I was just looking at the BBC News portal and for some odd reason they seem to have missed this story….
The number of people unemployed dropped to the lowest figure recorded for more than a year, it has been revealed. The jobless total dropped by 49,000 in the quarter to September to 2.51million – the lowest figure since the summer of 2011. According to figures from the Office of National Statistics, the number of people in work increased by 100,000 in the latest quarter to just under 30 million – a rise of more than half a million over the past year.
I know. It’s not a real story when UK unemployment drops and 500,000 people find new jobs. Over to Ed Balls for more details….
David. You missed it. I checked the mobile news website and there IS reference to the latest unemployment figures. In Scotland – where it went up.
There you go – impartial as ever.
Allow me David.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20322594
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20326186
Covered on BBC radio too.
And written off as being worthless news and downplayed because the BBC led with the news that Governor of the Bank of England, Mr Mervyn King, stated that the economy was going to grow sluggishly before growing less sluggishly (reported by the BBC as disaster doom and gloom and proof that we are still in recession)
Had Mr King said the economy was going to race ahead, and unemployment had gone up instead, the BBC would have led with the unemployment news instead of the speech by Mr King.
And another.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20323096
Did you mean apart from these?
Irrelevant. They chose today, via their broadcast medium (you know, the one people actually bother with) to dedicate most of The World at One to painting the bleakest picture they could of the economy. Barely a mention of the improving unemployment figures (a miracle considering Labour’s mass immigration ploy continues unabated) apart from them being ‘a puzzle’.
And, of course, the obligatory unchallenged snipe from a Labour spokesman who accused the government of doing nothing to kick start growth (i.e. borrow shedloads more money).
Unchallenged, Jim, got that? You should have by now, because it happens every time.
Irrelevant? David was talking about the website. You are the one being irrelevant.
Is semantic hole-digging the new ‘irrelevant’?
You are really going to base your ‘gotcha’ on another version of the ‘Beware of the Leopard’ excuse?
Blimey, that’s desperate even for this tag-team.
And… wait for it… I can’t believe you not only got likes for this… but the same number!
‘The number of people unemployed dropped…’
No no no. The priority for the BBC is this story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20324346
‘Department for Education cuts 1,000 jobs’
Afterall DofE civil servants are brothers and sisters to the Beeboids and Michael Gove is their mutual enemy.
This story went up on the back of DfE spin. Gove will be pleased it has such prominent coverage.
Just not on MAIN news portal, right Jim?
Cat got your tongue, Jim?
Are you serious? You daud ‘tgey seem to have missed this story’. You didn’t talk about the main page. I’ve shown three articles where the drop is covered very fully. And the fall did appear on the front page ticker.
Your claim of bias in this instance is demonstrably inaccurate. But admirable chutzpah.
Nope, I specifically named the main BBC NEWS portal, linked to it..and gosh…nothing there. The fact the comrades place the story elsewhere, when it is SO crucial to the UK, is where the chutzpah lies. Try harder,
Marvellous!
You hand Mr Vance his backside and he keeps coming at you, arms flailing.
Gavin Esler on Newsnight just referred to the news as “a ray of sunshine”. I think the bias is weak in this one
Thou blind fool! Why of eyes’ falsehood hast thou forged foul hooks? Thou allege foul scorn upon so true a fave as Vance!
FFS Vance give it up. They ran the story. That you couldn’t find it and fired off one of your classically un-researched ill-thought out posts isn’t their fault.
Maybe you should go to Spec Savers.
I hate to interrupt your tangible glee but David’s point was clearly that this significant fact (.5m new jobs in a year) was not given due prominence on the main news portal. He even provided a link to establish the rectitude of his assertion.
That the BBC begrudgingly covered the story elsewhere is moot.
You learn to engage with me in a civil way or you will have lots of time to go to Spec Savers.
I am not the one who needs it. They are very cheap you know — probably get two for the price of one.
They do a special on rose-tinted glasses for those with a whimsical view of the past. They don’t actually show you what it was really like, but heck who wants facts to get in the way?
David – we should keep Nicked Emus here. Otherwise this place becomes an echo chamber.
I have no issue with dissent but I am not tolerating abuse. The garbage has been taken out.
We just need Prole to hook up with Nick Dufus and we will have two for the price on one. A “Bogof.”
Hey, don’t take my surname in vain!
‘Whimsical view of the past’.
Like that one, Nicked. So, in brief, what was your personal ‘view’ (by which I mean experience) of the 1970s?
David, you might wish to run out a version of ‘and before any talks about ad homs…’ dragging all under the banner of a couple to justify hall monitor delusions, and I suspect your implied ‘or else’ might have more heft.
However, the cowards poking the caged lion are probably more sure of your commitment to free speech than say Lord ‘we are the one’s who control the asking’ Patten and the ‘No questions answered’ BBC.
Wouldn’t blame you if you did. But maybe the creation of a troll thread where they can fight with each other like ferrets in a sack, or with any so moved to ‘debate’ their point.
Admin level cut, delete and repaste.
Done & dusted.
As an incentive, I promise not to go there and feed them if you do.
Which means they get a brief outing here if the behave, and then Hyde Park Borers once they cross the line.
Oh, and I note that our trio (so far) have all managed 7 a piece. So the 20,000 strong BBC glee club can muster at least that many extra in mutual support.
Spiffy.
David is correct. It is not on the main BBC web-site page, nor on their News or UK pages. The report is not a headline story, but a secondary story buried on the business pages
Correct. I too looked (23:30 pm and there after):
news: No
World news: No
UK news: No
England News: No
Politics: No
Business: da da derrrrr: yes.
i.e. seen by about 5% or less of online viewers. Jim et al: suck it up and admit it.
Relegating the story to the Business Pages is a sure fire way of letting it die quickly. Placement in the running order and how long a story lasts is used very effectively by the BBC. Funnily enough it’s always the good news for Labour stories that linger longest and most prominently. I wonder why?
The Savile story was on the Entertainment section of the website for the first couple of days too. The same practice as any Guardian apology, buried on page page 27.
They do the same with bad news for Labour. Flicking through the BBC interactive TV news recently I noticed the story about yet another Labour MP being convicted of fraud was not listed on the main headlines but buried in the Politics section.
‘Gove will be pleased it has such prominent coverage. ‘
Too damned right, he will, because it’s bringing the structural deficit down. Got that, Jim? D-E-F-I-C-I-T. Or perhaps you don’t believe in cuts?
David, sorry in the England news section the latest unemployment figures lose out to the days mega stories – Raymond Blanc having to withdraw a dish due to food poisoning and a conservative MP being pelted with rocks. Both big news in Islington apparently.
I often wonder, were the BBC to become officially the Labour Broadcasting Corporation then what if anything would need to change?
Not much, I reckon.
Here’s a story from BBC on line.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-20299129
‘King’s speech’
‘How Martin Luther King’s visit to an English university inspired MP’
Gosh, I wonder what political party this story is designed to give a puff to?
‘Newcastle born Labour MP for Newcastle Central, Chi Onwurah’
How did I guess?
The ultimate nightmare – the new DG to be the Crippen of spin doctors himself- Alastair Campbell !
You know, somehow, I don’t think I’d bat an eyelid now.
I watched the BBC news and I don’t think I have ever seen a fall in unemployment reported with more gloom. It was on the same day on which there were protests across Europe because of rising unemployment. The disappointment from the BBC was palpable. It seems they had their “Tory Cuts = Unemployment” narrative all ready. Never mind I am sure they can spin it as bad news.
P.S. They even had a clip of somebody saying that unemployment is a terrible thing and he wished he was not collecting benefit.
‘They seem to have missed this story.’
So the fact is it was covered.
The ‘gloom’ is your interpretation.
Do you chalk that up as one of your refutations Jim Dandy?
You could have said that the BBC were right to report the fall in unemployment in a gloomy way, because we live in grim economic times, because of X, or Y, or Z.
But no, you chose to deny the obvious and say that it is only an “interpretation” to suggest that this news was reported in a gloomy way by the BBC.
David Vance said that the fall in unemployment (pretty significant news on a day on which there are protests across Europe about rising unemployment) is not being given any prominence on the BBC Internet news portal.
But you decide to conflate these two assertions, and declare that the fact that the BBC reported the fall in unemployment on its television news refutes the claim that they are not giving this news any prominence on their Internet news portal.
Now, you are fully aware that these are two different points, but it suits you to conflate them. and (presumably) chalk up your response as a refutation.
What a truly pathetic excuse for a human being you are that you feel the need to deny the obvious in order to delude yourself that you are a champion of truth.
It is one thing to defend the stance taken by the BBC (I appreciate the means are justified by the end if you are an apologist for bias) but to pretend (to others as well as to yourself) that the BBC is devoid of any agenda (political or otherwise) is the blindness of a worm who lives in a darkness where no light will ever shine.
You sad little man.
Don’t call him a ‘sad little man’: it will just upset him/her and lead to more tripe; simply point out (as you did in the previous paragraphs) that he is WRONG….and patently so.
OK – I would delete the “sad little man” addition if I could, but I have said it now, and cannot edit my post.
I forgive you.
I’m anything but little.
Two out of three ain’t bad 🙂
Yes it is.
“David Vance said that the fall in unemployment (pretty significant news on a day on which there are protests across Europe about rising unemployment) is not being given any prominence on the BBC Internet news portal.”
He did not say that. He said the BBC have missed the story. The fact is they covered it on all platforms including the website prominently and thoroughly.
He is wrong. You don’t have to drop your belief that the BBC is biased, but in this instance he is wrong.
What are the first 9 words of his post?
“they covered it on all platforms including the website prominently and thoroughly.”
When I clicked on the link David Vance provided there was no mention of the fall in unemployment at all. This (a fair person would assume) was the reason for his post.
(a fair person would assume)
See what you did there.
Hi DV, nice to see Melanie Phillips refer to Biased BBC in the following excellent article where she highlights what we’ve known all along: that the BBC is an Orwellian machine of deception and lies:
http://phillipsblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/11/the-real-bbc-scandal.html
Yaaaaaaaaaaaay! Look you are in the papers. Wooooooot. You must be so proud.
‘Proud’? No, just pleased that some comments on this site are being recognized (quite rightly) by a highly esteemed journalist who happens to write for Britain’s second largest paper and the world’s most visited news website.
So does Liz Jones so I am not sure that is much of a recommendation.
Actually worse than Liz Jones. I have written for them. They pay really well.
Who would you recommend then Mr Anus…oops, sorry, typo there, “Emus” Monbiot? Maguire?
Perhaps, if, and when (not very likely, still, you can live in hope) this site is mentioned in a positive way in one of the aforementioned shrills low circulation, lefty rags, then perhaps you will deem the site you spend all of your time on as serious….
Just a thought.
Adopting a probing mind and a exercising a desire to courteously contest other’s lines of reasoning is fine and, in my opinion, healthy for the community debates on this site. However, please leave aside your smug and ineffable hubris and self-importance as it grows tiresome. Remember your place nicked emus, that’s all I would ask of any man.
Remember my place? What is this, Edwardian England? Are the lower classes getting uppity?
Like I say, having had people calling for my death on this site, and today being called a paedophile lover and accused of pissing on the memory of Millie Dowler I am afraid I have long given up worrying about “ad hominem” arguments.
However being told to remember my place is a pearler. I shall treasure it.
Nicked Emu,
I feel your pain and will ensure you no longer have to endure such agony.
Oh – going to ban me are you? So much for free speech. Still you have plenty of track record on banning people who disagree with you.
That’s the gratitude I get for easing your pain? Oh well…on the upside, the site will no longer endure the garbage you spew.
But if you are led by the Spirit, you are no longer under the law(Gal 5.18)
Make sure though that it IS a spirit of genuine enquiry, and not mere attention-seeking; like your decidedly naff efforts to trash my faith yesterday.
Apart from that, I welcome your comments.
No need for abuse though-it`s just “words on a screen…like these on this”(with all due reference to Mr Alfred Pacino)
His frequent blanket statements of contempt for this site seem to be grandstanding, aimed at influencing the casual, passing visitor. I think he should have been banned ages ago.
Esteemed journalist? Otherwise known as “Mad Mel” –
…by leftists
By leftist bigots to be exact.
Hello Dez!
‘the world’s most visited news website.’
Cue… ‘which nobody.. well at the BBC… reads and hence can have no influence on public perception or policy, and hence do not exist in our world.’
Ey up, Nick’s getting agitated.
I am mystified by this discussion. This was the lead story on the main news page for much of today. It is no longer, because other things have taken place. The same evolution has occurred on other news websites during the same period.
For context, not a single national paper is currently running this story on their front page.
I think this one is dead. Let’s stop kicking it.
Jim
I know I have been going on about it but why do you think the BBC ME pages are still telling us there has been no major conflict between Israel and Syria since ’73. It is nonsense and really annoys me.
‘Newsnight’s preferred topic tonight seems to be an NUJ-driven one of European trade union demos, with Esler giving political top slot to a Spanish student in UK who leads ‘Occupy’. A chum of Comrade Paul Mason, Father of the Chapel at ‘Newsnight’? – who seems to have gone undercover currently.
Comrade Mason seems to be in political exile on the far side of the world in his erstwhile political spiritual home of ‘Communist’ China; perhaps picking up tips for Beeboids on how to rule a global socialist bureaucracy.
The fall in unemployment figures was covered in the BBC TV 10 o’clock news.
They showed Stephanie Flanders asking Mervyn King a question in his press conference, in which she again gave her opinion that wage levels were depressed, therefore allowing more people to be employed.
Yes, perhaps she’d prefer wages to be higher, even if unemployment were higher, as long as she is one of the employed, of course.
Well, at the end of this thread (for now), have to say I’m amazed at the amount of attention this insignificant site, which doesn’t get read by anybody apart from Angry Old White Men Who Will Soon be Dead Anyway, is still getting from Nicked and Jim.
What’s your excuse, boys?
Well, to summarise:
15 contributors to this thread at time of writing, one of them the site owner.
Three of them pointing out, correctly, that the original posting is bollocks.
Two thirds of postings amount to no more than petty abuse.
Hardly a stirring civil uprising, is it?
That’s me convinced.
You’ve missed my point RWB (and apologies if I didn’t make it clear), which was: why do they bother with this site at all?
Hardly a stirring civil uprising, is it?
I thought it was about highlighting inaccuracy, abuse and unprofessional lack of objectivity.
You appear to wish it to be something only Paul Mason would return to cover.
I’d say that places you in the heat over light camp by most measures.
Congrats on the 8 BTW. Try to avoid any more… it’s lucky in Chinese.
BBC WEB PAGE HEADLINES
14 November 2012 Last updated at 23:27
(and what they mean)
ISRAEL ‘READY TO WIDEN GAZA OP’
(Those bad Israelis are warmongers.)
OBAMA: WEALTHY MUST PAY MORE TAX
(We agree with Barry and don’t like business.)
HISTORIC BROADCAST ON BBC RADIO
(Aren’t we wonderful so pay up)
BANK PREDICTS PROTRACTED RECOVERY
(The Conservatives have got it wrong again)
EU WORKERS IN AUSTERITY PROTESTS
(Spending more than you earn is OK)
ABORTION ‘WOULD HAVE SAVED WIFE
(Abortion saves lives)
SAVILE INQUIRY SEEKS WITNESSES
(There is no proof you know)
MORE THAN 60 ABUSE CASES REPORTED (in Wales)
(Our paedophile Saville was nothing much really)
No further comment needed.
Actually to be fair, the MSM are all reporting with the line “abortion would have saved” although the second text varys
Bugger meant to cancel as couldn’t put my thoughts into a coherent sentence…
… although the second sub-text seems to be that its the fault of them nasty Catholics and/or Abortion is a life saver.
I thought the wails article was very anti-catholic and “it wouldn’t have happened in a non-catholic country” was its slant.
Please don’t ban Nicked emus. We’re all big enough to take abuse. I’ve taken my share and will continue to do so. We either try to debate or ignore it. Banning Nicked reflects badly on all of us.
Keep him. Not so sweet and furry as Prole but entertaining and speech must be free here.
I agree. Their abusive ranting just shows us there is no rational answer to this site’s coverage of the bias and will only underline what we recognize at the BBC. I don’t know why they bother as any hope of convincing us differently goes out the window with the spiteful tone of their comments. A tone which underlines the fact that they have never had to work in a business that has to sell to survive. You cannot convince customers to buy your products or ideas if you are nasty to them or abuse them.
Now, I am sure there must be many sites that do support the BBC, other than their own, which is of course supported by a few billion quid that is forced out of a nation that increasingly resents being taken for a mug, but I haven’t seen one yet. Got any links so we can see the other points of view lads? You know what I mean, sites that adore the BBC and still trust it with their children.
Agreed. The more hysterical they become, the more this site is shown to be valid. The reason why they have been swarming around here for the last few weeks is because they are hurting, and they fear that their beloved propaganda organ may be damaged due to being caught out doing the things that this site was set up to highlight.
I say let’s enjoy their increasingly desperate ramblings. Does anyone know if Nicked Emus has been threatened with being killed on this site as he claims? Or is it another of his fantasies?
They don’t generally abuse me, but others have. It is what it is. Most got bored and gave up with this site entirely anyway.
And they can make valid points, and show us where we’re wrong or have missed something. That’s very important. If there was more stuff really dissecting BBC bias and less of the other stuff, they might not get so easily distracted.
‘Most got bored and gave up with this site entirely anyway.’
Or came back in other guises?
It can happen.
Often unannounced.
It would reflect badly on the site. It would signal a desire to be an echo chamber and not a place for debate and discussion. Nicked is always robust but not offensive.
Agreed.
I agree with you about not getting rid of Nicodemus, but you are so wrong when you say he is not offensive. He has been extremely offensive of late, but I am enjoying seeing it (nasty old me, eh!) as it shows he is hurting about what may happen to his beloved BBC.
I persnally think there are too many dopes around Cameron for the BBC to get a fraction of what it deserves after its recent performance, but it’s clear Nickers is worried that someone may do something to reduce its effectiveness to lie to us.
Especially when he referred to those he disagreed with as ‘pondlife’. Yep, he always kept it classy. Even so, the tears are falling like burning rain…I’ll never forget whatshisname.
Reasoned debate by all means. But personal insults and abuse? No. Drop to that level and one should be banned.
I always thought you would get more sense out of a naked emu
or maybe even a knackered emu
‘It would reflect badly on the site.’
In the same way that Israel swatting the guy directing rocket attacks at them would ‘reflect badly’… and where?
I can’t recall which of you last told me to run along and also stop presuming to reply now (which I agreed to do and then broke my promise… gaining points with the dark side of the Force), but here’s a thing… I too agree with you.
Still thing the whole two-faced collection who alternate between abuse and then bleating about it should get their own private room though.
That’s not censorship, simply good housekeeping, like Wetherspoons having a creche.
Been wandering around the Web trying to discover who this Vance chappie is who apparently runs this site. The only references I can find are a candidacy against Peter Robinson in East Belfast some time ago and a reference to a blog that was threatened with closure due to hate speech and racism.
Not really the sort of chap anyone civilised would want to share a glass of wine with by the sound of it.
Apparently this blog is still active – A Tangled Web, it appears to be called. One of the gloating entries on it is gleeful about 500 jobs going at the DofE. Is this what being a Conservative entails nowadays: salivating over the prospect of several hundred lives being ruined…..Sorry, chaps, give me Hugs Boaden and Diana Coyle any day. At least they drink decent wine. Vance, I notice, says he will “not tolerate abuse”. What else can you give to someone who revels in people losing their jobs, their homes and in some cases their lives because of the criminal bankers and their lickspittle politicians
There are 4,000 people in the D of E apparently and they are being cut by 1,000 (25%) Now you have to ask, what are 4,000 doing? If they were teachers, or nurses or police, in other words front line workers, I would agree with you, but they are not. They could of course be retrained to do something useful but the EU has said new jobs must go to immigrants.
As for lickspittle politicians, now here I absolutely agree with you, having broken the country and sold all the gold, where the hell is Gordon and why isn’t he on trial? Ah, I forgot, like the Moron Labour MP he is mentally challenged and cannot be tried for his crimes.
Anyway thanks for the research and link to David’s other site, A Tangled Web.
Getting rid of the stifling bureaucracy surrounding education governance is a good thing. Giving schools and teachers the freedom to teach is a good thing. Crocodile Tears over the lost jobs is pointless. Remember people should be employed to do worthwhile jobs, not just to be employed.
David Vance’s “hate speech” extends to his being happy about bureaucratic redundancies, then…….so I suppose legislation should be enacted to shut him up?
I don’t think even Lord Leveson would go that far.
” give me Hugs Boaden and Diana Coyle any day. At least they drink decent wine. ”
well I drink decent wine too, just this week my corridors were strewn with empty champagne bottles mate!
boom boom!
difference being DV buys his own……not subsidised by a compulsory lefty tv tax with threat of jail for non payment
‘Been wandering around the Web’
All of it, and not just the parts the BBC system allows?
If so, I fear you still will only qualify as a BBC Editor or reporter.
Apparently.
ps: make it a pint and I’d clink your wineglass still.
pps: the faux class outrage argument is elsewhere on the thread.
Given ‘Newsnight’s political sympathy for E.U. trade union strikes against ‘austerity,’ why doesn’t BBC report this?-:
“Amid economic crisis, European Union approves $6.3 billion in aid for Muslim Brotherhood Egypt” [‘Jihadwatch’].
Is it because BBC is trying to not appear contradictory while simultaneously supporting:
1.) E.U;
2.) trade unions striking against E.U austerity policies;
3.) Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood government.
‘Jihadwatch’:-
“Priorities, priorities. As far as the Eurodhimmis are concerned, a rapidly Islamizing state pursuing an increasingly belligerent path toward Israel is worth supporting, even while they’re going broke.”
[…]
“Spain and Portugal are facing general strikes, while Greece and Italy are seeing many walkouts. Millions of people from some 20 EU nations are expected to take part in the European Day of Action and Solidarity.
“And as many Europeans are not happy to bail out struggling EU economies at a cost of their pensions and wages, the question is how they are going to react to paying Egyptian bills.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/11/amid-economic-crisis-european-union-approves-63-billion-in-aid-for-muslim-brotherhood-egypt.html
Oh great, $6.3 bn-worth of multi-launch rocket systems to ship across the border to Gaza. Just what the world needs.
Mr Vance, I don’t know why you even bother engaging rabid lefties in a debate. They always think they are right and anyone with a different opinion must be a right wing lunatic! They will then try to shout you down or insult you. A mature debate with them is impossible.
Of course rabid right-wingers don’t think they are always right, do they? They always engage in mature debate – lose a few hundred jobs there; evict a few people there; oh well, the odd suicide…..hey ho, helps to keep the population in check……as long as Starbucks can make gazillions in UK profit and pay next to nothing in UK tax……keeps lots of people on minimum wage poverty, lucky to have jobs aren’t they? Ooooh, life is so warm and fuzzy and cosy in the right-wing bubble isn’t it?
And the Labour party, in 13 years of government did….what?….exactly, about the (quite legal, thanks to Gordon’s loopholes) tax evasion of Starbucks, Amazon, Google & Vodafone?
Come on fella, we are all ears.
“Come on fella, we are all ears” Is that like Andrew Marr and Evan Davis?
Name the place sir.
Pistols at dawn.
I demand satisfaction.
Drivel like Stephen’s post above has me pining for Nicked Emus already.
Still here
Good. Play nicely, Nicked.
Good.
I’d be interested to see who has defended Starbucks’ tax arrangements.
It’s also interesting that lefty Starbucks from lefty Seattle who champion lefty causes such as ‘fair trade’, sustainability and organic produce turn out to be lefty hypocrites who dodge taxes. A bit like the BBC!
It would be a pretty pathetic company that didn’t attempt to minimise the amount it pays in tax, particularly as even the EU actively encourages it by allowing low-tax zones such as Luxembourg. Supporting the EU and opposing companies not paying ‘fair’ levels of tax in each EU member state are two diametrically-opposed viewpoints.
I’m sure Margaret Hodge woud agree. Or perhaps not since her family business was outed.
Good point well made. Avoiding tax while criticisng others of doing the same is hypocrisy of the first order.
I mean – even Jimmy Carr realised that (or was it his agent?)
I agree with you 100%. It’s the hypocrisy I can’t abide.
Actually it could, possibly, be illegal to not minimise the tax take by taking advantage of every possible legal loophole as to not do so would be against the rules of duty to their shareholders.
If they turned around and said “hey shareholders” we’re going to pay tax we don’t have to and reduce our profits” they would be taken to court.
All the lefty finger pointing, yet 13 years of governance…..nowt.
2 years into the “Tory-Led” government, tax evasion & phone hacking, that were going on, right under the noses of Tone & Gordo’s noses in those 13 years of power to destroy the nation from within are now being dealt with, amongst many, MANY other things that Liebour allowed in, more than likely endorsed…
Someone pass me another slice of deficit, before i tackle my main course of debt please.
Yum, yum, doncha just love Labour’s left overs?
Nicked Emus, you are lucky I’m here. Beeboidal says my drivel makes him (presumably it’s a him) pine for you. I shall look forward to the cheque being in the post.
The man has written for the Daily Mail. I surprised a clockwork lefty like you can even bear to post on the same thread as him, let alone take some of filthy lucre he earned at the Mail..
“I surprised a clockwork lefty like you….”. Did you surprise me? I don’t think so……Oh hang on……I think you mean I am surprised….etc etc…..and lefty is spelt “leftie” – Dear me, the illiteracy among the rabid right…..
The dictionaries all seem to agree lefty can be used for leftist. Attributing a typo to illiteracy and then getting the spelling police act wrong is not a very impressive riposte. Perhaps you should try again.
I see you have already been disabused of the notion that ‘lefty’ is wrong, but are you really putting forward the argument that I don’t know the difference between ‘I’ and ‘I am’ and I am therefore illiterate? No wonder I was pining for Nicked.
“etc” being an abbreviation should always have a stop after it to signify such. You should have written it “etc. etc.” You’re a bit of a failure as a grammar nazi really.
Memo: New DG to all BBC staff
I know that so far all I’ve achieved here as DG is a single public appearance where I came over as a shifty glottal-stopping would-be Del boy. I’m not just some drone stuck in management-speak. But I would like to run a few items up the flag pole and see who salutes them. I really want to convince BBC staff that I believe in all the precious stuff that you believe in. I’m on your side fellow co-workers. So here are a few words that stood me in good stead in my former career (excuse me if I have to wipe a tear from my eye):
‘I’d like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony’….now I do know that was Coke not Pepsi. But come on guys, it does express exactly what we’re all about here at the Beeb, doesn’t it?
So to business. Let’s put a saucer of this idea down and see if the cap laps it up?
There is an important debate in current affairs over how responsible the last Labour Government may have been for our current economic woes.
Let me tell you, a lot of pasta has been thrown at the wall on this one and some of it has stuck.
So we’re putting a seminar together with BBC staff and, to advise them on this question, a number of completely independent experts in the science of economics ….oh for the sake of argument…let’s say 28?
Those selected to inform our output on economics come from a broad range of backgrounds:
Ed Balls
Margaret Moran
Ed Miliband
Denis MacShane
Hugo Chavez
Ken Livingstone
Owen Jones
Polly Toynbee
Gordon Brown
Elliot Morley
Hermon Van Rompoy
Jim Devine
Bernie Ecclestone
Eric Illsley
BBC staff eligible to attend the seminar will be able to tick the following boxes:
Senior Management:
Recently ‘stepped aside’
Recently attended a Common Purpose course
Middle Management:
Own a box set of The Killing
Take the Guardian (every day without fail)
(Lower Management and even some Sports department staff may be eligible provided they can either talk consistently in metric measurements, can find a racist element in the off-side rule, or can bang on about having done the Great North Run)
Now let’s tuck that idea in the lap dancer’s garter and see if the accounts department blushes.
Hey, fella, you should be the new Head of Comedy at the BBC 🙂
The present one spends too much of his (ie our) time attending veryimportantclimatechangeseminars to actually produce anything, yer know, remotely resembling comedy.
uncle bup, you are too kind sir.
Sadly BBC comedy institutionally fails to celebrate my kind of diversity.
Returning to the original posting……. my local 10.30 local news was as miserable as anything about unemployment being down…. we had to have a list of the firms that had shed jobs….but as the figures had gone down then somebody must have employed extra people…surely? But it is ok … there is hope according, to the bimbo, for this area as she finished with a flourish…. employment in green energy…
Yep it was the same here .A brief mention of lower unemployment then a quick rendition of ‘ how can that be when these local big names have shed jobs ‘ ( sub text ‘ the government is lying ‘ ) and then a selection of vox pop telling us that they once had ‘ proper jobs ‘ and now they can’t get one with the same pay and perqs
Would be interesting to see if that was the meme across all the local stations.
Mine was just like that, 350 jobs going as a factory shut down, manufacturing no longer in this area, and a guy interviewed who lost his higher paid job and was now working on a lower wage in, what seemed, a less “skilled” job; although his previous and present job was not defined in any way.
I’m in Derbyshire
Fairly typical of DV top ban dissenters. Those who threaten lives or look forward to the first Islamic attack on a BBC creche, they’re fibe, but disagree with him, or pull him up on his general crapness get banned.
I could never understand why you dislike the Taliban so much when you have so much in common with them?
You’re quite right. I’m sick of being banned from Taliban websites.
Has anyone been banned ? if not then you are just blowing in the wind dear !
Welcome Kevin.
‘Fairly typical of DV to ban dissenters [Is that the case? – Reader qu]*. Those who threaten lives or look forward to the first Islamic attack on a BBC creche, they’re fine, but disagree with him, or pull him up on his general [personal view, entitled to hold] get banned *[ditto].
I could never understand why you dislike the Taliban so much when you have so much in common with them?
Interesting moral equivalences there. The others will be pleased. Especially the one who got ‘outraged’ at my doubts on his commitment to free speech recently, bless ‘im.
Anyway, let me help you before others spoil your entrance….
‘Dear me, the illiteracy among [ ]’
The grammar Stasi are afoot, you see.
I see Broadcasting House has released another set of “commenters” for this “contemptible little” site. This time they just sport
Christianfirst names (eg Kevin, Stephen, Anthony).how dare you use the term christian in connection with the bbc
surely you mean our esteemed new contributors
كِيفِين ,ستِيفِن and أنْتُونِي
fnar, fnar, thats funny.
Actually this thread is shaping up nicely as the one where they all can be corralled to ‘contribute’ but only to those who opt to come here (nice metaphor there already… and it’s free).
Just have to sacrifice the topic, but as even the hall monitor was happy to start I think it was allowed.
That all said, the false flags are strong with a few. I mean, Kevin… really?
“Lord Patten had all the jobs”
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/lord-patten-had-all-the-jobs-2012111549204?
“Why is the Today programme plugging Tom Hunter?”
By Thomas Pascoe.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/thomaspascoe/100021321/why-is-the-today-programme-plugging-tom-hunter/
But BBC Economics Editor Stephanie Flanders covered the unemployment story. Here is the title below.
“The Bank abandons a lot of hope”
Oh sorry Stephanie was floundering around as the policies she has supported at the Bank of England were abandoned because they are not working! Another fail for the person called a “respected expert” by Helen Boaden. By the way whatever happened to her?