Crikey, the site is buzzing and the Open Threads fill up before I have even a chance to look! Here’s another fresh one for you. I notice BBC are STILL droning on about Obama the Great and the nasty Tea Party….. at moment like this the BIAS just oozes out of them, any pretence of impartiality cast to the wind. Can you imagine how they will behave if Miliband gets into Downing Street?
THURSDAY OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Yes, it’s curious how the Tea Party suddenly looms so large in the tiny minds at the BBC.. A few years back one could have been forgiven for thinking it didn’t exist at all….
‘the Tea Party suddenly looms so large’
This would be the niche group of right wing cranks who no one pays attention to, gets nothing done but so many seek out to get offended by and appear to be trying to neuter again?
Now, where have I heard that recently?
It’s another outbreak like that selective Alzheimers outbreak the BBC has contracted currently.
Oo..oo.. I neglected ‘Fox-viewing’ (it’s like Daily Mail reading but much worse).
…according to HIGNFY, even worse than harbouring Britain’s most prolific paedophile.
talking of HIGNFY, then it will be a bit of a blood bath tomorrow.
Nigel Farage is on, so they will constantly rip into him, with out giving him a chance to answer. If he does manage to get an answer in, then they will edit it out.
He’s a fool for going on.
Or brave
I’m going with brave, but they’ll all do their best to make sure he looks a fool.
Andrew Neil made Farage look like a fool recently by nailing him on breaking a promise and not filing his MEP expenses for over a year. Hislop probably has that in his notes.
Nigel is brave alright. When a stupid little female journalist tried to take the mickey out of him by asking him about a recent cancer operation ( which testicle was removed ) he offered to show the little cow. Now can you imagine if the journalist was male the the interviewee female. You can guess the rest.
Why were you dropped from BBC London this morning. I know why. Maybe your vanity prevents you from coming clean.
Ah yes, the Tea Party, who want to pay lower tax. Just like the BBC’s top stars who are on tax avoidance schemes. Do as I say not as I do, that is the BBC’s motto.
We now find that the BBC payed Jimmy Savile in Rolls Royces back in the 70s so that he would not have to pay the 98% tax rate. So these BBC tax avoiding schemes have a long history.
Its the whole idea of the left that.
See they all want there to be more tax paid, and will vote for tax increases. The only thing is that they only want to increase tax for others, never themselves.
The readers don’t seem to agree that Mark Mardell is an Obama fan.
In fact, quite the opposite:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20208626
I read that article and deduced that someone had hacked Mark Mardell’s ID and was posting stuff in his name.
‘someone had hacked’
There’s a lot of it about.
‘Course there is that 100:1 ‘balance’ ‘split’ the BBC has to pop in.
Top comment:
8. Emmnues
I read your columns often. I have never bothered to comment even when I disagree with your views. However, this opinion piece is over the top annoying. What exactly is a ‘natural’? Why should Obama adopt Clinton style? He is a balanced mature adult who eschews feeding the vanity of some politicians who feel entitled. This is his style and I find it very refreshing.
Translation: It was fine for years, but stray again and I go Jo Abbess on your ass.
There’s a fair bit of that about too.
All over the shop.
No, that’s pure Mardell. He told the BBC CoJ a while back that he thought The Obamessiah wasn’t really a great politician in the sleazy, two-faced, salesman sense. Which isn’t exactly a condemnation of the man Himself. Most of the piece is – what else? – an apologia, and a work of delusion. The President is mostly doing this out of a sense of duty? Seriously? Did Mardell not listen to anything insiders have been saying for the last five years?
Comment of the year (in response to another commenter who doesn’t like the President):
“Four more years of complete, total, and absolute cluelessness.”
You mean Mark Mardell is staying in the US for that long?
Do we believe him? “I was forced into keeping more of my own money, damn it!” If he’s telling the truth, the corporation stands accused of ‘institutional tax avoidance’ whilst naming and shaming other corporations that are engaged in similar practices. Oh the hypocrisy!
————————————–
NEWSNIGHT presenter Jeremy Paxman told yesterday of his anger at a BBC tax arrangement he says he was FORCED into.
Some stars had to set up “personal service companies” to receive pay.
Paxman told The Sun: “Some clown in the BBC had insisted as a condition of my engagement on Newsnight that I had to do it and I resented it deeply. I very strongly believe that everyone should pay their taxes.”
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/4633013/paxo-rap-at-bbc-tax-deal.html#ixzz2Bd5DSMWq
There is nothing stopping Jeremy from paying more to the tax man than the tax man is asking for. No problem at all there. Just like anyone else who thinks they are not taxed enough, then they can overpay by as much as they like, no problem.
Imagine the scene… the sneer, the crooked eyebrow..
‘…and you seriously expect us to believe that you..’
‘Course, chez Aunty, belief counts, if variably for a lot. Accounts… not so much.
Nobody forced him to work for the BBC; if he felt that strongly, he should have resigned.
…with the added benefit that he’d finally find out how much his market rate is REALLY worth outside the confines of his ‘star interviewer’ status at the BBC.
Exactly. It would put him well and truly in his place.
Surely if the bbc had the power to demand and the ability to control and direct mr paxman business arrangements then that very fact alone would mean he falls foul of the servant master test and is therefore an employee in the eyes of hmrc… thats what nuelabia strengthened and was rabidly enforcing for IT contractors with the IR35 legislation.
Also strange how footballers don’t fall foul of this test when they are directed and trained in every move they make yet are allowed to set up service companies.
Paxman ‘resented it so deeply’ he actually went along with it.
Obviously a man of strong principles – the sort the BBC admire.
I’m sure that Jeremy gave away most of money he didn’t pay in tax. After all if your not paying your full whack of tax it would be so hypocritical to keep demanding more and more public spending wouldn’t it.
You don’t have to watch it.
As soon as BBC start drivelling about the Obamessiah I switch to CNN, where they start drivelling………………..
‘You don’t have to watch it.’
Thing is, I don’t ‘have to’ watch CNN either, and now here’s a big difference to what still happens to me back here in Blighty if I do…
You dont have to watch it but you do have to pay for it
The BBC increasingly appear to lash out in a post-Savile climate. What Schofield did this morning- and did his BBC editor know that he was going to do it?- is beyond belief.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229808/David-Cameron-ambushed-astonishing-list-alleged-Tory-child-abusers-live-TV-Philip-Schofield-accidentally-showed-millions-viewers.html
What Schofield did this morning- and did his BBC editor know that he was going to do it?
You do realise it’s an ITV show, and has been for over 24 years?
Yes, but he did press the wrong buttons in the CBBC broom cupboard once. Doesn’t that count?
No wonder Nicked Emus is a delusional basket case.
So tomorrow a BBC presenter will be handing the Director General a card with a similar list of BBC talent, right?
No I didn’t, I’m sorry, never watch them. Thought it must have nbeen a BBC stunt. But the ITV editor must have his or her sights on a BBC posting, and clearly wanted to outsmart Newsnight. They all swop and change, the MSM is a bit like the magic roundabout. I get confused watching Al Jazerra because so many BBC faeces are on it.
So you didn’t watch the programme but still comment on it. Right. Got it.
November 8, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Hey Nicked Emus, you sound like a Klugscheißer! I read about the programme and gave the link for others here, who in their right minds watches morning TV, anyway?
I quite agree. I never watch it. I never listen to Radio 5 either. But here’s the thing. I don’t comment on programmes I haven’t watched or listened to.
Yes Guest, another little rule I have.
‘Nicked’s Book of Little Rules’.
Bound in red, by any chance?
‘I don’t comment on programmes I haven’t watched or listened to.
Yes Guest, another little rule I have.’
Then, I have to say, for Jim, with you on duty it’s probably worse than that… unless he gets a pass on ‘details’…
‘Jim Dandy says:
November 5, 2012 at 7:56 am
I didn’t watch, so can’t comment in detail. but
But,…guessing another unique exception from the BBC booky-wooky of ‘rules’?
So nicked, because you haven’t yourself witnessed Jimmy saville fiddling with a teenager do you feel similarly reluctant to comment? Surely what matters is a list of Uncorroborated suspected Paedos was displayed on telly. True it was on ITV so really this is one stick we can’t beat auntie with but it is worth discussion as it a pertains to the saville mess.
Call me old fashioned, call me Mr. Picky but I prefer to have some facts to back up my argument. So if I am going to talk about a programme it helps to have watched it don’t you think?
Do you not think that your views are somewhat compromised by not having any facts? Or is that just me? (Maybe it is just me. Hero of this blog James Delingpole famously admitted that he never reads peer-reviewed science — that English degree of his didn’t really equip him for it — and you lot lap him up. Clearly for those on this site facts are a burden with which you don’t encumber yourself).
It is not just you, as the other 3 will be along soon to add their ticks. So another semantic triumph will be ensured.
‘Call me old fashioned’
Call you a cab, call you to the bar… and ‘old-fashioned’ is too an option, but maybe not heading the list on current offerings.
‘..and you lot..’
Because ‘broken record’ will be higher again having again being treated to this lazy generalisation getting trotted out… especially if based on which ‘facts’ in irony-free support, exactly?
Are you on commission? Do you get paid everytime you respond to one of my posts? While I am flattered by the attention it is starting to get a tad creepy. I am wondering if I should change my locks.
As for the “content” of your post I was amused at being chastised for saying “you lot” while at the same time you say “the other three”. Motes, beams, eyes?
Toodle pip. Don’t feel you have to respond, but I wouldn’t want you to lose your commission.
As we’re down to 1 character lines, this may be a bit tricky to read on site, so I commend to all the email version, which is what I use to know when something pops up worth having some fun with beyond the day job.
I feel this one needs a good fisking (that’s.. fisking before anyone gets too excited, or offended. Or both).
‘Are you on commission? Do you get paid everytime you respond to one of my posts?’
Nope, but this being a blog, you can’t possibly know if I am being honest or not. So I’m guessing you’ll go with what you want to believe. Next.
While I am flattered by the attention it is starting to get a tad creepy.
Well, at risk of another ‘Oo, er, missus’ that kind of works both ways, from the first time you decided I was more worthy of your… ‘interest’… as opposed to any substantive argument. A bit like… here! Next.
‘I am wondering if I should change my locks.’
Why, do you not live in one of those areas where all leave their doors open? You’re safe from me, and unlike some actual, creepy types haunting here, I don’t think I have done any more than take issue with what you write. Maybe a bit robust and even teasingly comparative at times, but none of that ‘we know where your kids go to school stuff’. Next.
‘As for the “content” of your post I was amused at being chastised for saying “you lot” while at the same time you say “the other three”. Motes, beams, eyes?
Ah, but, I am not a site policeman. And three is a magic number. Please define who comprises ‘you lot’ on this site and offer factual evidence each one has the views you accorded them all. Otherwise… next.
‘Toodle pip. Don’t feel you have to respond, but I wouldn’t want you to lose your commission.’
More, I suspect, au revoir over adieu?
As to the commission thing, repetition is often effective. But like the telling of lies, as the BBC is finding, enough can initially serve, but too much… rather backfires. Though if you are trying to poison the well of folk pondering what the motivations are of who keep coming here to get offended and tell everyone no one comes here, worth a shot I guess.
Oh, and one last point. I come to this site because I find it serves a purpose of value, and I actually enjoy it too, even little Cleo Lane sidebars like these. And as we are now playing by kindergarden rules (like Chatham only with fewer market rate talents and feepayer-funded lawyers – well, on my side) I was here long before you, so beyond the ‘being stalked’ avenue, especially along with any who play David or Alan as owners… pretty deranged.
Unless you are simply yet another false flag to make the BBC and its apologists seem that way.
In which case fair play, but please stop. It wastes time addressing actual abuses worthy of debate.
As far as I can guess, not, as I recall an earlier happier day when we first were jousting, over now sadly passed (as in the past) Whitman, who was begat by Postdamer… and was not coping well with logic failure at the time.
http://biasedbbc.tv/2012/06/new-york-new-york.html
I do treasure those exchanges, for the tonality but also little memories.. it’s like you have changed..
Wild says:
June 4, 2012 at 11:27 am
“I am not any of the people you seem to think I am, I don’t know who they are”
If you do not know who they are, how do you know you are not one of them?
But it was good to know that you do not work for the BBC, but simply have been paid by them.. in the past.
Funny, Nicked, but I would guess James Delingpole is just being honest.
If you or George Monbiot read the peer reviewed scientific papers pertaining to climate change I would be extremely surprised, but it still doesn’t stop you or him forming a view does it?
And by the way, a third of the ‘science’ contained in the UN IPCC Assessment Report is NON peer-reviewed, just in case you’re also propagandising here on behalf of the Alarmist camp.
But I don’t claim to be an expert like Delingpole does which is why he got his arse handed to him on a plate.
So you didn’t watch the programme. Instead, you linked to a news report about it – which clearly states it was an ITV programme. Did you not even read that?
And now you ascribe intentions to an editor, not through any evidence, but because you made a ridiculous mistake that highlights your own prejudice and you seek to deflect attention away from that.
Congratulations. You’re just proving everything negative that people say about this site.
On that programme, clearly appalling and irresponsible editorial decisions were made. But you’ve achieved what ought to have been impossible – you’ve made the idiots who made those bad decisions look intelligent by comparison.
‘You’re just proving everything negative that people say about this site..
Who are these people, Scott? Your colleagues at…………maybe? Do tell.
That was quick Scott, almost like you were lurking in wait for a juicy cherry
What a stunning lack of knowledge – and people even seem to agree with you!!!
‘people even seem to agree with you!!!’
Here we go again.
And the next show trial spamming call will be at 2pm.
He was wrong. Though one is sure, like Mr. NaughtieMarr, a simple acknowledgement will suffice as every insincere blue blazer on Newswatch has mumbled since Ray Snoddy was in short trousers.
Were that errors of this nature by a £4Bpa entity supported by compelled funding saw such a response from those of an ‘independent, just happened across this site, David Vance eats baby seals, little old lady simply seeking to expose BBC bias’ person-on-the-Clapham-omnibus.
The precedents would be interesting.
You’re going to fly half of Mark Mardell’s online glee club to Gitmo for a start.
I can’t wait for this human virus denial of service attempt to stop soon.
It must be expensive, though interns in the hypocrite sector are free, so maybe not too costly, if labour intensive.
Mind you, by the calibre of some responses I reckon even the first Turing machine contestant could probably manage better.
Maybe we do need a Cleo Lane, where runaway flockers can be directed to be seen by each other and not heard, without the down side of a free speech policy being abused.
Talking of BBC-Democrat’s Katty KAY:-
“BBC’s Washington reporter rapped over ‘lobby’ remark”
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/89974/bbc%E2%80%99s-washington-reporter-rapped-over-lobby%E2%80%99-remark?
Rapped or criticised meaning what, exactly, that means anything?
…I think she made the remark ‘in the style of a rapper’. Da BBC Massive, init.
Does BBC-Democrat’s Ms Kay ever refer to the ‘Muslim lobby’ in America?
…only in relation to the atrium of the ground zero mosque.
More proof of the like minds at the BBC/Guardian, where this kind of soft anti-semitism seems to come quite naturally.
…no wonder they spent a fortune keeping Balen under wraps!
Katty will wear this as a badge of honor, and it will not have any effect on her BBC or TV panel pundit or NPR guest-host or highly-paid speaking engagement career.
The British Jewish Lobby complains that somebody thinks there’s a group of powerful Jews? It just confirms her suspicions.
Katty fits right in at the BBC with her beliefs. The lone exception seems to be Jonathan Marcus.
Katty needs to explain why, if the Joooos are so powerful, they don’t control their own holiest site, and all those US Joooos voted to re-elect the most anti-Israel President we’ve ever had.
I GET IT, the BBC/Guardianistas are Socialists and the NAZIS where National Socialists. That is why the BBC/Guardianistas hate the Jews.
BBC still giving lots of airtime to Labour Party calls for some all encompassing, over-arching, no-holds-barred inquiry into the meaning of life, everything, all-and-sundry, tout le monde – so that it can really hold to account all institutions including the highest levels of Government. (I thought that was what the BBC already did – at least when Labour is out of power).
Meanwhile Tom Watson and his pals at Newsnight in their efforts to widen the focus from a concentration of Savile at the Beeb seem to have rammed the story up some rather tender back alleys.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20251939
“David Cameron fears a “witch-hunt” against gay people as a result of child abuse allegations circulating online.”
It appears to me that quite a few labour politicians are also being named-out there on the Internet (below passim), so the BBCs slant to aim at the Tories, or to pick and choose, will ultimately backfire. But then again that’s what they are good at- biased newsreporting- to try and defend/ promote the Labour party.
What I think they are miscalculating, is that the louder they cry, the more attention is actually given to the BBCs Jimmy Savile.
http://www.onlinepublishingcompany.info/
Milliband/ Cameron- could anyone tell the difference? And talking about Cameron, what a stomach churning congratulatory message he sent to the saviour of the world on his re election where he desribed the obamessiah as ‘my friend’. For goodness sake, get off your knees Prime Minister you’re an embarrassment to us all!
Not enough Facepalms in the Universe…
Don’t look for aliens – it’s against health and safety! What BBC bosses told Professor Brian Cox about new planet
‘The BBC actually said, “But you can’t do that because we need to go through the regulations and health and safety and everything in case we discover a signal from an alien civilisation”.
‘(I said), “You mean we would discover the first hint that there is other intelligent life in the universe beyond Earth, live on air, and you’re worried about the health and safety of it?” It was incredible. They did have guidelines. Compliance.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229354/BBC-bosses-told-Professor-Brian-Cox-listen-newly-discovered-planet-case-aliens-swore-live-TV.html
If aliens did make contact with the BBC, they’d assume there was no intelligent life on planet Earth.
Is this a joke? I mean, I know Beeboids don’t do science (apart from climate science, in which they’re all apparent experts), but what moron is worried about getting a response from a planet several hundred lightyears away?
(PS: pace Dr. David Gregory)
“…but what moron is worried about…”
Unthinking, unimaginative, discretion-free, tick-box culture bureaucrats…you know, the people that are regrettably in charge of just about every area of the public sector (and some of the private).
The BBC’s response is that the mandarins were joking. Is Cox that dense and didn’t get it? It sure doesn’t sound like it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nrkkm
Starts at about 2hrs45min.
Shaun Keaveny laughs right along with Cox, saying that’s “such a BBC thing to do.” He probably knows all about being warned against running into BBC standards and practices guidelines. So that’s another official BBC defense shredded.
Well found! It’s clear he came up against some humourless compliance drones.
Humphrys gave the same defense this morning on Today. He said that Cox’s claims “aren’t entirely true.”
Lapdog.
Because of BBC Editorial Guidelines, the following must be censored because opinions may not be in agreement with the BBC/Guardianista mindset. (with reluctant exemptions for democratically elected Tory MP,s and MEP,s, UKIP MEPS,s and a VERY VERY reluctant token exemption for BNP MEP,s)
(1) Muslim opinion on Gay marriage.
(2) Climate scientists opinion on Cosmoclimatology or the Unified Theory of Climate.
(3) The unknown opinions of Aliens (opinions could violate the hatred laws as well as the health and safety laws).
(4) other reasons, etc
How long will it take prof Cox to convince them the earth actually orbits the sun and not vice versa?
Not possible as they know that gravity is a social construct,designed by middle aged middle class white men, to oppress women and minorities.
🙂
…just waiting for jonsuk to make a comment about the BBC enjoying looking at Uranus…waiting….
They never give up.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121004-fake-trees-to-clean-the-skies
Well, some get given up upon as soon as the money ceases to be uniquely secured by compulsion..
‘We’re sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee’
Those would appear to include the British people who are obliged to pay the BritishBroadcastingCensors’ licence fee to inform, educate and entrtain the rest of the world.
Written by “Gaia Vince”.
Next time: a lengthy explanation of capitalism by “Tex Richman”.
Katty Kay @KattyKayBBC
A hurricane and a snow storm w/in 9 days – should #climate change be the only topic of conversation?
At the BBC…absolutely! There – completed it for you.
For Beeboids (Democrat and high-cost greenies),
snow in early November = global warming.
Always one for precedent…
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/07/bbc_is_private_go_away/
‘BBC lawyers are insisting the law treats the public-funded broadcaster as a private body’
There being no contract I signed voluntarily, and the terms of service being not to my satisfaction, with delivery well short of that promised, and customer service, well, let’s not go there, and the possibility of being held to account for supporting with funding illegal acts, this could be fun…
‘For its part, the BBC doesn’t wish to be assailed by bothersome requests.’
Sounds like they’d prefer folk got off their back and left them alone to… well… that’s a matter of trust, and it’s sort of in small supply now.
‘The judge, however, cut Newbery off. No invitations have survived, it appears.’
Ah, the establishment that has inquiries to restore public faith in… what again?
In court the BBC could produce no written evidence that the rule applied to the meeting, although the tribunal judge took their word that it did, and the BBC argued that no notes of the meeting have been kept.
One is sure if Paxo had this across the Newsnight studio from him, he’d be rather scathing, would he not? Unless the ‘arrangements’ he fought against ethically overcame him.
May I go on to commend…
http://www.harmlesssky.org/
This case appears to gaining traction too.
The BBC legal bill may well come to be as much a problem as all they seek to not be held to account for.
The public doesn’t like the powerful much anyway… but abusing young and old alike may not be explained away as getting the balance about right much longer.
My understanding is that this seminar established that the BBC position is 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, as the fellows would be in rebellion if the scientific method was perverted by promoting a recently disproven assumption as a fact. 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 leaves open the probability of further legal action against the BBC after this freedom of information action, and also gives people on this website, an idea of what the BBC could be in for, from the fellows of the Royal Society.
But hasn’t Sir Paul Nurse, the Society’s president, placed his feet firmly in the warmist camp?
I don’t often turn to the Graun website but this is there now…hope it gains some traction.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/08/david-elstein-bbc-jimmy-savile
The only thing that will gain traction from this is more cries of “But…but…but…Fox News!…Rupert Murdoch!”
Ex-Beeboid, sour grapes, BSkyB, he would say that wouldn’t he. He’s right, of course, but this will go nowhere.
Good old Guardian readers – at least 90% (if not more) are hostile -one commentator even compared the Beeb to the NHS as a great British institution.
Guardian readers really do like their BBC, now don’t they? Please keep it as it is they say. Please, please maintain the present arcane management structure and the hands-off at all costs approach of the Trust.
Must be because all those well known progressive and iconoclastic free thinkers who read the Guardian realise that their Beeb has reached the very pinnacle of balanced unbiased perfection. Hmmm.
Nasty little piece on Today this morning leading up to the 7am news.
Basically, it smeared Lord Weidenfeld and his setting up some funding in the universities(Exeter was it?) , to combat anti-Israeli attacks and abuses in them.
But no-the Head of International Relations at the selfsame university reckons that this would breach impartiality rules…he`s a self serving/loathing Jewish chap himself.
That he himself is well funded by some Arab Emir himself(Sharjah was it?) was not looked at TOO closely…after all, it`s the Jew in the crosshairs, not the slew of pro-Arab, pro PLO, pro-Muslim, pro-Gadhaffi unis…bloody Jews have taken over and bought up the independence of the academics , and all these Islamists and their stoogies is NOT repeat NOT an issue.
As opposed to the Jewish takeover.
A nasty little piece with lots of clucking from the likes of Humphrys-now these are the BBCs stock stories and caricatures…and a few petrified, bullied Israeli and Jews must not be get in the way of the “poor Pally” narratives.
God Bless Israel and the Jewish nation…they`ll be there long after Obama has been forgotten!
Hence Katty Kay’s ease with condemning the Jewish Lobby. I like how the BBC qualifies Weidenfeld’s statement as “the Arab money he says” is flowing into universities, and then casually tells you that the useful Israeli is bought and paid for by Arabs.
It’s all about maintaining academic integrity, innit.
The chair of Arabic studies at Exeter University is named after the Emir of Sharjah.
Ex-rozzer Robert lambert and his collabrator Githens-Mazer have a unit there called the European Muslim Research Centre.
Their (farcical) report on Islamophobia, which came out at the end of 2010, is taken apart by Andrew gilligan here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100066569/islamic-extremism-is-this-the-years-most-embarrassing-academic-report/
It was , in part, financed by he Cordoba foundation, which even David cameron admits, is a Muslim Brotherhood Front.
The EMRC helped finance (along with al Jazeera and Memo) a recent survey of the success so far, and what further efforts are requires, of Palestinian propagandists in Europe (although they didn’t phraseit like that):
TheBattle for Public Opinion in Europe’
(MEMO is run by Dr Daud Abdullah who signed the Hamas-supporting Istanbul Declaration which calls on the ‘Islamic Nation’ to fight any ‘foreign warship’ attempting to block arms smuggling to Hamas. Presumably, such a ‘foreign warship’ could include one from the Royal Navy.)
The CoE vicar accused of anti-Semitism, Sephen Sizer has this interesting passage in his blog’s account of its launch at UCL Senate House:
“Tim Llewellyn, Seumas Milne and Jackie Rowland were on a panel chaired by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. It was fascinating to hear correspondents from the Independent, Guardian, Al Jazeera and BBC discuss changing perceptions of the Palestine-Israel Conflict and agree with each another on almost every issue.
Baroness Jenny Tonge gave a closing ‘thank you’ to the Zionists present for helping to draw attention to the Palestinian cause by their criticisms of her and other human rights activists.”
http://stephensizer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/the-battle-for-public-opinion-in-europe.html
Incidentally, since it has been raised in connection with this blog, you may be interested in seeing how the left can really go to town on a blog linking to dubious websites (in the case of Sizer they are almost certainly justified)
http://hurryupharry.org/2012/09/30/stephen-sizer-is-this-behaviour-befitting-the-leader-of-an-evangelical-church/
Of course taking part in this Arabist, leftist love-in for all things Palestinian didn’t compromise the BBC’s legendary ‘impartiality’ did it?
I’ve come up against Exeter apologists for the Palestinians. Pieces of work . I would rather leave a room where they are than spend five minutes in their company.
Yes, imagine how your grades would be affected if you spoke up for Israel in any such university.
Especially if this guy is your lecturer:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/04/muslim-university-lecturer-in-uk-jerusalem-does-not-belong-to-jewish-israelis-or-to-jews-israel-is-f.html
should have written ‘gal’!
“Material World”(4.30 p.m/8-11-12) has me worried about kamikaze thrushes throwing themselves into the sea, off that South coast.
As if the BBC don`t have enough to worry about…Savile, tax returns and the like!
Our Auntie…so compassionate, and always room for one more nervous nelly moment for its uncaring public.
Anyhoo-these birds are forcing distraught fishermen and RSPB wet lettuces inot counselling….and so I`m sure “All in The Mind” will be seeking more CBT from the NHS, by way of redress.
A seamless robe of compassion is the BBC.
As soon as I heard the intro to this laughable piece of whimsy, I knew what the cause would be
(a) Climate Change and Global Warming.
(b) A lack of immigration status conferrred upon Nordic birds, due to Tory cuts and caps
(c) The only response by the birds to highlight the lack of a free Tibet…it`s too cold to set fire to yourself on N.Utsire at the moment.
It`s called “mass mortality” by the RSPB…that so Beeb?…God, we pay for this stuff!
Katty Kay @KattyKayBBC
Per Alec Baldwin on GOP – you know your party’s in trouble when the answer to “how’s the rape guy polling?” is “which one?”
Yeah – cos those loons are entirely representative of the whole party. There’s far too much religion in the modern Republican party for my taste (not really my business, not American), but why is it that only the right-wing nutters are ‘trouble’ for the party as a whole, and not the leftie ones for theirs?
She’s right: with the Democrats, you know they’re only talking about the previous Democrat President.
…which is presumably where the ‘war on women’ started.
Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Anthony ‘I’ll show you my’ Weiner – apparently his middle initial is ‘D’ – wonder what that stands for…anything in a skirt (boom boom).
So the new Archbishop of Canterbury is, according to the Today newsreader, “an old Etonian” and an oil executive, and comes from the “Evangelical” wing of the CofE, opposing homosexual marriage, but approving of women bishops.
This is going to be fun.
The bBBC describes him as a ‘former oil industry worker’.
which makes him sound like a redneck drill-operator!
I think he was a finance director in a city office.
I wish the Godless antiChrist that is now the BBC would shut the FU about religious affairs, like the appointing of a new archbishop.
The only types who`ll get asked about it , are trusty TOFD lickspittles like Clifford Longley, who sold their own souls long ago…as well as the Beebs favourite Reverend Blue jeans types like that Hillsborough cringer, and prisoners parson James(call me Jimster!) Jones.
Imagine…an “evangelical” as an Archbishop…urgh!
As reduced and supine a Church as you would expect after years of Rowan and Giles…
New leader in China.
New leader in the Church of England.
…
I thought someone at the bBBC might get the message.
I’ve no idea what the top Imam is called in Britain, but next time he’s appointed (assuming he’s here legally) perhaps we can expect an equally plainspoken pen picture from al-Beeb.
Speaking for us all now! Speak for yourself, you conceited, arrogant, smug know-all…
Katty Kay @KattyKayBBC
A: After Romney’s super succesful trip to London this summer, Brits were mildly relieved not to see him elected #askkattybbc
Ah that ‘we’ thing again. Speaking for the nation-wise.
Brits were mildly relieved not to see him elected’
Guess CECUTT would see that as just Katty being Katty as Mr. Mason was when he referred to the PM rejecting the Euro deal as ‘the UK throwing its toys out the pram’.
Which seemed more his view and maybe the BBC’s… but not the country they variably serve to suit.
David P… this may entertain, as Newsnight seems to feel Paxo’s issues with tax are not what the UK public should care about..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20252428
Same was what Naughtie was saying today, and what every single Beeboid has been saying for years. In order for Republicans to be successful, they have to become as liberal Democrats on every single issue imaginable, and start pandering to minorities just like the Democrats do. Not so much a recipe for success as it is a recipe for extinction. Which is, of course, the point.
That was hard to listen to – she has that awful modern affliction of the grating, nasal yak yak yak. Can’t bear it!
Katty could be right. According to her colleague, Mark Mardell, there’s so much anti-Mormon prejudice in Britain that one running for office “would indeed be questioned” over his religious beliefs.
Yes, it’s a pity they didn’t elect a Mormon President who wears magic underwear, believes that God comes from a planet called Kolob and that American Indians are descendants of ancient Jews.
No wonder he wanted to destroy those religious nutters in Iran.
Did Romney’s religion affect his governing of Massachusetts? Please provide evidence for your assertion.
It was a joke.
As far as I can tell, Mormons are probably amongst the least dangerous of all religions. Almost every other major religion has been to war in the name of their particular belief. And some still are.
Okay, my apologies then. I guess I’m just tired of all the single-directed prejudice from the BBC.
The question is whether a BBC broadcaster subject to a commitment to impartiality ought to be expressing such partisan views openly, and with a ‘BBC’ tag attached – not whether mormon beliefs are eccentric.
They do it freely until someone makes the effort of convincing the Complaints department that it’s wrong. Then they delete the tweet and carry on until next time they freely express bias. Every once in a great while, they decided to delete the entire account and start another one under a different name.
But there are no actual consequences from it, which means the only lesson learned is resentment of the unwashed BBC haters.
Notice that’s from @KattyKayBBC. Not just KattyKay but KattyKayBBC.
They don’t think it’s partisan at all. As our defenders of the indefensible will tell you, what she said is entirely accurate. Just like her casual support for anti-Jewish sentiment.
Only people who just want to hear their own views reflected back at them will see Katty’s output as bias.
Here’s one for you:
Survey: Evangelical Voters for Romney Overshadowed by Youth, Minorities for Obama
Evangelical Christian voters turned out in record numbers according to a national post-election survey done by the Faith and Freedom Coalition. However, despite a 78 to 21 percent split in favor of Mitt Romney among white evangelicals, the coalition’s leader implied that Barack Obama’s win was catapulted by votes from youths and minorities.
In other words, even the white Evangelicals who, to judge from BBC reporting, are the most evil force in the country, are less bigoted against Mormons than the oh-so-PC and tolerant and liberal BBC.
Of course, the BBC will simply declare that they’re all racists, while at the same time approving of non-whites voting for someone simply because he or she looks like them.
To me, America is sounding more and more like one helluva divided country.
Now if Obama had reached out to all by proclaiming his mixed race heritage at every opportunity……
Kevin Jackson is a bit angry…
http://theblacksphere.net/gloves-off/
Like the term ‘electile dysfunction’.
Thanks for the link, Reed. I remember hearing about Jackson a couple of years ago (at least), but forgot to follow up.
I first heard of him in an interview at ‘The Coffee House’ (Speccy). He doesn’t pull any punches – I find him a refreshing voice. No pandering.
Reminds me somewhat of the emcee of the second Tea Party rally I attended in NYC: David Webb. If you look him up, you’ll know why we all laughed out loud when he greeted us by saying, “Hello, all you racist rednecks.”
Heh – rather like Nigel Farage, who reminds the crowds at UKIP events that they’re all ‘cranks and gadflies’.
Seems like a good guy – awful, awful woman…(Janeane Garofalo)…
Kevin Jackson doesn’t like her either…
http://theblacksphere.net/racist-garofalo-to-the-rescue/
Garofalo used to be – fifteen and more years ago – the nerd’s favorite comedienne because she tried intelligent comedy while dressing trendy, and was kind of cute. But after her failed attempt at being a big movie star (stop me if you’ve heard this one before, right?), she went all political, and, well, Dorian Gray is kind of a metaphor for this kind of thing, if you get my meaning.
Reporting on the Philip Schofield blunder on yesterday’s This Morning against the Prime Minister, the BBC reporter on Breakfast managed to mention Labour about 7 times in his little piece to camera. The whole thing was spun as “Labour think ITV were totally wrong to ambush the PM”.
It’s all in the way you spin things… which appears to depend on the domestic tribal political affiliations of the objective media who are doing the ‘reporting’:
Downing Street attacks Schofield for ambushing PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/downing-street-attacks-phillip-schofield-for-ambushing-prime-minister-with-internetsourced-list-of-suspected-paedophiles-8297661.html @Independent
Interesting when ‘holding to account’ becomes an ‘attack’. I guess it depends on who you like, who you don’t like, and who ‘you’, as a medium of integrity, are.
Went to the BBC site to see how they covered it online (SKY on this affair going for the ‘Levenson shows how crucial it is to regulate the internet and press’, but oddly missing on the broadcast community which actually fouled up).
This is all I got…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/people/75/83.shtml
In the manner in internal inquiry reporting, I am guessing past history will be selectively editted out as opposed to in, so if covered Mr. Schofield will not in this case be referred to as a former BBC employee?
Had to like the first feature for karmic irony:
‘Noel Edmonds reminds Phillip Schofield of the day it all went wrong.’
Make that two then. But guessing this will be another HIGNFY will need to pass over in their ‘coverage’.
Oh course the fun will start when the ‘evidence’ is used for prosecutions. Now that Double Jeopardy has been consigned to labours naughty step (for the crime of protecting the people from the state) we can look forward to people the left don’t like being charged and charged again with such crimes until a conviction is achieved.
As this article shows a number of legal rights were stolen from the people under Labour last time around. These include:
1. Forcing defendants to disclose details about their defence in advance of their trial;
2. Allowing some witnesses to give evidence anonymously thus preventing the accused from confronting their accuser.;
3. Giving judges greater discretion to allow juries to hear evidence of the defendant’s ‘bad character’, such as whether they had been convicted before for a similar offence.
4. The right not be tried multiple times for the same crime.
Add in
5. The right not to be delivered to a foreign power without extradition.
6. The extention of haebeus corpus to 42 days
and you start to see the sorry state we are all in.
Best blame the right wing media…
http://www.newstatesman.com/nelson-jones/2012/11/tom-watson-danger-fuelling-new-paedophile-panic
It used to work.
sick of hearing the bbc crap … on obama you know
that guy whose only good thing on his CV last time read, ran a good campaign … has done nothing since ….
drastically increased the US deficit, foreign policy disaster,
can t even keep americans safe in embassies, or put in place things to keep them safe at home, whose approval rating was worse than that of george w bush.
whose CV NOW reads ran another good (billlion and a quarter dollar) campaign ….. everything else in between ?????
anyway rant over … bbc whats the cost to us? on the “jolly” you ve all had in the USA? … will we ever find out?
or is it another “olympic” sized excuse for extremes of financial abuse? ….. eh!
i think it may be another one of these :-
cost of us election coverage ?
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=the%20cost%20of%20the%20bbc%20s%20coverage%20of%20the%20us%20election&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CDsQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whatdotheyknow.com%2Frequest%2Fcost_of_bbc_us_election_coverage&ei=gMucUOqpFKO60QXI3oGYDQ&usg=AFQjCNGfqTGmM3aIQxjCU12eWwNxADdKNg
sorry … been up since 5, and got a loooonng day ahead
😀
Haha, screw you license fee slave. Don’t worry your pretty little head about what your betters do behind the curtain, eh?
We could probably get a pretty good count with a little effort. Plus, for every “journalist” enthusing…sorry…reporting on air, add one cameraman, and possibly an additional sound or tech person, depending on the situation. There will be an accompanying producer for some as well.
Then there’s the staff requirements for all those preliminary special features from the likes of Marr, Tim Stanley, Naughtie, Huw Edwards (plus car rental for him and crew to drive out to some Welsh heritage museum in Ohio).
It will add up. Maybe an extra 100 or so? Oh, and the expense to fly Katty Kay back to London to join Dimbleby and pull faces on the panel.
You’d think this would be headline news, considering who he is
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-20261001
But no, the BBC seems to think not and you have to drill down to Norfolk to find it.
Who would be interested? His father hasn’t been headline news for errr.. weeks, now.
Whilst BBC Radio Salford (5 Live) staff merrily give wholehearted unquestioning support to campaigners who want us all to give up alcohol in January (ah but who will be there to check up on them?), I’m getting impatient for this….
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/01/bbc-inquiry-jimmy-savile-film
“BBC inquiry into axed Jimmy Savile film to begin interviews next week”
“There had been complaints that Pollard, a former head of Sky News, had been slow in getting his independent inquiry moving but several BBC insiders say that has changed dramatically this week, with his team actively demanding information.”
Incurious George at the Commons Select Committee on 23rd October promised MPs a report in 4 to 6 weeks .
My Christmas celebrations will be incomplete without the resignations of :
Peter Rippon
George Entwistle
David Jordan
Helen Boaden
Lord Patten
‘Clearly for those on this site facts are a burden with which you don’t encumber yourself’
Mind you, given £4Bpa, and a unique way with impartiality, you can burden yourself with facts only long enough to drop those that don’t suit and add those that do… inaccurately.
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/trust-upholds-complaint-against-bbc-news-over-inaccurate-tweet
‘the corporation said the issue was whether the headline on Twitter matched the story “and, in its view, it did… The director of the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit later said that “he did not accept that those who only read the headline would have been left with a materially misleading impression”’
However, after several months of the BBC saying black was white, they were at last forced to concede that:
‘the headline did not reflect with due accuracy the story to which it was linked’.
Ever feel you may be taking the wrong site and owners to task? I do realise asking that is pretty rhetorical in face of the prevailing climate of delusion that prevails in certain time-rich, real life-bereft quarters.
Oh my god, you really do care don’t you?
Seriously Guest find a new hobby. Your obsession with me is getting embarrassing for everyone.
Yes I have been paid by the BBC — although not for a very long time (probably 20 years ago) for doing a number of appearances. Now when I appear I don’t get paid (how does that work?), but it is a while since I was on the BBC, I do more work with Sky now.
As for the rest, I am sure you feel a lot better at the end of your post than you did at the start, so if I am helping you work off your Dyspepsia then it is all worth it.
But flattered as I am by your attention, perhaps time to move on?
As good an excuse for a swansong as any, Nicked.
Missing you already.
“Your obsession with me is getting embarrassing for everyone.”
Actually it is your obsession with yourself that is embarrassing.
On the plus side, to get from being told to run along to being asked to move on could be seen as a breakthrough.
But if a ‘regular’ has been told by ‘everyone’ how embarrassed they are that this self-confessed arrogant contrarian with a lot of spare time to invest that others apparently need to be denied (paid by the BBC, but it was alright a long time ago, vs. David Vance now as a critic being the hypocrite somehow) is getting pwnd factually and can only cope by going further into denial and personal projection in lieu of argument I will of course do so.
Until that time, if it doesn’t add up I think I might just keep plugging away despite being instructed on how to behave.
It seems to work with BBC CECUTT too. And as Tony Newbury seems to be finding, bullies may get in the first blow, but if caught in the open, seldom prosper.
Oh Guest, mate, seriously move on. I am starting to get a bit nervous about you.
And even you, with a bit if work, can figure what might be a bit rum about someone who spends his time complaining about the BBC and decrying how awful it is, getting his panties in a wad about them, but still taking their money. See the problem yet? No? Well have a think about it and get back to me.
Oh Guest, mate, seriously move on.
Mates now?
Even if back to the ‘move on’ demand, this may be progress. Paddytoplad will be here Forthwith (Civ. Eng humour) soon to paint that bridge.
Your nervousness is unwarranted, unless it is around the number of times you seem to be tackling the person rather than any argument, and not coming away from such encounters well. A bit like setting up a Claymore on a Titanic deckchair, and facing it towards you whilst scrambling for the secret lifeboat.
Which may explain why, as foreign correspondent for the East Cheam Beano, your insights into the workings of newsrooms are not perhaps greeted with the deference you appear to feel you are due. If sometimes oddly prescient:
‘Nicked emus says:
October 14, 2012 at 11:21 am
Just back from an overseas assignment (where curiously there was no talk of Jimmy Savile — so obviously the BBC’s attempts at sweeping it all under the carpet are working), and goodness me what have I missed?
The problem with [ ] is it an exercise in confirming the antecedent. It starts with a premise and then looks for evidence to support it, rather than testing the validity of the premise.
Couple that with confirmation bias and you end up with [ ].
I have taken the liberty of stealth editing to spare any blushes.
I apologise for my tardiness in getting back, but I have as you can imagine found events elsewhere to have been more of a priority (not, I note for some… including these guys: http://www.facebook.com/bbcnewsnight ).
And at such a time, all things considered, referring to wadded panties… brave.
But there may be light for that tunnel of yours that shapes your vision, and Mr. Vance will indeed again soon get to grace our screens.
Then you can rail at his fee and whip up a storm of one teacup at that as the real topic bears down around you and all you hold so dear.
I just watched “Maestro or Mephisto: the Real Georg Solti”. I have to be fair to the beebyanka, because this was, basically, a very good programme. I love classical music and Solti was a magnificent performer: an astoundingly talented pianist, as well as a conductor, as Christopher Warren-Green notes in this broadcast.
So why does this deserve a mention on Biased-BBC? Well, it’s the title: “Maestro or Mephisto”. Hardly anybody had anything bad to say about Solti, who was one of the musical geniuses of the twentieth century. There was one percussionist, who had a bad wet Wednesday somewhere around Sir Georg in nineteen-seventy-something. That was the some total of the contradictions to the notion that Sir Georg was a very great musician.
Why call it “Maestro or Mephisto”, when the opposition is so thin? Can’t they just have the decency to credit a very talented musician with rescuing music in Munich, London and Chicago? I have to repeat that the programme makers did justice to Sir Georg Solti; this was a very good programme. I am just furious about the completely inappropriate title.