheric Physicists, Climatologists, Solar Astronomers and Meteorologists.
My understanding of the Unified Theory of Climate is that only the scientists should have a job, the none scientist at this seminar should be sacked for trying to solve a problem that does not exist.
Notice how this article blames “the government”, just as their report on the diseased ash trees also blamed “the government”l
Any casual listener/viewr would assume that these reports were blaning the current government, they both can be played largely at Laborss feet. They did virtually nothing Jonet 13 years to improve watersupply, and encouraged immigration on an unprecedented scale. They also ignored all my initial warnings about the tree disease.
I suspect the BBC knows these reports are misleading, and presumably happy to let it stand. The depressing thing is that the previous Laborgovt would have been all over the stories, demanding changes. The Conservatives just let it pass . Unless of course they too are ignored by the BBC.
Why the bias in the BBC? Fox News appears to be often mentioned as the type of Channel the haters want in the UK. So how did they objectively deal with the news…
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/11/07/karl_rove_on_fox_news_the_five_stages_of_conservative_grief.html
Oh dear. I think the dummy’s been chucked out of the pram!
Dear, dole, this is a forum about the bias of the BBC not Fox News but nice try.
While I’m on, you lost me the other day when you posted your argument that low paid jobs don’t benefit the economy because the people who get them don’t have any disposable income.
I mean, I hooted with laughter, but maybe your brilliant analysis was over my head,
It clearly was. If you haven’t any money except for basics, you can’t purchase any other goods. Therefore shops selling them go bust. Like Comet.
Understand now…no. Oh dear.
Comet and Apple.
Oh wait…
On the minimum wage…I don’t think so.
Ah, but there’s always the perks of being one of the media director team for #Occupy
Ed Balls is keen on my plan to rescue the economy by opening a Bugatti showroom in Tower Hamlets.
OK, so it’s not a British Marque, but with enough subsidies the sales guys will be spared the dole.
Though that does mean reducing the number of benefits officers, which would mean…
Fiddlesticks.
Why did the labour government and BBC encourage immigration then , thus lowering wages ?
They increased immigration for the same reason as the Democrats in America: to increase their voter-base. It’s working too.
Plus kickbacks from cheap labour employers.
Fox news is indeed dire.
However, to state the obvious, nobody is forcing me to pay for it, unlike the deer old extravagant Beeb.
The only thing worthwhile from Fox News is some of the website and the online live streaming daytime stuff. Maybe Shep Smith on the TV.
However, Fox News does cover valid stories that the rest of the media generally suppresses.
Oh dear oh dear. You don’t get it, prole, do you. Commercial news channels and newspapers can be as biased as they wish. The BBC has a charter that clearly demands unconditional impartiality in return for compulsory licence fees. It really is not too difficult a concept for anyone of average intelligence to understand.
‘It really is not too difficult a concept for anyone of average intelligence to understand.’
I see what you did there.
You clearly haven’t heard of the Ofcom code which governs all UK broadcasts., TV and Radio to ensure impartiality.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/
But then I’m of above average intelligence so I wouldn’t expect you to know:-)
pity it isn’t applied to al beeb then,isn’t it?
I really can’t listen to Radio 5 any more; from Nicky Campbell though Victoria Derbyshire, Richard Bacon, Shelagh Fogarty to Stephen Nolan, its dusk to dawn Labour Party cheerleading.
Yes, truly awful and getting worse. Drive is ok, Derbyshire and Bacon are the worst offenders on 5L, and Burden, well
5 live has become a no go zone if you have a semblance of independent thought. It has become Hello Magazine on the radio. Heavily biased, certainly but more concerned about who is going out with who than any real issue. Rolling news? Yeah right.
I made a quip to friends during the Chilean miner situation along the lines of Richard Bacon: “We are just hearing that the miners don’t even have iPhones down there. Wow. Text in and tell me about the last time you were stuck without your lovely iPhone”
‘But then I’m of above average intelligence so I wouldn’t expect you to know:-)’
Do measures of intelligence, especially the above average variety, include simply hearing of codes?
It’s just that I’d have imagined a bit more was involved.
Have you heard of The da Vinci Code too?
Da Vinci Code was fiction, didn’t you know?
So is your belief in Ofcom and the BBC fiction. Ofcom does NOT oversee BBC bias or impartiality, the BBC “regulates” itself via the BBC Trust. It is it’s own judge and jury.
You should have read the item you linked to. Nobody of above average intelligence would ever post a link without checking it first, would they?
Like shooting ducks in a barrel dealing with the posts here!
I was replying to this incorrect remark
“Commercial news channels and newspapers can be as biased as they wish”
Commercial Broadcasters can’t be biased because of the code. Nothing about the Beeb.
I’m sure you’ll enjoy eating your words.
think you need a better duck gun as you said
“You clearly haven’t heard of the Ofcom code which governs all UK broadcasts., TV and Radio to ensure impartiality.”
quack quack 🙂
That’s not what you wrote though. You wrote “all”. How is life in your barrel?
‘Da Vinci Code was fiction, didn’t you know?’
And here was me thinking Dan Brown was up to replace Richard Black and David Shuckman as the next English Lit. genius on the science beat..
Obviously there has been a failure in intelligence.
Or, maybe, credulity.
In playing this game in response to such a retort, I may be also a victim, mind.
If so, I have to feel for those such as Jim, Nicked, etc who seem to have allied themselves to a rather holed craft.
“Da Vinci code was fiction …”
And so is the bit in the BBCs charter about being it being impartial .
Quite. How many more times: broadcast news coverage in the UK is required to be impartial, whether it’s through the charter or the code. This is why it’s legitimate to benchmark the way the BBC covers news with itn and sky.
‘broadcast news coverage in the UK is required to be impartial
Only, in some broadcast quarters, there is a unique interpretation of, and adherence to ‘impartiality’.
Which makes what happens in reality less than legitimate.
Which, in turn…
Definition: – Impartiality (also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness) is a principle of justice holding that decisions should be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring the benefit to one person over another for improper reasons.
The BBC fail in this principle.
No it isn’t. One is the taxpayer-funded official national broadcaster, with a legacy of generations of trust and national identity, while the other two are simply commercial outfits. And only the BBC broadcasts in the US and does things directly targeted at us.
two words
Balen report
And you hide it so well if true.
BALAN BALAN BALAN.
“You clearly haven’t heard of the Ofcom code which governs all UK broadcasts., TV and Radio to ensure impartiality.”
Correct – but your original point involved the US based Fox News – so not correct.
Why the bias in the BBC?
(1) The subscription to the BBC is compulsory, even if you watch ITN, Channel 4 News, Channel 5 News, Sky News, Russia Today, Al Jazeera or a future Fox News channel.
(2) A future Fox News channel would be obtained by voluntary subscription or possibly free on Freeview.
(3) The Guardian newspaper is not paid for by a compulsory subscription and is therefore morally justified in being biased unlike the broadcasting arm of this newspaper which is called the BBC.
(4) The Guardian has only a fraction of the readership of the Daily Mail, Telegraph and Express because it caters for a small group of middle-class low intellect, arts and humanities types, who vote the same way as people with no merit in a meritocracy.
The above explanation is the justification for the hatred of the haters.
We only hate morons.
In the spirit of my cheerful independence, I fear I must opt out (not to acknowledge any precedent) of that possibly inclusive ‘we’.
On matters of written debate at least, even in robust blog exchanges, I do not hate anyone.
I am however feeling mildly vexed at what appears to be a commitment of resources in some kind of human virus denial of service attack currently with the apparent aim of clogging actual discussions with endless, poorly formed contrarian tripe.
However, one can only weather it until the OT budget runs out I guess.
A British fox would need to be impartial. Murdoch has said that’s why he hasn’t set one up. Print media is completely different.
You really don’t understand the basics do you?
A British fox would need to be impartial.
Why? The public ally funded BBC isn’t.
By the way, “Jim Dandy”, can you make your point without a snide comment attached.
That is your subjective view. But the regulators are there to ensure impartiality (it is if course moot whether they are, but if blatant then the potential for censure is there).
Point taken on snide comment.
“Regulators”? What do I find one of those, Jim? I worked for the BBC for 30 years (producer/presenter/ local/network/radio/TV/corporate affairs and never met a one. If you mean the various advisory boards, don’t kid me. They are lapdogs who are there to support management and BBC policy. I know – KNOW – from the inside how decisions are made. It is not my “opinion”. It is a fact. FACT.
To be fair to Jim, I think the regulators he refers to are the Ofcom ones. Who report every two weeks and who investigate every complaint they receive. And who would doubtless make it impossible to set up a Fox clone as things stand. Because they can theoretically confiscate licences of commercial stations, they have real muscle. And Louis, you may never have met a regulator, but they regulate the BBC and frequently censure them.
I should add that Ofcom can’t confiscate the BBC’s licence, so regulation is an unfair business. A commercial operator has much more to lose.
How do those flames you were shot down in feel Jim?
Was I ? Didn’t see that. The BBC’s regulator is the BBC trust. All broadcasters in the UK are regulated. And news coverage us required to be impartial.
The BBC’s regulator is the BBC trust.
A misnomer, or an oxymoron?
It’s how successive Governments have agreed the BBC should be regulated. I think elements of the BBC ( commercial activities, on line?) are now of ofcom regulated, but I’ve not worked in that world for a long time.
Ofcom regulates the BBC as well. Every TV and radio programme has to comply with Ofcom’s Code.
Louis – I hardly think your CV compares to a crack squad of media supremos in the mould of Woodstein and Bernward who are always on hand to tell us when they are off and back from ‘assignments’ all over East Cheam. Really, proportion man… proportion.
Dear Jim Dandy, I watch Russia Today a lot, even though I assume that it is biased. But to say that it is not possible for a news broadcaster on British freeview television to be biased means that Russia Today is just including facts that do not appear on the BBC, which is just as I thought. The Bias of “fact exclusion” at the BBC is making news at the BBC bland and brain dead. On Russia Today, you have the contradiction of the most childish journalist on TV, ranting in a way that makes you realise that he is as intelligent as Einstein.
There is no point in hating morons, like Hand Shandy, it is a waste of energy. The stupid do not understand and, because they are stupid, are often incapable of doing so.
They deserve your pity.
Poor dole, thinks I’m here to debate with him when actually (of course) I’m just here to mock him.
Prole,
I’m not forced to pay for Fox News, under threat of jail and / or a large fine and a criminal record if I don’t.
In return for that I expect the BBC to live up to their part and abide by the Royal Charter that gives them their right to operate.
Unfortunately the BBC seems to think that they don’t have to worry about the terms of the charter because no one holds them to account in the same way those who don’t pay the license fee are.
…and moving on. How many droids came on the news with,
‘I’ve been up all night’,
as though it was the same as saying,
‘I’ve just done a six month tour of duty in Helmand Province.’
Breaking News… some people who work night-shift are ‘up all night’ *every* night.
Common people, Uncle, common people.
But what is this ‘BBC bubble’ of which you speak?
The BBC bubble is a hypothetical papier-mâché bubble made from Guardian newspapers.
…from which no common sense can escape, and no reality may enter. More of a black hole than a bubble, really.
I wonder if now is a good moment to ask the BBC if maybe the EU model of voting may not be better, namely waiting a wee while and than have another stab to get the correct result?
Too soon?
The EU used to keep asking until people “got it right” But it was proving expensive, so now they just don’t ask to start with. Or they pretend to ask a question. When Baroso was “elected” president of the commission, sure he got more MEP votes on the ballot paper than anyone else, but then he was the only candidate on said paper
Call me sceptical but looking at the BBC’s photo feed on the main page I see the following.
Picture:
1 Joyous Barak family.
3. a Barak supporter lunging at the camera in joy.
5. What a coincidence – a black woman and a white woman hugging each other.
6. A (Romney) supporter supposedly “wiping” away a tear?.
7. The Romney camp in apparant “despair”.
8. A shot of “stone-faced” Romney supporters.
No bias there then……
I think that’s to do with how the result went. Perhaps a jubilant Romney supporter would provide balance?
Lord have mercy.
You do know who won, don’t you?
yeah
skull and bones
🙂
‘You do know who won, don’t you?’
Fair idea. On FaceBook & Twitter a few Brits have had to remind a few more excitable Cousins Across The Pond (or visiting ‘reporters’) that we too have access to broadcast reception devices, albeit with a tithe attached.
Being this is a blog on BBC bias, I presume you know what gets lost with each less than impartial BBC broadcast under guise of news/analysis/’views their own’.
Does anyone really think BBC coverage of a Romney victory would be a mirror image of the Obama victory? From long experience it would go something like this:
1) Long, sympathetic interview with Obama, Mrs. O, children, family in Kenya staff and even dog on the lines of how will this effect his vision.
2) Interviews with tearful Barak supporter
3) Investigative reports on racism in America
4) Reports from analysts on how the vote didn’t really represent America
5) Demands that corrupt voting practises in America be immediately investigated.
I for one have had the American election up to the gills. Every time I turn on the news there’s Obama or Romney spewing out rhetoric to adoring halfwits. It won’t make a rat’s arse of difference who won.
I am still living in Britain, aren’t I??
Is Prole so desensitised to reality that he cant percieve the bias within the Beeb?
Fox is a red herring. In the UK we have many commercial media outlets some right wing some left wing. If you buy the Graun you expect handwringing angsty cant from canape neo coms. If you buy the Torygraph you get the full Home Counties huntball attending tim nice but dim full fat tory fare. If you buy the mirror you get much the same as the graun with shorter words and more celeb gossip.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a commercial news organ having a bias.
Auntie , however, is institutionally left wing. If it were a ship its list to port would have its occupants heading for the life boats.
Take its totally sickening coverage of the US election. Pantomime writ large. With Barry O cast as jack and Romney cast as the nasty giant. You could almost here them shouting behind you. What a total farce. Any pretensions to balance were thrown out the window.
There is no one so wilfully self deluded as a lefty so you have my sympathies.
‘Is Prole so desensitised to reality that he cant percieve the bias within the Beeb?….’
Not desensitised as such, that would require an initial awareness of wrongdoing – what this is, is institutionalised cultural bias. The sort that the former (hopeless) DG, Thompson, Andrew Marr, Rod Liddle, Peter Sissons and other BBC insiders have spoken of.
No, broadcast news is treated differently in the UK to other media because it is a more powerful and influential medium. That is why it is regulated
Jim; you have hit the nail on the head.
Everyone but the BBC is regulated by Ofcom. The BBC is regulated by the BBC.
In order to be fair and balanced one needs to start with staff and regulators that have those attributes.
The Labour Govt of the last 13 years carefully infiltrated people of their ilk into positions of control.
Journalists come out of institutions that have a socialist bent. Have a look at the NUJ requirements of journalists and you’ll be left in no doubt what side of the political fence they lie.
When BBC staff strike it is called for by the NUJ and the majority of the journalists/presenters strike. Ergo they see themselves bound by and support the rules laid down by the NUJ.
It is possible in a supposed “free, open and democratic society” to operate a right of centre news outfit because such an outfit would apply the same rules as organisations like the BBC and just ignore or criticize left wing opinions and and promote right wing opinions.
Therein lies the problem for the BBC and the media in this country. Any right wing opinion is not allowed. It is immediately attacked and branded “Nazi”, nasty and vile. The left and the BBC only tolerate things that concur with their socialist outlook.
So the BBC in its current form can never be unbiased and present balanced programs unless there is action from management to root out people with biased political views and get rid of them. There are endless links on this forum of BBC staff posting comments on twitter which clearly indicate their political stance.
“Everyone but the BBC is regulated by Ofcom. The BBC is regulated by the BBC.” However the reality is:
Ofcom has certain powers to regulate the BBC’s licence fee funded television and radio services aimed at audiences in the UK, but not the World Service which is grant-in-aid funded. Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code applies in the following areas:
Protection of under-18s
Harm and Offence
Avoidance of inciting crime or disorder
Responsible approach to religious content
Prohibition of use of images of very brief duration
Fairness
Privacy.
The Editorial Guidelines reflect the provisions of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code in these areas.
Please refer to this advice from Ofcom regarding complaints of bias or accuracy;
http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/tell-us/tv-and-radio/accuracy-or-bias-on-the-bbc/
‘it is a more powerful and influential medium. That is why it is regulated’
‘If your complaint relates to matters of due impartiality, due accuracy, bias or commercial references.. please make a complaint directly to the BBC.
The BBC Trust regulates these areas rather than Ofcom.’
More powerful, influential mediums regulating… themselves. That’ll work.
I recall compelled millionaire tax-avoider Paxo taking apart a hapless PR industry type defending their slef-regulation with a ‘do you expect us to believe any industry that regulates itself can be trusted?’.
No, Jeremy, I don’t.
Fox is the channel D.Vance praises. Not a red herring at all, but a vision of hell that a lot of posters dream about. And utterly irredeemably rabid. Watching them declaring Obama hadn’t won when he had was priceless. It can’t operate here because of the OFCOM code. Nothing to do with newspapers.
The BBC reflects the majority views of this country. Decent and fair minded. Views curiously totally absent here! It’s one of most trusted news outlets on Earth, because it is by and large objective. Fox is a joke.
The Brits won’t put up with a Fox here. We can easily avoid trash like the Sun and Express: which also have no effect on the readership. Most Sun readers do not vote Tory. The Brit and American electorate are far more intelligent than you want to believe.
Murdoch looks a total prat after his intervention. A man in his dotage.
“Decent and fair minded.”
institutional paedophilia and allied cover ups
decent and fair minded my arse
With regard to BBC bias I just noticed this on the Internet.
Psychologists Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers, based at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, surveyed a roughly representative sample of academics in social psychology and found that “In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social psychologists admit to discriminating against openly conservative colleagues.”
More than a third of the respondents asserted that they would discriminate against a conservative candidate.
One respondent wrote in that if department members “could figure out who was a conservative, they would be sure not to hire them.”
I mention this far from startling news because they found that not only were liberal respondents more likely to discriminate, but paradoxically, the more liberal they were the more likely they were to claim that conservatives do not face a hostile climate in the academy!
So are liberal social psychologists simply lying or are they deluded?
It is a question I ask myself when people such as “Prole” come on here claiming that the BBC are “fair minded”.
Yip. Mr Vance opined on Twitter last night that the UK needs a Fox news. ‘Class #fairandbalanced’ Does anyone here really REALLY think that?
Looks like Mr Vance has a stalker.
Not Cleo Lane are you?….feckin’ hate skat music, especially from that bubble haired, big gobbed tent wearing odd ball.
(And yes, I am having a go at how she looks, and sounds, because it is my right to express how minging I think she is)
Helpful.
I will look out for your future posts. You are clearly a fantastic wit and a really clued in person. Inspirational stuff.
“Does anyone here really REALLY think that?”
You really don’t understand the concept of a free society do you.
“Does anyone here really REALLY think that?” why the loaded question?
why couldn’t you just ask it straight with the hysterics of ‘REALLY’?
Cleo, what you seem to be implying is that he shouldn’t think that. He can if he wants to. He’s not, as far as I know, suggesting everyone else cough up a licence fee to fund it.
It’s so sweet that you think that MSNBC and CNN don’t exist.
Prole; on what basis can you substantiate(verified independent polls, surveys) your comment;
“The BBC reflects the majority views of this country. Decent and fair minded.”
Given events of recent weeks involving the BBC would the majority of respondents relate with the same sympathy as the BBC to Saville’s reign of kiddie fiddling.
The BBC is the master mind bender and manipulator of public opinion because no one has had the balls to bring them to heel.
Joe Public is in general not educated enough to see through the complex mind bending propaganda that the BBC churns out.
The left hate people like us because we are able to source alternative opinions and news sources that contradict their take on news. Like any good socialist they immediately resort to insults and ‘isms to combat the bad news.
Yes, that Murdoch man is such “total prat”. Have you seen the recent profit announcement for News Corp and the subequent increase in its share price?
British based business could do with a few more “Total prats” like him.
BTW nice to have a breeding pair of trolls. Its hunting season… Tally ho!!!!
Why is everyone with a different point of view a ‘troll?’ Serious question. Not an invite for a slanging match.
I don’t know the frequency of the posters postings (sic) but I imagine that there must be some history.I was branded one too. I want to understand.
“Why is everyone with a different point of view a ‘troll? Serious question”
Have you ever heard of the question “When did you stop beating your wife”?
?
Four more years. Fills me with dread. Not about the US. Reality will stop Barry O pushing too far leftward.
No, my dread is 4 more years of sycophantic smug shite from the BBC.
Barry O is the poster boy for the pantwetting wannabe progressive.
They rock up at broadcasting house with 5 years of private school in dorset and 3 years at the the LSE behind them , full of guilt for the original sin of privilege. Their self imposed penance is to try and outleft themselves. The nearer the SWP they get the more holy they feel. And the sad thing is they dont see it. They think they occupy the centre ground. Bless them.
Just returned from castrating three sheep with the local vet, always a tough assignment. And I need a drink right now. We’ve decided to name the small blackie- Obama! We shall see if the real one really has balls for the next 4 years?
Obamaram: ewe shouldn’t put it near the limelight; he’ll try to hogget.
It looks like the bBBC is reluctantly going to fall into line on how it pays its regular staff, including deducting tax.
Their website classifies this as ‘entertainment’.
Be fair – the thought of celebrity leftards being whacked with huge tax bills is way more entertaining than anything the BBC’s comedy department has produced in the last 10 years.
Meanwhile, INBBC avoids, on the English political front:
1.) -the fact that Choudary can do this –
“It’s November – Anjem Choudary in his anti-poppy rant as usual”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/44761
2.)- the fact that Tommy Robinson is still in jail-
” Free Tommy Robinson Demo: 24th November 2012, Wandsworth”
http://englishdefenceleague.org/edl-news
I shed no tears for Choudary or Robinson. Both f*ckwits.
The death of Clive Dunn, aged 92, is a sad reminder that the bBBC used to make programmes that were worth paying for.
I don’t know whether his, and the bBBC’s, most fitting epitaph is “don’t panic” or “they don’t like it up ’em”.
Just don’t mention the fuzzie-wuzzies.
They don’t like it up ’em …
“permission to speak! … sah!” 😀
but not on … your call … any questions
SML … jeremy whine etc etc etc.
“i d treat em just like that mr hitler capn mannering, i wouldn t sell him any of my best sauages, their lovely they are, mrs jones says they go lovely when she puts em with ……”
ALRIGHT! jones thats enough.
Sad.
I noticed though that our ‘most trusted’ broadcaster used the 6 o’ Clock news to tell us all that he supported the Labour Party.
Never miss an opportunity do they?
He used to walk down the road all nonchalant like. Shame really, there aren’t too many of that great cast left now.
What I did notice today were the BBC’s jibes about Cameron. Unnecesary jibes, but of course the BBC can’t help themselves, can they?
After their dig about Fox News’ dispair (Fox aren’t constitutionally obliged to be impartial), they read out an e-mail from a family hanging on to every word of Obama’s victory speech…’something the kids wouldn’t have done if it were Cameron,’ we were told.
Then a dig about Cameron’s words of congratuation…what did they expect him to say?
Then a further dig, about Cameron describing Obama as a friend (at least Cameron doesn’t have to chase Barry around a New York kitchen to get a hearing , like the Great Imbecile embarrassingly did).
Then a prolonged dig and what ammounted to a ‘piss-take’ about Cameron using Obama’s first name
Then a further analasys of Cameron’s comments and with it an accusation of him coat-tailing. Now forgive me – this might be something that most B-BBC’ers might not agree with, but when did; Republican=Tory ? Democrat=Labour ?
When I was a lad, both US parties equated to difference facets of our own Conservative / Capitalist ideaology, Not right versus left, but right versus centre right.
It is the left in this country, with the help of the BBC, that have hitched their wagon (so to speak) to Obama and his predecessors and with it have succeeded in altering peoples perspective of the political spectrum.
Perhaps Bliar got closest than ever before to a ‘read-across’ to mainstream US politics, but Brown certainly didn’t (hence him having to chase Obama into the aforesaid kitchen and his appalling relationship with the President).
Miliband’s victory in the unreported Labour Civil War has taken them to a position so far to the left of the Democrats that most Americans would call them Marxist.
‘The BBC. It’s the unique way in which we are funded that allows us to manipulate the face of politics’.
The Conservatives might be quietly pleased that Obama has won. It shows that even in the midst of economic gloom, the incumbent doesn’t necessarily get kicked out; and that he can get re-elected just saying the same things as he said four years ago.
No, in the UK the bulk of the media are anti the Coalition, quite the opposite in the US.
The BBC waxing lyrical (all our media in fact) over Pres Bill C preparing for Barry O. Then Barry O coming on stage to address the adoring crowd.
In my mind I have the vision of Bill C standing in front of the Oval Office desk, fly unzipped and a young intern pleasuring him. He later told the nation “read my lips………..its all lies”.
That’s all you really need to know about the attitudes and morals of these people.
Lucky he didn’t offer to drive her home afterward over narrow bridges.
Could have been ‘awkward’ as the Elder Statesmen thing swelled up, as it were.
The one show is running an action replay of the results coming thro’ hosted by Phil Tufnell, he just interviewed the US ambassador, but he didnt ask him did he think he was lucky not to have been in the safe house in benghazi, wonder why?
That is of course about Barry’s re-election, oops.
Phil Tufnel probably didn`t mention Benghazi becouse he was too focused on whether or not the Ambassador would be spoiling him with some Ferrero Rochers…. It`s a shame they didn`t get someone with more experience such as Stacey Dooley… She could pull that face like she is sh*tting out a cactus that she is imfamous for….
Of course the liberal media is pleased with the result. Their man won and reinforced their irrational belief in the pre-destined triumph of liberalism , socialism , marxism. puffism, call it what ever you will.
Lessons will be learnt -to use one of their inane phrases- and by our fellow travellers as well.
Change the people has got to be lesson number one.
Sanitise it by using the word “demographics” but that it delivered Obama his victory is clear. That and appealing to every minority you can find.
So then the huge increase in immigration in GB becomes a little bit easier to understand. Delivering a new electorate and making sure the old conservatives and their views are done with for good. They were always on the wrong side of history so what does it matter. They lacked empathy, were fixed in their views, just that bit too independent for a good little statist to stomach. They mostly paid their own way and that will never do in a caring, empathetic ( that word again ) inclusive society.
After all we must all be made to be needy.
Lesson number two is control the argument at all times by controlling the media. Job nearly done here.
And most important of all. Control the education of the next generation. Don’t let the grandparents., particularly the old white ones, have any role to play and as for the parents -put them in their place. Teacher knows best and if you cause a fuss then we have our eye on you.
The whole reason for human existence is to celebrate the triumph of liberalism . What else did you really think you were alive for?
This was the last comment on the Monday thread. I’ve taken the liberty of reposting.
——————————————–
The BBC distributes Pallywood photo opportunity. Do they do this blindly or do they really not have a clue?
There must be a warm place in hell for parents who push their own children into confrontation with armed soldier for a Pallywood photo-op. Right next to the BBC editor who thinks nothing of publishing this piece of child abuse.
Israel court jails Palestinian activist Bassem Tamimi There’s plenty to complain about with this article, from the circumstances of Tamimi’s latest arrest to the gratuitous cut-and-paste illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this boilerplate. This is unfortunately old news.
The new news is their use of a staged scene to illustrate the article. It shows a blond child in apparent confrontation with an Israeli soldier and is captioned Bassem Tamimi has helped organise protests in Nabi Saleh against land seizures by settlers Could this be ironic? Is the BBC admitting that Tamimi incites children (including his own) to confrontations with soldiers in the hope of a photo-op? Stealth edit to the caption on the way?
This particular child has become a Palestinian rock star for her ‘bravery’ despite videos of her mother (W.T.F.) encouraging her into situations that could lead to injury or worse. Here’s some background.Pallywood: Crying Blond Arab Girl Resurfaces, Arab media enamored with staged video of girl confronting IDF soldiers, Cheap Shots: Tamimi Girl Ups the Ante
The BBC has a history of illustrating articles with dubious photographs, particularly against Israel,but how could supposed professional journalists and editors have missed the controversial origin of this one?
deegee …. Did you watch any of the videos starring his daughter and her cousin?? What struck me about the way the Isreali soldiers were being provoked whilst being filmed was just how much restraint these guys showed… Bear in mind that they were likely conscripts doing national service and were not professionals…. I don`t think I would have held my nerve in such a situation…. In N.Ireland the British Army had to put up with children attempting to draw a reaction, the BBC has seemingly forgotten how the security forces dealt with this kind of problem…. They instructed the patrols that if threatened or surrounded the use of plastic bullets was allowed… Also any person who was identified could expect to have thier front doors kicked in within 48 hours… I can remember BBC Ulster showing public information adverts warning parents not to buy thier children toy guns at Xmas as the Security forces were under orders to shoot first and ask questions later….. The BBC also gave a airtime to known terrorist groups on both sides knowing that it would cause further bloodshed and undermine the authority of the RUC and the Army in doing so. Look at how the BBC used to put Gerry Adams on screen with a dubbed voice…. they did the same with loyalist spokesmen too… The BBC and thier lack of standards and honesty in the Middle East makes us look bad to the rest of the world.
deegee … check out this vid… http://youtu.be/3TIrWYSxiG8
So why was Turnbull in America for BBc Breakfast? Don’t they have enough reporters over there?
http://www.newstatesman.com/staggers/2012/11/bbc-give-its-tax-avoiding-freelancers?quicktabs_most_read=1
You know a long time ago I worked for Contributions (I’ve been around) and in thoses days we considered applications if people wanted to go self employed.
i bet the homosexuals in Hollywood and at the BBC are overjoyed at Bollocks Obamy’s ‘triumph’
Profound stuff..*sigh*
Just in case anyone had missed it, the bBBC’s latest muck-raking about the allegations of abuse at Bryn Estyn manages include three mentions of Mrs Thatcher.
Did BBC Panorama censor Savile’s name from its’ report on the North Wales Bryn Estyn abuse scandal?
Victims tell of horror inside North Wales care home where gang rape, strip searches and vicious canings were a way of life… and Jimmy Savile was a regular visitor
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229140/Bryn-Estyn-Victims-tell-horror-inside-North-Wales-care-home–Jimmy-Savile-regular-visitor.html#ixzz2BaKmHVdK
Jimmy Savile linked to North Wales child abuse scandal
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9660546/Jimmy-Savile-linked-to-North-Wales-child-abuse-scandal.html
Good cartoon at The Commentator…
http://tinyurl.com/cortdw4
Absolutely my last post. I despise the BBC but the way newcomers are treated here makes me realise that there is no point. William Tell was concerned and he got abused. The person who posted that link has not to my knowledge tried to clear his own name. Wouldn’t you? It speaks volumes.
From day one I put my cards on the table about Vance. No human rights, no NHS, everyone for themselvesasy for him to say when he is making money from this site and as a commenter for the very corporation he professes to hate. Add to that, that his main income involves importing eastern European groceries, you would need to be myopic, crazy, or plain daft to not see the hypocrisy.
Good luck.
Cleo
Stay. You haven’t yet achieved the heady heights of being accused of being a BBC employee or a cultural Marxist.
The trick to staying sane on here is to focus on the original post and not to pay too much time if any responding to the often bizarre attacks you’re subject too. But if you’re interested in impartiality in broadcasting, there’s stimulation here to be had. And you’ll win a lot of arguments.
‘Subject to’.
“if you’re interested in impartiality in broadcasting….you’ll win a lot of arguments.”
I often read your posts and am puzzled why you think either of these claims apply to you?
‘not to pay too much time if any responding to the often bizarre attacks’
I hear you, bro.
Oh, you’re talking within the bubble again, not outside.
Hence, as questions being asked is the mantra, please define ‘bizarre’ and, for that matter ‘attack’.
No semantics or cherry stuff now.
And citing polite fisking will lose you further points which, given the accuracy tally already today, may see the bonus eroded.
I agree with you that the comments can sometimes become heated and intemperate, but that’s to be expected when you have a site that is as open as this one to all opinions, with very little moderation. Many sites have extremely strict comments policies, and the comments sections are stifled as a result. I think the openness of this site’s comments are it’s greatest asset, though there will always be a downside to this freedom. I always try to avoid sections where comments begin to degenerate into tit-for-tat abuse. Perhaps a ‘dislike’ button can be included, to show disapproval of unpleasant comments, though I’m aware this might be prone to abuse.
I do agree with a poster on a previous thread who complained that some of the anti-gay comments were putting her off this site. We should realise that there will be people from all kinds of different backgrounds who share our frustration with BBC bias, and it would be a great shame if they were to be put off this site because of some of the less than appropriate language. It’s a difficult balance for the hosts I guess – to remain open and tolerant of as many views as possible, while trying to discourage too much abuse and avoiding undue censorship.
However, you appear to have more of a problem with this site’s host than with the site itself, so I’m not sure anything can (or ought) to be changed to make you feel more welcome.
Sorry cleo but if you want more moderation and censoring of this free and open site then I feel you would be better off going and finding something more to your tastes rather then stay and post about how we are not and I agree with Reed your dislike for the host seem you real problem !!
Moderation & Censoring (sic) I have never asked for either. If somebody in any walk of life professes or sympathises with eugenics or any racism then I will question it. It really is simple. Either it is repulsive or you agree. I want to know who I am conversing with
‘I want to know who I am conversing with’
Says ‘Cleo’.
When you start claiming you know where folks’ kids go to school maybe even Jim will get a bit dubious.
Maybe.
That is out of context and out of order.
‘That is out of context and out of order.’
Jim… ever feel we’ve been had?
Mind you, I wasn’t the one adding likes and offering support.
Must dash… income to generate, taxes to be deducted, fees to get compulsorily deducted
Fair point.
At the risk of making a liar of myself, I’m clearly a sucker. Yes I do have a huge problem with the host. I am here to talk about BBC. Were I to meet him on the street I would run across hot coals to avoid him. It does not and should not preclude me from discussing the bias of the Beeb
‘At the risk of making a liar of myself’
With at least two recorded flounces, absolutely never to return, the risk aspect has probably passed.
Which may reflect on the rest of your post.
It’s a credibility thing.
But you’d be a shoo-in for a CECUTT directorship or senior Editor slot.
Do you really want a site where everyone scratches their chin and nods? That is what you have. Comfy? I have more in common with people here than your myopic brain can figure out. Get off my back man/ woman
When they talk among themselves this place is an echo chamber, each trying to out do the other in who can produce the biggest load of tosh.
I for one love this site. It gives me hours of entertainment. It used to get me angry (and every now and again it does when some lowlife makes a particularly abhorrent statement) but mostly now I find it funny.
I agree about Vance. I think he is a complete hypocrite and devoid of integrity. Curiously no one seems to see the obvious double standard. Still there is none so blind …
As well as being funny I find this site useful. It is good to know what the old, white, angry people are thinking (although you know before hand what they are going to say).
Don’t make the mistake of thinking anyone on here is interested in reasonable debate. I tried that for a bit, but they are either not interested or not capable of thinking outside of their preconceived view of the world.
Some of them are certifiable, many are obvious racists, most are knee-jerk reactionaries who peddle out the same old unthinking line time after time, oblivious to the facts. I sometimes wonder how many, for example, have ever been to Israel? There was a woman called Sue (I assume she was a woman) who was particularly entertaining in that area. No idea if she had ever been there.
So now I just sit back and enjoy the ride. I am guessing Guest Who will now jump in (he usually does) and attempt one of his clever replies. Guest — over to you.
So Cleo, stay, go it is up to you, but don’t make the mistake of thinking anyone on here is interested in debate.
If you stay expect to be insulted, expect to be accused of working for the BBC, expect a string of ad hominems (but heaven forbid if you ever use one back). You will know you have made an impact when someone calls for your death.
http://tinyurl.com/baalh26
Why didn’t you mention me?
Oh sorry Earls, didn’t mean to offend you.
Ok I’ll let you off Comrade lol
The person who posted that link has not to my knowledge tried to clear his own name.
It is disappointing that you have swallowed the usual agitators’ line that they can publish fiction that, if not rebutted, ‘must be true’. And I know it must be difficult to keep track as William Tell decided to spam several threads with his lies, but I posted the truth at November 7, 2012 at 6:09 pm at http://biasedbbc.tv/2012/11/seven-impossible-things.html
‘decided to spam several threads’
The BBC policy on this is interesting.
Of course they remove at the drop of a refferal on a guilty until shown hard to ban longer basis and the thread has closed.
However in some case they can impose a blanket obliteration that retroactively seeks out all the poster’s contributions and leaves behind a neat little advisory to the effect that they are now in BBCCoventry.
I only discovered this recently, on a BBC Editor thread where poster kept posting a single URL until the above terminated them.
The irony was that it was to a Gaurdain story the BBC was claiming as defamatory.
Thank you. Sarcastic or nay.
That thank you was aimed at you
Which ‘you’ are you referring to?
Because it’s getting tricky to get a handle on what you write vs. what you mean…
Cleo says:
November 8, 2012 at 7:32 am
Absolutely my last post.
And when I do what you want…
Cleo says:
November 8, 2012 at 11:32 am
Get off my back man/ woman
… you forget that you want it.
What is a boy/girl to do?
I just signed up to this
http://www.gfkmediaview.com/
Anyone know if it does pass on opinions?
Tweet from Labour’s Andy Burnham MP:
#r4today I’d quite like to correct Mr Hunt but sadly the Today programme doesn’t invite many Labour people on.
I suspect this is utter bs, and it would be interesting to know what proportion of politicians invited on the Today are left wing…
Jeff
‘this is utter bs’
Usually at this juncture the full force of the cherry vulture off-my-back-room boys (& girls) is usually deployed on their Cary 4’s to prove such a claim wrong.
Oddly… nothing so far.
I’d say you may be onto something.
Where’s Craig when you need actual professional accuracy and integrity?
I suspect the majority recently have been right wing, but down to the fact the Conservatives are in power. Proves nothing. Balance does not mean balancing left and right wing views. It’s the interviewers job to scrutinise what the Government is doing not usher a member of the Opposition in to provide counterpoint.
Always a pleasure to sip the morning coffee over the overnight dispatches, and get the skinny from around the world from BBBC correspondents filling in the gaps left by the BBC’s unique filters, most of whom currently seem to be on location…. sorry… ‘overseas assignment’ to use the J.Jonah J’s favoured designation.
Speaking of whom, it is marred somewhat by the rather OT (OK, this is too, and I await censure from those who seem to care about site protocol… if oddly only those who also don’t think the site should exist) shedload of critical guano (other fecal descriptive terms best left to others) deposited by the cherry vulture shift on the evening and night shifts.
In terms of volume the number of folk not coming here to get offended appears to be experiencing a surge of late.
Or, maybe, a Bulge, given the resources being thrown, with a rather unfortunate attrition rate as the supply lines falter and casualties mount.
Anyhoo… onward and upward, with a personal hat tip to David P and others for offering me more free points of newsworthy consideration than I remain compelled to pay for via our national propaganda system and the equally sorry ratings-chasing commercial MSM it competes with.
Plenty to chew on and maybe drop a line upon in those little breaks one needs to take throughout the day to recharge.
I for one hope our new deluded brethren stay. They are more entertaining than Scott and they still have that wide eyed innocence of a true believers.
Their presence here helps highlight the sheer scale of the propaganda juggernaut we are facing.
Auntie will have you believing black is white, suicide bombers are Methodists , the Taliban are just misunderstood as are the Muslim brotherhood, windmills are really cost effective and enhance our lives, ed balls was right , brown wasn’t to blame, the British people are the font of all evil,all Americans except OBama and Hollywood are religious freaks, Iran is really just a bunch of fluffy old men with beards, jimmy saville was a great guy, the only child molesters are catholic priests, female circumcision is just a quaint ethnic custom, oh and of course no one at auntie is over paid they are just paid the market rate, too much control of the media is dangerous unless you are an unelected cabal of moist leftists, listening to people’s voicemail is much worse than child rape. Have I left anything out. 😉
…tax avoiders must be shamed and pilloried harshly, except when BBC staff are involved.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is rumoured to be
Justin Welby, the BBC mourned this morning on the Today programme.
He ticks all the wrong boxes, White, old Etonian, Evangelical, against homosexual ‘marriage’ and former oil man…
But he is, apparently, in favour of women bishops which, I reckon, trumps all the “negatives”.
Anyway, in the long view it doesn’t really matter. The CoE is a declining and marginal influence in the UK although the BBC still finds it useful to wheel in a trendy CoE talking head to support the BBC agenda (eg Tom Butler, Giles Fraser and Lucy Winkett).
As to the CoE’s decline among believers: if my local CoE church is anything to go by, even at Easter (which when I was a child was the most important festival in the Christian calendar) the congregation rarely gets into double figures which includes the priest’s family.
In fairness to the C of E, Evangelical churches are thriving and Cathedrals are doing pretty well. With notable exceptions it’s the Liberal and Anglo Catholic churches that are declining.
My local Evangelical Cof E has a regular congregation of more than 500 every Sunday.
Fair enough: as for the Anglo Catholics, haven’t they largely left and joined up with the Roman ones leaving a rump of evangelicals and (grossly over-represented in all houses of Synod) dripping wet Liberals?
Karma can be a minx.
No sooner does OFCOM get cited a few times, like the Candyman…
http://order-order.com/2012/11/08/ofcom-issue-bbc-warning/
You’d need a heart of stone sometimes.
Mind you, the BBC getting a shot across the bows from a bloke with an interesting CV who no long ago was up for the top slot could be seen as yet more of the same murky brew.
Having helped secure Obama another term the BBBC reverts to type this morning slagging off the police and criticising the MOD over the reserve forces.
Caught the Freethinker festival 45min ‘debate’ between Tom Holland and Mona Siddiqui, last night on R3, about what separates Christianity and Islam. If you dug deep enough it could have been taken as a damning indictment by Holland, with his contention that Christianity, unlike Islam, had a capacity to evolve and allowed both groups and indviduals greater self-determination in deciding how to think or behave. Don’t bother to wait for a Muslim reformation and enightenment – they’ll never come. (He was actually wrong in part – Islam has had its reformation: it produced Wahhabism, Deobandism and ultimately the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda). Siddiqui’s only real answer to that was that individual Muslims can, when possible, exclude Islam from areas of their life, as ‘secular’ Muslims. The whole thing was kept so safely anodyne and abstractly theological, you would never have thought that the ethical codes of Christianity and Islam differ so greatly that they are practically the inverse of each other.
How does this involve BBC bias? Well, it is clear that nothing shocking, genuinely controversial or eye-opening was going to emerge from this debate – it would never have taken place if there was any such danger.
One audience questioner asked if they agreed with the Archbishop of Canterbury that some aspects of shariah would inevitably become part of British culture.Siddiqui replied that it already was- for instance, most Muslims conducted their marriages according to shariah. What Holland did not do was raise concrete issues, at this point, concerning legitimisation of wife-beating, the non-existence of the concept of marital rape, the breezy one-sided divorce laws, polygamy etc etc. In stead, Holland just waffled on about Elizabeth I trying to get all sides into the same tent (the CoE) and this tradition continued here, but perhaps we were going too far in downplaying the differences. Even the discussion of the veil was discussed in terms of a girl wishing to wear it against the wishes of her parents, rather than what happens to girls who defy their parents by not wearing it.
Holland has been mildly controversial by arguing that the Koran seems to have been in part derivative and that there may be an element of mytholigising about the Muslim account of how it came into being but there are far are more full blooded (and perfectly respectable) critics of Islam than that around. The Beeboids have systematically never let them near a microphone, except in the ocasional, most hostile of environments possible, short of actual physical intimidation.
Do we ever get a non beeb thread to just cut lose and debate?
‘Do we ever get a non-beeb thread to just cut lose [sic – unless it was intentional] and debate?’
This ‘we’ of whom you speak… who they?
Best run it by the growing cabal of public sector hall monitors who appear to think they run this private site. See what they think.. and what happens.
They’ll probably call for an inquiry at the very least.
Articulate morons are the worst xx
…as you can see, Cleo, the ‘open threads’ often spin off on all manner of tangents, but there has been a concern by the hosts that sometimes they can become too wayward and off topic. I personally don’t think a little bit of deviation from the specifics of BBC bias are too much of a problem, as long as things don’t wander off too far for too long.
I think it would help engage people. Thank you for your civil reply. A custom strat In your avi? I’m learning on a les Paul copy. Hubby says he will buy me a fender Jag for Xmas if I reach intermediate level. I want one as a mere ornament if needs be. 🙂
No problem – manners maketh the man/woman – and they’re free.
…only a Yamaha copy by the way – nice little geetar though – and much lighter than those Les Pauls! (though I do like the look of them).
Cleo … What topics apart from the BBC would you like to tell us we are wrong about then???
forgot link to Islam/Christianity debate;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01npj5l
the BBC is just one big gay club, that we are all forced to finance
The BBC will reap what they sow.
Remember that.