A good example here of the particularly hostile and hopeless interview technique employed by Evan Davis in which he allows his own antipathy to Tories to override his professionalism…..as per normal in fact…..the interview is ruined by Davis’ interruptions and completely fails to deliver the incisive and informative exposition of Osborne’s policies that we expect but as often as not fail to receive on the Today programme driven as it is by its own political leanings and the egos of men (mostly…see below) who have become complacent and arrogant in jobs they have been allowed to occupy for years.
‘BBC presenter Evan Davis was under fire last night following an extraordinary interview with George Osborne in which he repeatedly talked over the Chancellor as he tried to answer questions.
Downing Street complained to the BBC following the 13-minute encounter on Radio 4’s Today programme because of the ‘unacceptably hostile’ tone of the interview.
Mr Davis is said to have been ‘spoken to’ by managers, although the BBC denied he had been reprimanded. Downing Street is thought to have received an apology.‘
Last night, Mr Davis said: “There is some confusion around just now, but just to clarify: I have not been told off for the way I interviewed the Chancellor today.”
Here is Davis again….demanding more women on the radio…..how about fewer middle class English graduates or politics/economics/philosophy graduates and more right wing and working class presenters…..and not ‘working class’ as in Stacey Dooley…who was dragged in off the streets to work for the BBC because she displayed the appropriate empathy and sympathy for the downtrodden of the Third World, traits which made her an honorary member of the BBC club.
‘Mr Davis, one of the public broadcaster’s leading interviewers, said the BBC needs to do “quite a bit more” to promote female presenters on air.
Speaking at an industry awards ceremony yesterday, the veteran journalist said there was “definitely” more effort needed to promote women within the media, particularly the BBC.
“On my own programme … we are acutely aware of our own shortcomings in this department, and we’re acutely aware of our own shortcomings when it comes to broadening the mix of guests we have to make sure that we don’t just go for the same old blokes.’
It’s not so much they go for the same ‘old blokes’ it’s that they go for exactly the same type of ‘old bloke’ or indeed woman in the case of Shirley Williams or Helena Kennedy. The same old boys reliably ready to support the BBC position on any subject from climate change to Europe or immigration or the economy, not to mention willing to slip in a good word for Islam.
Lots of musicians, artists and writers brought in….to talk about their ‘Art’ but of course it soon turns to their politics…and they’re all Left wing.
The BBC are shameless about their use of guests on their shows…the ability, the power, to choose the ‘appropriate’ guest, to ask the right questions, to shape the narrative so that only a particular point of view is possible, to limit the bounds of any debate to give the impression of free debate but in fact to tightly control what is ‘allowed’ to be spoken, to edit the whole so that it is orchestrated to ‘force’ the viewer or listener to accept what they want them to accept as truth. The BBC have an extraordinary power which they also have a duty to use responsibly….a duty which they consistently fail to fulfil and in doing so damage democracy and society by allowing only certain ‘voices’ to be heard and silencing the inconvenient other.
Which brings us back to Evan Davis trying to shut down George Osborne and not let him explain his policies.
Most normal people have exactly zero sympathy with the insane new green party masquerading as the Tory party, these weakling green nut cases in the pockets of their paymasters fully and richly deserve everything the BBC throws at them, What they really need is rotten fruit and brickbats thrown at them in the public squares. These weakling cowards allow themselves to be abused as though they get some kind of sexual pleasure from it. My position has changed now, let the BBC get on with it I say, let them destroy this ugly monstrosity called the green social democrat new world order.
I’m sorry but that is so wrong.
The BBC is actively promoting, indeed is at the forefront of creating the new world order of, what I would describe as a “Progressive” left wing agenda. There aim is for a Britain run by a left wing political grouping under Labour with a nod now and again to the Lib Dems, the Greens, and even now and then Respect. If I read you correctly your view is wouldbe to support them in this objective.
Th line under Cameron had been lamentable and leading Conservative politicians do see to have a strange reluctance to confront the left wing slant of the BBC (and many other publicly finded institutions).
If this country has Labour inflicted on it again it will be a damn sight worse than even these spineless Conservatves. Worse for our economy, for our freedoms and for our society.
If there are going to be any rotten veg thrown – use Labour and BBC as targets.
All right then, you have a fair point, I should have included both rancid gangs to be pelted with rotten fruit and brickbats.
Day after day more evidence of the So called Tory green insanity, their love of squandering billions, pissing away our future. From the start I forecast what these nut cases would do but even I am shocked at their behaviour.
Don’t you think that is just the yellow albatross round his/its neck? I like to think so but more and more feel Cameron edging leftwards.
Or at least Brussels-wards. EU social democracy is just crony capitalism with a socialist/green veneer on top to make it look caring.
Spot on and on the money. The most evil human beasts often come with a thin veneer of fake goodness painted on.
“The BBC is actively promoting, indeed is at the forefront of creating the new world order…”
Ah yes the good old “new world order”. Controlled by the BBC, Muslims, Jews, Cultural Marxists, Freemasons, Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, Agenda 21, Common Purpose, Neo-Nazis, Satanists, and Lizard people from outer space.
That might be your view of what some believe is a “New World Order” but it certainly isn’t mine.
You really do post some utter rubbish and with such infantile comments as yours there is little point in debate.
Grow up.
So how does your version of “the new world order” differ from all the other “new world orders”?
You are just peddling the latest in a long history of idiot conspiracy theories. Why should anybody think yours is any different from all the rest?
It seems to be based on the assumption that everybody else is told what to think by the BBC. Everybody apart from you – because you possess ‘special magical powers‘ which make you immune.
How infantile is that?
You seem to know so much (or as is usual the case with your posts- assume so much) – you explain what “conspiracy theory” I am peddling because I don’t recall setting out any conspiracy.
Quote “because you possess ‘special magical powers‘”
Oh dear oh dear.
What rubbish.
Your comments prove my point.
Infantile.
“The BBC is actively promoting, indeed is at the forefront of creating the new world order…”
You don’t recall; “setting out any conspiracy.”?
Okay, I give up 🙂
It’s always a good idea when you are down a deep hole to stop digging.
a) Just Agenda 21 will do Dez. Perhaps you’d like to explain it to us.
And b) whilst you’re at it, give us an excuse for the BBC’s secret meeting – 28gate we’ve come to call it – with climate activists to discuss how best to convey the AGW message.
And if you can spot a link between a) and b), go to the top of the class.
As is usual in a nationalised industry the BBC is organised (with a public subsidy) to suit the people running it and not the customers it is supposed to serve.
The BBC does not attack the Conservative Party for being too Left-Wing. You would have to be insane to believe that it does – or ever will. It advocates the views and interests of middle class Leftists.
It totally amazes me that we allow the BBC for seeming eternity, to supply us with glaring examples of this type of biased reporting, here conducted by Evan Davis.
With such important and nationally prodigious daily output, our publically funded broadcaster, should be supplying interesting, but factually based, interviews with balance.
Democratically one expects our Ministers interviews to be conducted by vetted proven professionals, well deserving of the vast salaries paid to them from our forced subscription.
Subscribers of all persuasions obviously want it to be interesting and to discover our democratic Chancellors perspective, but please without such rude interruptions which are obviously pre-conceived and political point scoring, (but notably left biased), and persistently overriding such important news we listeners are trying to glean. In this case the Chancellor could hardly complete a sentence without such perpetuated rudeness without any true balance.
Evan Davis, has much form on this propaganda model. Just look at the other end of the spectrum by reading the following glowing legacy he wrote on the last Government’s economic performance, published on the BBC in 2007. It is laughable now.
You only need to read the first few paragraphs to understand how wrong this supposedly trained economist can let his bias override facts. How can we ever be reliably informed by such propaganda and inaccuracies from our publicly funded broadcaster.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/evandavis/2007/05/tony_blairs_economic_legacy_1.html
It really sticks in my claw that I have been so indoctrinated with 25 years military service that I have stood back and let them do this to me. I still pay them a statutory licence to do this to me every year as I have done for the last 40+ years of my public service and self employment without a break in my payments.
Hopefully just like the examples of Starbucks, Amazon, Stemcor and Google, they are wrong in thinking they can selfishly avoid their core social responsibilities with impunity fo ever. I do not want this anymore and am too now going to join the ranks to seek ultimate fairness.
Another public broadcaster idiosyncrasy also gets right under my skin is that many of these BBC highly paid employees are also openly, (and hypocritically in most cases), avoiding their PAYE obligations with aggression.
I have to say now “why on earth am I still doing my bit to keep them there paying my licence fee?”. Things have got to change rapidly.
Good link; very interesting too reading many of the comments underneath: a few sycophantic Labour luvvies but others very prescient now that we know what happened!
Perhaps he wants more women to sexually harass.
Er…no….Davis is a steaming great gay, he is more interested in boys.
When you say ‘boys’, I take it you’re not implying anything illegal?
Would anybody at the BBC even contemplate behaviour like that? Mmmm?
Do gays steam?
Depends upon the effort involved, apparently…
It seems Davis has been moaning thet there are too many old male presenters and the BBC particularly should do more to promote the presence of women presenters.
Well, as far as I am concerned the answer is partially in his own hands. He should leave broadcasting immediately to make way for a new female replacement, and I don’t mean a recycling of one of the existing high profile female presenters.
For God’s sake go man, you’re a bloody disaster.
Humphrys and Naughtie are propagandists, but at least they have the ability and gravitas that the job deserves.
Evans is, as you say hopeless. One can only surmise he got the gig because he’s homosexual.
Anne Leslie would be excellente. She’d be a female Andrew Neil. Of the right but impartial on air.
For the BBC Gramsci, one of Neil is more than enough.
Thing is I think Evan is very good, with a very sharp mind and usually ratherengaging manner. He cocked up badly with this interview; trying to do a Humphreys, whose style I like a lot less ( although he in turn did a superb job on Entwistle).
His sexuality has nothing to do with his position on Today.
“I think Evan is very good, with a very sharp mind and usually rather engaging manner.” …………………………………….!!!!!!!!!!
Jim you have now lost ALL credibility.
Perhaps you like Evan (who went to my school) – because his clear political views reflect your own. I quite like biased interviews as it makes good sport but would like to see bias from both directions. What i dont like is plain rudeness – if Evan cant get his arguement accross by articulate questioning and without resorting rudeness he should give up. Perhaps BBC should hire some Fox News staff for balancing bias?
Quite agree. Generally he is excellent in puncturing dubious figures and claims by politicians.
However, with the FT reporting we may hit a triple dip, Osbourne needs a good shaking for messing up so completely.
Always take the opposite view, don’t you.
You mean I don’t take YOUR view.
Correct.
Many people, me included, have serious reservations about the culture of the BBC . The total lack of any BBC people posting here, however, is self evident. Private Eye is were all the stories go.
BBBC has never ONCE broken a BBC related story. All it does is repeat, as Alan does daily, warmed up stories from elsewhere. Or assume if the BBC is being objective it is being bias! Funny enough the far left make the same complaints!
“BBBC has never ONCE broken a BBC related story. All it does is repeat, as Alan does daily, warmed up stories from elsewhere.”
Yet you are camped on here, constantly.
I live in hope.
Is that a suburb of Brighton? You sure sound like it.
Funny enough the far left make the same complaints!
Really where and when? numbers and facts please not just a couple of posts of the SWP/Labour/Huff websites!
Ed Miliband do?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/dec/31/ed-miliband-labour-bbc-bias
“Many people, me included, have serious reservations about the culture of the BBC.”
Are you opposed to people being forced to pay for the BBC? Thought not.
Now why would a Leftist such as yourself be so keen on the license fee?
“the Far Left make the same complaints!”
Actually a Trotskyite last week was saying on his blog how much he supports the BBC for its political reporting.
Name me a single Labour MP who thinks the BBC should be dismantled.
For that matter give me the name of a single person in the entire Leftist establishment who wants to scrap the television license fee.
I don’t hold out much hope for a reply to that one!
I said the far left. Not labour which is clearly centre left. Labour like the vast majority in the UK support s the continuation of the BBC.
This site has certainly broken stories about the BBC and affected change, albeit nothing earth-shattering. I know defenders of the indefensible will simply move the goal posts now, since this hasn’t been done in the last week, but prole said “never”. Deal with it.
The infamous CBBC section on 9/11 made waves. Several posts and complaints (sorry, the oldest comments still haven’t been restored yet) got a result:
http://biasedbbc.tv/2007/06/roundup-several-links-about-bbc.html
Then read everything on this page, from the bottom up (it’s in reverse chronological order):
http://biasedbbc.tv/page/2?s=cbbc
Glad you proved my point. The site has no influence. Why?
Goal posts moved, as predicted. Next you’ll be pretending that we haven’t had any effect on the BBC’s Twitter policy, and nobody ever links to the blog.
“Next you’ll be pretending that we haven’t had any effect on the BBC’s Twitter policy…”
Certainly not. Who could possibly forget how you forced a minor BBC sports reporter to change her Twitter profile picture?
This surely is the stuff of legend…
‘the stuff of legend’
You are Stuart ‘do your worst, I’m immune’ Hughes and I claim my licence fee exemption.
ps: The selective Alzheimers sweeping certain quarters still appears rife. Maybe your manager has ‘spoken to you’ about it?
Scez, we always knew that you had no integrity.
Prole, you’ve just shown yourself to have no integrity.
Wow, is that the best you can do David. “The infamous CBBC section…” LOL.
After the London bombings THIS SITE spotted that the BBC reporting was talking about “militants” – not TERRORISTS. And THIS SITE forced the BBC to change its weaselly reporting – and alerted a lot of others in the media about the mealy-mouthed BBC reporting.
He’s no Bwian walden thats for sure
Evan sharp – you must be joking !
The key skill for an interviewer has to be that they listen to who they are interviewing and react to it by altering their following questions. Evan has his script (written by the BBC Word Macro no doubt) and sticks to it through thick and thin. Had Osborne announced during the interview that he had siphoned millions of pounds of tax payers pounds into his Swiss bank account , was screwing his secretary and was in fact the third Moors murderer then Evan would have still continued waffling on about double dip recessions and the like.
But Evan does have his uses. Mrs 1327 has a habit of sleeping in on Saturday mornings. If I turn on the clock radio and Evan is on she will be up within 5 minutes ranting about him not listening and how he manages to keep his job.
Learning from others, let’s have a go in the style of a seasoned Flokker..
‘I think Evan is very good’
Irrelevant.
He cocked up badly with this interview
Agree, although the word choice is, in the circumstances, in poor taste.
‘His sexuality has nothing to do with his position on Today’
Without proof beyond personal belief, and hence pointless.
There have been cases documented where flirting with interviewers has led to career advancement, and BBC staff such as Andrew Marr have offered confirmation to the skewed representation made by BBC’s hiring policies that are, also, ‘unique’.
Agreed, but this interview was such a train wreck that it was bound to produce accusations of bias. Things weren’t helped when he gave Balls a much easier ride.
Davis got the Today gig on the strength of his work as economic editor for….wait for it….Newsnight (that show really does have quite the legacy), and then as…what a shock….BBC economics editor. Stephanie Flanders succeeded him in both jobs, so let’s not be too hasty in hoping for his exit from Today.
I think Davis is far superior to “Two Eds”. He has more common sense, and even though he is definitely a Leftoid economist (the only kind working for the BBC), he’s not driven to idiocy by sheer ideology like Flanders can be.
When the BBC is staffed by Common Purpose alumni and the guests are chosen from their classmates you get a self fulfilling chain reaction of output from the overfunded and self regulated BBC. The structure defies logic.
I have long considered Evan Davis and Justin Webb to be the most irritating (“serious political”) interviewers in the media. Being sometimes but rarely exasperated by your Humphrys’ and Paxmans’, at least they usually do not –
Finish their interviewee’s answers for them
Insist on telling “me” instead of “our viewers/listeners”
Embark on self-indulgent sarcastic chuckles/scoffing laughter when asking questions
Rudely interrupt the interviewees when trying to be the ‘heavyweight interviewer’ which they clearly are not.
Engage in embarrassing opening silences when trying to frame a question
Display their political leanings when questioning.
Use the shortage of time excuse to give themselves permission to bully and to be rude.
The best interviewer for me is Andrew Neil. He is equally incisive, polite, and firm to all. He makes these two look like amateurs. Incidentally I also think that Ed Stourton was a sad loss to the Today Programme.
I’ve given up counting the number of times Davis says “Um” at the start of every sentence. That in itself is very irritating. I wonder why he does it? Perhaps it’s because it rhymes with “bum”…
Or “keep schtum”, as in Jimmy Savile.
Just listening now to Desert Island Discs with Eric Pickles being “interviewed” by Kirsty Young.
Listen to the first few minutes and count the insults and cliches aimed at the posh Tories, and their cuts….how many/minute are “required” to satisfy her quota for the editors?
And throughout the programme, so many hackneyed cliches and caricatures a la Billy Elliot etc….from an irhead Scot doing rather well down here…a Celtic Selina Scott who thinks she`s Robina Day!
24/7…even when Tories think they`re off duty, they`re never less than fair game for harrying by the Gramsci attack chihuahau that is the BBC.
Any Tory got the nous to have twigged that?…or are they they all as thick as the Liberal elite would have us believe?
Appalling systemic bias…and what else do we expect of the BBC these days?
I think the problem is that they ARE part of the liberal elite. Forever trying to play down the monumentally stupid Teresa May’s comment about nasty party (Ann Holland, Florence Anderson, Ken Livingstone etc etc anyone).
Trying on “progressive” clothes will not gain any favours from the BBC/Guardian media but will alienate core support. No wonder they are haemorrhaging supporter to UKIP.
David Cameron is the best recruiting sergeant UKIP ever had.
And it will cost him the election.
It will cost the rest of us far more.
Yes, you`re quite right-as is Cassie above.
One perpetual masochism strategy from the Tories-no principles, no purpose to their holding some kind of “power” with their equally venal and hollowed-out dufuses in the Liberal/SDP.
All correct-Peter Hitchens wants the Tories gone and I`ve every sympathy.
But when only a Tory gets this kind of trashing on a Sunday Desert Island Discs. you`ve got to think that the Liberal elite despise the likes of Pickles for being class traitors to the obvious only Party for progressive, civilised and reasoned types like Kirsty.
If the likes of Douglas Murray, Norman Tebbit or Daniel Hannan don`t refashion a party with some brains n balls, then we`re stuffed…hence my squawking at such bias.
The Tories are shit…but won`t spread malaria and cholera as clearly as the Labour vectors with their red mandibles; all ready to go again…thirteen years of parasitism, and this damn country seems to have forgiven them..let`s hope it`s all wishful liberal fantasies…
Did anyone else catch what Mr Davis thought of Starbucks last week? He concluded the debate on the tax affairs of said Starbucks by saying..*and another thing I find criminal is their so and so type coffee*.
In the mind of Mr Davis, Starbucks are criminals. I do hope the lawyers of Starbucks contact the said Mr Evans and ask him to publicly withdraw the statement.
Thing is he is aright about the ‘caffeinated milk’ description but is just the sort of pretentious ‘elite’ babble that irritates me: the very success of Starbucks and the plethora of other such coffee chains is poncey middle-upper class liberal twits who made Starbucks successful but now eschew it as common, capitalist, hackneyed etc.
According to his wikipedia entry, Davis helped develop the community charge, aka the poll tax. That was pretty criminal too, hitting the least well-off hardest, just like the TV license fee.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
Here’s a measure of how out of touch with ordinary people’s lives the Beeboids really are:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9631164/BBC-men-wake-up-and-smell-no-coffee.html
Oh and while it is still there before it drops off the cliff, revisit *inconvenient truths*, the last post I made. 😎
Another of the BBC “old blokes” Andrew Marr, of loose morals himself, twice said that the nurse in the hoax call incident “killed herself” on his programme this morning. I am not aware there has been any official verdict, post mortem, inquest or any other process yet that has determined the truth surrounding the tragic death. This is extremely lax broadcasting and is potentially prejudicial to all involved. I await a retraction by the BBC, with of course fair and representative prominence as per Leveson’s recommendations. In other words an apology on the BBC News.
The BBC overlook their part in this tragedy by their constant broadcasts of the tape of the hoax call. And before the trolls jump on this, I accept that other media did so as well. But the BBC clearly have “previous” on these hoaxes in the Ross/Brand calls and should have learned the lesson. Instead they ran the nurse tapes and have led the criticisms of the DJs since.
And
One wonders why the hospital isn’t taking any more flack – lax security and poor staff training spring to mind, unfortunate though it may be that this particular nurse (or employee) has since died for whatever reason.
One wonders why the hospital isn’t taking any more flack
The inevitable inquiry and equally inevitable cover-up will mean that the only ones who gain are media remoras who will feed off tragedy and then anger and protest as long as they can thereafter.
From what I heard and saw on SKY this morning, the pack has moved on to other sources of rotting meat.
It is clear there were failings in protocols to manage such things, and management is there to shoulder responsibility for that, but the media estate appears to be moving to making them the guilty parties.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/10/royal-hoax-station-contacted-hospital?CMP=EMCNEWEML1355
This seems extraordinary, and on par with giving Hamas a pass for launching deadly weapons any old which way just because they can, and then screeching ‘heads must roll’ if an IDF cock-up on Iron Dome allows one to sneak past.
Just what does the Guardian… in a piece long on claim and credulity, and short on any journalistic rigour, think a small hospital will be doing when a celeb patient is rushed in and the entire media estate of the world grabs their iPhones for a giggle?
There appears no attempt to even check if these claimed calls were made, and if they were no attempt to figure where in the triage totem of pR some giggling idiot kindergarden station from Australia will figure.
I missed the latter part of panty-wetting ‘live’ ‘interview ratings fest on SKY at 7.30am, but what I did see said it all.
There cannot be a single bottle of peroxide or hair gel to be had in all of the Southern hemisphere as various chubby Sheilas and macho Bruces primped for their … carefully stage-managed… outing to controlled media chums.
There was the inevitable, but still dire breast-beating ‘how did you feel’ tripe to get some good emoting on tape, but I did notice one thing before getting the kids to school.
And that was how the male, especially, had been trained to steer any notion of individuals and winging it away from the discussion. Everything was ‘the team’ and ‘run through the system’…etc..
However, the bottle suicide blonde did land one punch, and that was on the ‘training’ (presence of which excuses all; absence of which incurs wrath… see NHS ‘care) they had on such ‘commonly-conducted’ pranks.
As far as I could gather, he knew nothing and basically admitted to being a megaphone on a stick, told what to do and say.
No wonder Richard Bacon et al are circling the empathy wagons.
They are looking into mirrors, and still like what they see.
And nothing will be allowed to rock that boat.
‘Everything was ‘the team’ and ‘run through the system’…etc..
Just caught yet more on SKY as I made my second cuppa. This time a Gillard soundalike on peroxide duty.
Actually these two are coming across quite sympathetically, so it’s a pity the post-initial event tweets, etc are not around to offer context on how they handled this totally professionally, etc.
Also I’d be a bit more concerned if I were higher up the market rate chain, as they are flat out saying they were only obeying orders, did what they do and handed it over to ‘others’ to use as necessary.
The smoking gun therefore is still wafting cordite fumes around, and senior Southern Cross execs may well need access to good lawyers.
The shareholders will be impressed.
Over here, it is handled often in a whole other, unique way, including who pays.
The Davis interview of Osborne was the worst I have ever heard, ….the bias, the rudeness and the sheer refusal by the interviewer to allow the interviewed to speak. Apology BBC? If I were the Conservative Party I would demand an apology on air with the refusal to allow any other Conservative MP to appear on the Today programme until after the apology was broadcast.
There have been/are women interviewers on Today. And as a woman I think I am allowed to say they just are not very good (although perhaps better than Evan interviewing George). They always sound as if their mind is on what groceries they need to buy before they get home. In the case of Winifred Robinson I remember when an interviewee assumed that she had gone away to university. Apparently she was too poor and therefore remained in her home town to study. However she then went into such a huff that the interview went completely down hill from thereon in. The BBC should have women broadcasters if they are equal to the men not just to fill a quota. And Fiona Bruce always sounds as though she is reading the news to a class of 5 year olds – I may not like Hugh but at least I feel like a grown up when he reads the news.
And what Ross and Brand did to Andrew Sachs was far worse than what these silly Australians did. To hear news report after news report being read in a sanctimonious way from the BBC…inferring that they would never do such a thing, is irritating in the extreme. Where is Levison when you need him?
‘And as a woman I think I am allowed to say they just are not very good’
As a non-sexist licence fee payer I’d like to think I could too, but you do rather highlight another interesting unique in how the BBC makes us all react.
“Where is Leveson when you need him?”
Still gloating over his cheque from the Media Standards Trust, I expect.
Raising the tone of this site as ever.
I trust that this libellous comment will get deleted if noticed by the site owners.
Yet statements like this: “One can only surmise he got the gig because he’s homosexual.” don’t lower the tone? It teeters perilously close to libel as well, barely on the side of opinion.
There do appear some oddly mixed value sets around.
And the deployment of the word libel here and there, whilst a sensible caution to some, suggests that the BBC-Ark also had its fair share of lawyers seeking avenues for their skills.
DP, you’re a very intelligent guy, so why should you want to make such a stupid comment?
Mr Hills has just stated tha Lord Leveson took a bribe to reach the conclusions he has done, I have suggested that what would account for someone manifestly not up to his job having got it is that his being homosexual in a notoriously ‘pro-gay’ organisation probably had something to do with it.
You know comparing this to Mr Hill’s comment is just plain bezerk.
Going on past form, your self-hating white comments make me sick.
Bizarre.
Not as bizarre on your dead cat blog.
http://steffi-enmemoriade.blogspot.co.uk/
“as”, not on.
Good luck with your campaign to free Stephen Lawrence’s murderers and pin it on his friend Duwayne Brooks instead.
http://britain-today.blogspot.com.es/2012/01/stephen-lawrence-facts.html
Repellant individuals like you are the bane of this site. But hey, it’s internetland. What is one to do? Heigh-ho.
‘Heigh-ho’
As it’s festive season, in the spirit of Xmas, might one opine that he whose vase is not bare should take care when casting festive nasturtiums, bane-wise?
Leveson will not bite the hand that pays him. He is a cog in the whole machinery of ‘the law’ and its Machiavellian leeches. How the heck can anyone commit a crime and the hide behind a newspaper title?
” And Fiona Bruce always sounds as though she is reading the news to a class of 5 year olds”
Yep – always thought the same.
She is, Reed, she is…
Not very healthy the way she flirts with the viewers, then. She must have done the advanced diploma at the BBC journalism school.
Evan Davis is an appalling interviewer – full stop. Much more interested in putting his own point of view across than listening to what the person he is “interviewing” has to say; Rude, arrogant, never knows when to shut up and listen. Did I say “listen”? He never does, comes with his own ready made agenda and Beeb approved point of view, uses most interviews to promote himself and his extremely biased ideas. He is the only person I has ever made me shout at the radio – on the lines of “oh for God’s sake just shut up and let us hear what the other person has to say”!
Evan Davis: failed to see the folly of an economy fuelled by a humongously expanded public and private sector debt. Never challenged the myth of ‘no more boom and bust’.
And still doesn’t.
Continues to be a Labour stooge.
End of.
Would these be the Labour Government spending plans supported by George Osborne in 2007?
Something he and the BBC have decided must never be mentioned in polite company ever again?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm
And you could say there was broad support for Brown’s policy on Bank regulation – another disaster.
It seems to be part of an exculpatory myth promoted by Labour and their cheerleaders that they either did nothing wrong – or others (not in government) somehow share the blame for decisions Labour made during their thirteen years in power.
It doesn’t wash. They were in power. The buck stops with them. End of.
“The other lot said this..” is not a defence for Labour’s actions.
Word of advice: Don’t become a lawyer.
While your here, why not remind us what the current Labour economic policy is?
“And you could say there was broad support for Brown’s policy on Bank regulation”
Why would I say that? The Tory party didn’t support Brown’s Bank regulation policy. They wanted less regulation;
“Oliver Letwin, the shadow chancellor, said that the party was increasingly concerned by “the intrusive regulatory regime” imposed by the City watchdog.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2889945/Letwin-promises-Tories-will-abolish-FSA.html
Another little secret never mentioned by the BBC.
” ‘The other lot said this..’ is not a defence for Labour’s actions.”
I never said it was – rather that George Osborne agreed with Labour’s spending plans right until it all went horribly wrong. And from that moment onwards he’s pretended that he never did – and the BBC has shamelessly let him get away with it.
Actually the Conservatives did give support Brown’s banking reforms from 2000 ( see BBC news 3 February 2000 – report on Portillo speech).
I am glad to read you offer no defence of Labour’s spending plans. Maybe we are making progress.
“…there was broad support for Brown’s policy on Bank regulation – another disaster”
“Actually the Conservatives did give support Brown’s banking reforms from 2000”
I see what you’ve done there:
Banking reforms / bank regulation. Two different things. Perhaps you should concentrate on your own hole :p
How about reforming bank regulation.
Keep digging
And why would Osborne state that he would continue Labour’s spending plans back in 2007, Dez? Could it be he feared that Labour, aided and abetted by the BBC, would scream “Torycutz” if he did otherwise? No need to speculate. In the BBC article, Osborne tells us
“The charge from our opponents that we will cut services becomes transparently false.”
And of course history has proved him right. Even after having been near bankrupted by Labour, every cut is opposed by Labour and the BBC.
Dez’s allegation is of course 100% true, and it is incredibly frustrating the the BBC and MSM in general let Cameron’s Tories off the hook.
But it also evidences the more fundamental allegation that the BBC absolutely will not allow any question of inflated government spending as a means of dispensing ‘social justice’.
It’s another Dez own goal, I’m afraid…
Dear Dez – can you tell us with a straight face that if the Tories had promised no more boom and bust before everything went tits up they wouldn’t be reminded of it, mercilessly, by the BBC? Similarly if it had been a Tory Chancellor who, one year before Northern Rock collapsed, had said The City is entering a new golden age?
As with Hodge, one rule for Labour, another for the Tories.
But I agree with you regarding the Tory spending plans. They didn’t have the guts to tell the nation the bad news they needed to hear.
Dez is correct concerning Osborne’s support for Labour’s economic policies. Until August 2009, Osborne was still offering “to share the proceeds of growth” with the rest of us. The problem with the BBC’s agenda is not that it more or less ignores the pre-2010 Labour (and, effectively, Conservative) economic policies and their consequences, it’s that minimal airtime is given to looking outside the political games currently played between Labour and the coalition.
Nevertheless there is always plenty of time to report the stream of garbage flowing from UKUnCut (effectively a Labour front organisation) which melds in well with the BBC’s anti-business stance. I haven’t heard one interview on the BBC (and that goes for the other channels as well) where a UKUnCut rep is asked not simply to regurgitate its line but to justify its “reasoning” and enter into a grown-up discussion.
Very occasionally we get Terry Smith on Today (although rarely allowed more than about 20 seconds uninterrupted) to give a point of view outside the box of “austerity -v- growth” crapola and claim, for instance, that the cutz are not cuts in any meaningful understanding of the word. Rather, almost all we get is an endless queue at the BBC microphones of those (or, more to the point, those professionally representing those) who might suffer from the re-jigging of the benefits system to be followed by the obligatory crucifixion on air – by Evan among others – of those in power who seek to defend a policy of “cuts”. If the BBC devoted a bit more of its airtime to exploring the reality – instead of the blatant sore-exposing “human interest” (= lefty, pro-Labour interest) side – of “austerity” it would, at least, be stumbling towards the impartiality it so evidently avoids.
It’s pretty obvious, IMHO, that the economic and financial position of this country is far worse than admitted by Osborne or, even Balls. The patent inadequacy of both Labour and the coalition is rarely explored by the BBC. Criticism from outside the system on the BBC airwaves is generally from the left and, for instance, members of the New Economics Foundation (as well as the Tax Justice Network) are given (unchallenged) airtime out of all proportion to the adequacies of their economic analysis. Instead seemingly every item of news is skewed against the coalition – or rather, where possible, the Conservative bit – as being both the cause of our present discontents and, don’t let the BBC forget to remind us, being the rich, tax-avoiding toffs that they are, refusing to adopt a policy of “growth” as if growth were the means rather than the objective of economic policy.
Evan Davis-BBC ‘Today’ love affair with LIBERIA continues, at British BBC licence payers’ expense.
In this long-running expensive series, Mr Davis, hot-foot from rudely and continually interrupting the British Chancellor, Mr Osborne, about British government finances, now goes all polite in Liberia, (so that Mr Davis could not be confused as a neo-colonialist telling Liberians what to do?), suggests that Liberians pay their taxes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9777000/9777235.stm