Here you go folks, a NEW open thread as I see the old one is as full as Lord Patten’s ego.
OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Zephir Nov 16, 19:54
Weekend 16th November 2024
[img]https://i.postimg.cc/s2r37kY7/trump-presidente-2024-meme-e-vignette-16.jpg[/img] - vlad Nov 16, 19:32
Weekend 16th November 2024
Which of you Islamophobes can honestly say you haven’t – erm – slipped into someone by accident? The judge and… - Up2snuff Nov 16, 19:26
Weekend 16th November 2024
TOADY Watch #2 – from yesterday* rubbishing the latest appointments of the President Elect This time it wasn’t Robert Kennedy… - Zephir Nov 16, 19:17
Weekend 16th November 2024
Regarding the above, yes that’s 13.8 Million views, versus Mr Fuck Yeah [img]https://i.postimg.cc/ryt5wWwb/Capt-ERure.jpg[/img] - Zephir Nov 16, 19:13
Weekend 16th November 2024
[img]https://i.postimg.cc/zD9SC7Q8/Captuyjre.jpg[/img] - Zephir Nov 16, 19:11
Weekend 16th November 2024
I heartily recommend, if you are feeling a little down, to have a perusal of “Bluesky” where the wokes are… - Up2snuff Nov 16, 19:03
Weekend 16th November 2024
Nibor, ahem! You could say that newspapers were the internet of old, along with coffee shops in the City of… - Guest Who Nov 16, 19:00
Weekend 16th November 2024
Undoubtedly physically attractive. But though I am usually a sucker for deep brown eyes, those a mirrors to a very…
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
Here I have sat all over Christmas suffering withdrawal symptoms, not knowing this site had been resurrected!
Damn !
Ditto
As soon as I discovered it I published the new URL on my blog, Facebook and Twitter. I suggest we all do the same.
Biased BBC could do its bit by emailing regular commenters.
I found the site after Mr Vance emailed me, I’m delighted to say.
I found the site after Mr Vance emailed me, I’m delighted to say.
Yes, same source of info for me, a response to a tweet. Must be better ways to spread the word tho’ ?
Even as Christmas still lingers the bBC continues with its pro “Why aren’t you a muslim yet?’ Mission statement:
Athens – the EU capital city without a mosque
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20820349
While the bBC is more than happy to play the victimcard for followers of the religion which oppressed Greece for hundreds of Years, the country I should add which saw hundreds of thousands murdered by Muslims when they wanted to become free, they don’t contrast their viewpoint with life for Christians in any Islamic country.
The bBC, the traitors within our Midst
The Beeb article studiously ignored the problems Christians have in building churches in any and every Muslim country, usually somewhere between almost impossibly difficult and downright forbidden.
A little expansion on what ‘centuries of Ottoman tyrrany’ was like might have added a little colour as well e.g. the orders to the 40,000 troops sent to suppress the revolt in Chios in 1822:
” the troops were ordered to kill all infants under three years old, all males 12 years and older, and all females 40 and older, except those willing to convert to Islam.” wiki: chios massacre (I’ve always found this Islamic habit of killing all women over 40 particularly ungallante, myself).
Good point, Maybe the bBC should run an article on how the home of the Greek orthodox Church is found in the former Greek capital..Constantinople aka across the river from Istanbul. But are the Greek Christians afforded the same rights Muslims demand in Greece. Nah while the Greek population in Turkey shrinks (1923=130,00 .2000=3000) In Greece the Islamic population swells.
Read up a little how Islamic equality for all has been the main reason why the home of the Greek Church is on a downward spiral.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/08/26/wus.patriarch/index.html
<b. The bBC, where reporting the news has been replaced with spreading arse cheeks for allah
The BBC ,as someone once predicted,has forgotten 1 million Armenians.
What chance of them remembering 500,000 Greek Christians?
(best estimates from Taner Akcam’s ‘A Shameful Act’).
…and the boys and girls under 12 – and all girls and women between 12 and 40 were taken into slavery or worse in Turkey, I believe.
Only 90 years ago
Greek genocide also known as the Pontic genocide, was the systematic extermination of the Greek population from its homeland in Asia Minor during World War I and its aftermath (1914–1923). It was instigated by the government of the Ottoman Empire against the Greek population of the Empire and it included massacres, forced deportations involving death marches, summary expulsions, arbitrary executions, and destruction of Christian Orthodox cultural, historical and religious monuments. According to various sources, several hundred thousand Ottoman Greeks died during this period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide
Move along please, nothing to see here!
Falklands invasion ‘surprised’ Thatcher
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20800447
After the left saw all hopes of getting their politically correct followers of fashion elected (Something about putting your donkey coat wearing foot in your mouth) after Maggie got re-elected in 1982. They began a mission of character assassination which continues to bear fruit 30 years down the line.
We’ve had ‘Maggie the Milk Snatcher’ yet the facts remain it was a labour government which brought that act into place.
We’ve had ‘Maggie stated the Falklands war’ in which to remain in Power. Facts state she was caught with her knickers down.
The children of today are brought up on a diet that MT was (is) the wicked witch of the West and the venom that is spat when people of the left discuss her is there for everyone to see. (Have a look at the bBC article of why Grantham has become a Mecca for the Japanese on the bBC)
The thing is the time has revealed that the targets of the Lefts poison pen campaigns have all been exonerated and that actually the real hate mongers out there are the followers of the left. (Why is it Ok to vilify Tories, Bankers, English Nationalists, British Military, but not Labour, Money Wasting Orgs: Schools, NHS, Councils etc, foreign Nationalists and of course Islamic
Terrorists Militants.The bBC is more than guilty on all of the above counts, yet yesterday after news came out that Maggie has been exonerated in all counts regards the Falklands they come out with:
Lord Armstrong was Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet secretary at the time. He told the BBC: “If we had failed to recover the Falklands she would have had to go.”If we had lost it she couldn’t have won the next election. Her own political career, and that of her party, were on the line.
Thus continuing to perpetuate the line this was all about keeping herself in power and not doing the right thing.
The bBC, the leftwing traitors within our Midst
Sorry didn’t close off the strike attribute.
Falklands invasion ‘surprised’ Thatcher
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20800447
After the left saw all hopes of getting their politically correct followers of fashion elected (Something about putting your donkey coat wearing foot in your mouth) after Maggie got re-elected in 1982. They began a mission of character assassination which continues to bear fruit 30 years down the line.
We’ve had ‘Maggie the Milk Snatcher’ yet the facts remain it was a labour government which brought that act into place.
We’ve had ‘Maggie stated the Falklands war’ in which to remain in Power. Facts state she was caught with her knickers down.
The children of today are brought up on a diet that MT was (is) the wicked witch of the West and the venom that is spat when people of the left discuss her is there for everyone to see. (Have a look at the bBC article of why Grantham has become a Mecca for the Japanese on the bBC)
The thing is the time has revealed that the targets of the Lefts poison pen campaigns have all been exonerated and that actually the real hate mongers out there are the followers of the left. (Why is it Ok to vilify Tories, Bankers, English Nationalists, British Military, but not Labour, Money Wasting Orgs: Schools, NHS, Councils etc, foreign Nationalists and of course Islamic
TerroristsMilitants.The bBC is more than guilty on all of the above counts, yet yesterday after news came out that Maggie has been exonerated in all counts regards the Falklands they come out with:
Lord Armstrong was Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet secretary at the time. He told the BBC: “If we had failed to recover the Falklands she would have had to go.”If we had lost it she couldn’t have won the next election. Her own political career, and that of her party, were on the line.
Thus continuing to perpetuate the line this was all about keeping herself in power and not doing the right thing.
The bBC, the leftwing traitors within our Midst
‘They began a mission of character assassination’
Certainly got a well-named guy to write the latest.
Did you hear the Armstrong interview? He was full if praise for her, said she was at the peak of her leadership. In no way does the bbc coverage I’ve seen and heard leave you with the impression you suggest. Rather it paints her in rather a heroic light, particularly in dealing with the perfidious Reagan and Mitterand. And fair do to the old girl on this one.
I heard this interview and thought the same. Quite surprised me.
‘Perfidious Reagan and Mitterand.’
Wondered why you were being so flattering about Maggie on this one – it’s the old Leftie Pecking Order thing.
The Falklands Play, a dramatic account of the political events leading up to, and including, the 1982 Falklands War, was commissioned by the BBC in 1983, for production and broadcast in 1986, but was shelved by Controller of BBC One, on the grounds it showed Margaret Thatcher in too positive a light.
Not at all. I think Reagan was a vastly overrated president, out of his depth. Thatcher, although deeply flawed, was a woman of passion, conviction and teak toughness. I thought she was mad and bad at the time. I see much to admire in her now.
That’s a fair point – I think many who were deeply critical of Mrs. T. at the time have come to compare her conviction and steel to the weak-willed, PR obsessed managers that are her successors, and come to the conclusion that there was indeed much to admire, even if you still don’t agree with her politics.
Look at the three party leaders now – third rate committee members from a local council. Some ‘choice’.
“…there was indeed much to admire…”
Every war is a failure. 900 people were killed in the Falklands War. I fail to see what there is to admire…
If this attitude had prevailed in the past, you’d have typed “jeder Krieg ist ein Fehler”.
I don’t think anyone should take for granted the sacrifices made by others during conflicts, but I’m sure the 3000 residents of the Falklands don’t share your disdain for the efforts that preserved their freedom.
Does it really need pointing out that fascists, whatever their nationality, aren’t particularly known for their openness to reasonable negotiation. Sometimes conflict is inevitable. Unfortunately.
“If this attitude had prevailed in the past, you’d have typed ‘jeder Krieg ist ein Fehler’.”
What attitude? That a descent into war isn’t something to be proud of? Of course WW2 is always used as an argument because it’s the only war there has been ever…
60 million people died in WW2. How is that anything other than a massive catastrophic failure?
Imagine a world where the Nazis weren’t defeated. A Europe you’d like to live in? It’s only because of the dreadful sacrifices of that generation that we live in the free, liberal Europe of today. I don’t call that a failure.
Steadfastness in the face of fascism when the odds are so stacked against you the sensible option seems to be appeasement. That’s what I admire.
It’s a measure of our militarised culture that “appeasement” has been categorically branded as a dirty word. showing ‘respect’ for the armed forces is likewise deemed more or less compulsory.
You want bias? It’s there; hidden in plain sight.
Reed; “Imagine a world where the Nazis weren’t defeated…”
Unfortunately Reed, the content of your imagination is just that… imaginary.
No matter what the argument is, Dez will surely go against any prevailing sentiment.
It seems he’s one of those airy-fairy thinkers who believes all he has to do is think nice thoughts and the gun pointing at his head will suddenly sprout flowers out of its barrel and the bullets will turn to lovely marshmallow.
Commendable sentiments but that is not how the real world works. The figure of 60,000,000 dead in WW2 includes at least 20,000,000 of Slavic origin murdered by Stalin’s henchmen between 1939 and 1945, plus those of white Russian origin forcibly repatriated by the West post-war who went straight into Stalin’s gulags to die a lingering death. 20,000,000, or 40,000,000 – as Stalin once said ” One death is a tragedy, millions of deaths is a statistic.”
Dez, you have to accept that there are some evil bastards in this world who think nothing of killing or torturing other human beings. No amount of talking or “appeasement” will deter them.
Are you saying that if someone has the intent to cause you great harm, even killing you, then you will do nothing to defend yourself?
One thing I’ve noticed about pacifists is that they are happy to sit out hostilities seemingly happy to let others to the dying for them.
“One thing I’ve noticed about pacifists… seemingly happy to let others to the dying for them.”
Andy, I suggest yo do some research about this nation’s treatment of Conscientious objectors during WW1. Then perhaps consider the fate that befell Germans who refused to kill “for their country” in WW2?
I’m quite aware of the treatment of conscientious objectors during both world wars. I have plenty of respect for those who joined the Royal Army Medical Corps and did their best on operational front lines to treat their wounded comrades – some putting themselves at great personal risk in order to do so. There were others, though, like Jack Straw’s father who wouldn’t go anywhere near the front line because they thought – to quote Mr.Straw snr. – “This country wasn’t worth fighting for…”
Strange that most of those who were anti-war in WW2 were left wing intellectuals ( I know others were pacifist for religious reasons, e.g. Quakers). Those Lefties seemed reluctant for this country to fight an enemy that was then allied to Soviet
Russia. Let’s not forget that Uncle Joe Stalin enabled Hitler to Start WW2 by helping him plan the invasion of Poland for which he was rewarded with half the conquered territories.That pact also allowed Stalin to murder thousands of Poland’s officer class and political elite.
Strange those same pacifist lefties became more belligerent AFTER June 1941 when they joined in with the struggle against the Nazis. Why would that be, I wonder?
bBC clone wrote:
“Did you hear the Armstrong interview? He was full if praise for her,”
One pro Thatcher article out of thousands of anti ones does not make the bBC impartial.
“thousands” eh? Find TEN.
Any ten episodes of Week Ending in the 1980s.
Game.Set. Match.
If a poster called [Sigh] suddenly appears trotting out non-sequiturs, cherry-picks, strawmen or hit-and-run one liners, one can be pretty sure that ‘Flokkers, The New Batch’ has been spawned.
“non-sequiturs… cherry-picks… strawmen… hit-and-run…”
You missed out “ad-hom” from your random selection of B-BBC catchphrases. Try to remember it next time you find yourself with absolutely nothing to say.
‘..strawmen… from your random selection of B-BBC catchphrases.’
Always a new quirk revealed when the baton has been passed back and one finds the old batch are still in the running, albeit down a well worn slope.
‘Try to remember it next time you find yourself with absolutely nothing to say.’
What like this…?:
‘You’re creating a straw man..’
Maybe you and Jim would like to get together and agree on when and why you get to use such terms and when no one else is (at least in an Albaman sense).
There is probably much in the BBC Editorial Guideline archive to help with that, if under the FoI-redacted section on ‘unique double standards’.
Jim can also probably explain in private about not making each other look foolish within a few thread posts of each other.
Meanwhile, and given your stout defence of jaw-jaw no matter what…
‘Repugnant as it was that the aggressor should gain anything from his aggression, [some concessions] seemed an acceptable price to pay.’ … was luckily deflected.
As a poster in the Graun shares:
‘I am Argentine and i am socialist. Ironically, i must thank God that Mrs Thatcher defeated in an inexorable way the genocide regime of Galtieri. If Galtieri had won, dictatorship would have lasted for years.
It is only in the BBC world that actual national foes are supported more in trying to wound ideological foes for petty personal or corporate reasons, and the principles of rewarding failure and failing to police accountability in a resolute manner still prevails.
Which explains Savile, McAlpine, 28Gate, Entwistle, Boaden,… and the likes of the Flokker circus here.
But they still don’t excuse any of you.
leave me out if your game of fantasy flokkers and conspiracies. Dez and I are having an internecine spat elsewhere.
‘leave me out if your game of fantasy flokkers and conspiracies. ‘
This telling folk how to think, write and act… it really seems rather uni-directional at times.
But since you asked so nicely… oh, no you didn’t, I am afraid I think I am comfortable in the belief I can do whatever I feel like, where I like, for as long as like still a while longer.
But good luck with the office upstart. Possibly a bit emboldened by recent ructions in The Farce, but also evidently frustrated that no one at the top has been knocked even sideways enough for an eager beaver to float a bit higher.
Nelson’s Navy was a much richer environment for fast-tracking, though the Vietnam foxhole fragging seems the preferred method of pink on pink advancement when those at the top (who are left) deem the wound inflicted on a colleague to be terminal.
Not sure I understood a word of that.
But the one word per line format renders it into a rather beautiful surrealist poem.
Not sure I understood a word of that.
Then by Flokker Rules, you should not be posting any reply, much less pointless ones, until you are.
Sadly I can do no more to assist with your powers of comprehension, so it seems you are stranded in ignorance.
There’s none so dumb…
“Any ten episodes of Week Ending in the 1980s.”
Perhaps you can find some then?
No?
http://www.bbcshop.com/comedy/week-ending-with-maggie/invt/9781408426197/
A loyal tribute to ten glorious years from BBC Radio 4’s Week Ending team. From the archives of the legendary satirical radio comedy series Week Ending comes this compilation of satirical and sardonic sketches based on Margaret Thatcher’s first ten years as Prime Minister.
That’s because it isn’t online.
However, unlike some, I wasn’t at school at the time, and have a perfectly clear recollection of the programme’s “satirical” (ie relentlessly pro-Left) content..
‘That’s because it isn’t online.’
Likely still in archive.
The kind that some seem to get unique access to… if it serves.
Or is behind a wall of FoI exclusion lawyers if it doesn’t.
That’s what makes the BBC, and its juvenile apologists’ arguments, so unique.
You know, what’s so cute about our pet cherry-pickers is the way they ignore countless posts over months and months giving instances of anti-Thatcher bias on the BBC as they happen then pop up in the middle of a discussion like this and demand top of the head examples
The tragic bit is – they think they’re being clever.
“More or Less” started a little while ago on Radio 4.
I couldn’t believe what I was hearing – some statistics about who in the footballing world was, er, “gay”, and who wasn’t, followed by a load of pointless, meaningless statistics on sports.
Why is the BBC so enamoured with homosexuality and sports?
I don’t give a stuff whether or not a footballer is “openly gay”, so back to Classic FM I went.
Classic FM has been a haven for me over the Christmas period, what with “Toady’s” ‘guest-editor’ pranks, and other sanctimonious biased leftie-drivel.
What happened to the good old Home Service?
I suppose yet another 12 months of trite tripe served up to assail our eardrums, and insult our intelligence is on the cards.
No doubt, in the interests of balance, we can expect the BBC to start running programs speculating about the sex lives of female celebrities, mmm?
Why does the mention of gay people worry you so much?
Old Goat couldn’t give a stuff whether or not a footballer is “openly gay”; which is quite obviously why he felt compelled to tell everyone that he couldn’t give a stuff [boggle].
Isn’t that what “commenting” is all about?
The Beeb mus be a hell of a powerful agent in the support and advancement of British poofdom. How else can you explain the way this site is circled, hyena-like, by a bunch of perverts, waiting to leap in and trash a thread whenever they think they see an opportunity.
Just to save you scrolling back up a few lines:
Seems like a good explanation. I didn’t get the impression that he was “worried”.
I’m afraid that “sick of hearing about it” isn’t good enough in the increasingly intolerant Land of the Left. You must actively embrace it or you are a fascist anti-gay climate change denier.
Exactly.
I for one am sick of hearing the constant gay references on the BBC – totally disproportionate to their numbers in society. Used to have a lot of sympathy but they don’t seem to know when to stop (two female parents on a birth certificate for God’s sake?). Their ruthless pursuit of Christian B and B owners and Catholic adoption agencies makes them the new intolerants in my book, though in all honesty I think it’s only a minority of militants doing it.
Which makes it a tiny minority from a tiny minority driving the agenda.
It is not a tiny minority but 1% of the UK population.
It’s not the “mention” that irks me – it’s the continually forcing of it down my throat. “Gay” overkill.
It seems to me that you get prevalence on the BBC if you are one or more of the following (in no particular order):
Homosexual
Sporty
Leftie
Green
Moslem/Islamic
Disabled
And best of all, a combo of the lot of them.
“forcing it down my throat” you say. Interesting choice of words.
Typical pro Gay attitude, if you are uncomfortable with a way of life that is, shall we say , in the name of politeness,not very tasteful, then you are clearly a closet Gay. Utter crap!
What I don’t get is how the pro-gay think its OK to use accusations of closet homosexuality as a rebuttal (whoo whoo). Surely that’s homophobic?
Some questions to be asked of the BBC here, I reckon.
I wonder when we’ll see Salma Yaqoob facing a QT audience made up of white Christians, booing and hissing every time she speaks? Or could it be that ‘anti-racism’ just means anti-white.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2328/britain_s_new_minorities
Good link but you’re forgetting one thing – white Christians are too polite and civilised to stoop to the level of the fanatical Left and their hangers-on who have been allowed to drive undemocratically the agenda in Britain.
Very true. Besides, if you don’t celebrate the demise of your country then you’re a RACIST NAZI FASCIST!! . . . FACT!!
The bBC, Islamic terrorism and half the story.
Mindanao stories: What will peace bring?Mindanao is a beautiful island in the southern Philippines – yet in and around the city of Cotabato there are several rebel groups, extortion gangs, and clans with their own private armies. There are also tens of thousands of people trying to live a normal life. The main rebel group signed a roadmap for peace with the government in 2012. What will this mean for those living there?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20797418
Reading the above, what picture does the bBC present to their fee paying British Public about the latest in a long line of peace deals between the so called rebels and the Pilipino government .
Well for a start the rebel group is an Islamic one (MILF, I kid you not) and their mission statement is one of ceding from Manila and forming their own Islamic kingdom. The thing is the Muslims signed a deal in the past (1976) but as is the way of the Muslim, some just couldn’t give up a life of murder, death, kill and continued carrying out the way of life as prescribed to them in their unholy lexicon of hate (Koran) until 1997 when another ceasefire took place, in fact since 1997 there have been numerous ceasefires (Look up hudna) and each time MILF has sought time and time again to arouse the passions of Allah by murder, death ,kill. But reading the above sanitised bBC account you don’t hear any of that, instead all you are informed of is “We have peace in our time”
The bBC, the Neville Chamberlin of the news world when it comes to Islamic terrorism
Just been listening to ‘More or Less’, a quirky maths/stats type programme which is reasonably entertaining apart from the inevitable left-wing bias.
So today they had as guest none other than Jack Straw. Normally, we were informed, they wouldn’t entertain having a politician on the programme – they’d say get back to the Today programme, ha, ha – except Straw is a bit of a stats freak. We then had a couple of minutes on why Straw found the subject so fascinating (he is a trained statistician), but then followed by explanations as to why certain of the Labour Government’s cock-ups (a.k.a. deceits) were nothing of the sort but the fault of their statistical researchers, including the forecasts for the number of Eastern European immigrants likely to come to Britain after EU expansion in 2004. In fact on the latter example Straw reckoned that how they i.e. not Labour, could get it so wrong could be the subject of a PhD thesis in its own right. Ha ha. How he laughed (at us, you got the feeling).
So here was a politician, ostensibly invited on to a non-political show to talk about his favourite subject, then given a platform to blame others for his government’s failures.
Pure, unadulterated political collusion by the BBC, the broadcasting arm of the Labour Party YOU have to pay for.
BBC’s choices for face of the year pretty telling as usual.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20710916
basically they choose unknown people who’ve come to prominence this year. First of all there’s the PC nonsense of choosing 12 men and 12 women, which, given the relative contributions of the genders to arts, sciences, business, sport etc would usually leave the BBC scratched their heads when it came to choosing the 11th, 12th females etc (this year they chose Pussy Riot as one female person)
However, the racism and sexism of the BBC has shone through this year, one on of their faces is some random bloke who racially abused Fabrice Muamba on Twitter!
I’m all for including horrific criminals on such lists rather than sanitising the events of the year, but surely there are better candidates than this guy? I can’t even remember his name and I only read the article 5 minutes ago and a better candidate for typical police interference on Twitter would be one of the many they tried to punish for doing nothing wrong.
Why not have some of the BBC folk embroiled in scandals this year, that’s one of the stories of the year? Just as big a story is the Rochdale Grooming gang, why not have Shabir Ahmed as a face of the year, to symbolise not just his crimes but all the many other similar cases exposed this year? Or is his racism and victims the wrong way round for the BBC?
light race relief : ://gawker.com/5971346/the-django-moment-or-when-should-white-people-laugh-in-django-unchained
An Australian slant on THAT secret meeting with the ‘climate change’ activists, and its filthy rotten legacy at the BBC. Still amazed nobody has called for an enquiry on this, so worth keeping it simmering on this site at least in the hope that it might still happen. This is as good an account as any I’ve read:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/12/pharisees-and-pieties-at-the-abc
Nice find.
The ABC spokeswoman said the network did broadcast and publish views from dissenting scientists.
“Unlike the BBC, the ABC acknowledges there are climate scientists who question the core thinking about climate science,” she said.
“The ABC gives them and their views air time.”
Oh, dear.
‘This honesty distinguished the BBC from its opposite number in Berlin, which merely broadcast propaganda.’
Maybe it was a different time?
ps: Flokkers… unless it has not been cut upwards again in the New Year’s Dishonours, the licence fee is listed as £147, which should give you something to gnaw on in trying to ignore the rest.
Wouldn`t suggest that you look at the BBCs Review of the Year in 201.2 seconds.
Rather whistled through Savile, and left us with the “no cover up/I did NOT have sex with that woman” “verdict…is that the word?
As for poor Rathband, Winnie Johnson and all those girls groomed and abused by Muslim gangs up north…the mum who hideously killed her son for not knowing his Koran well enough…the UKIP fostering couple…Dennis MacShane, Margaret Moran?…well, what do you think?
Good old BBC eh?
I was watching the SVT (Swedish BBC equivalent without the paedophilia and massive salaries) review of the year on Thursday and was delighted to see that they dedicated a couple of minutes of it to the shame of the BBC / Savile / Newsnight / McAlpine / Entwhistle.
Spreading that influence! Great to know our national broadcaster is representing us so well around the world. 🙁
This is hilarious at the expense of US leftists who are agonising over “”whether white people should laugh “” over the publicity hungry DJANGO UNCHAINED … right now the po faced Guardian hacks are prepping their pieces : laughable :
http://gawker.com/5971346/the-django-moment-or-when-should-white-people-laugh-in-django-unchained
Perhaps the laughing guy was laughing a Tarantino’s club hammer style propergandising.
In the way people now laugh at some of the work of Leni Riefenstahl or Sergei Eisenstein.
Or the brechtian archetypes of Mike Liegh and Alan Bleasdale.
At least Tarantino is more amusing than the last two
The bBC, its leftwing hatred of Nuclear power and half the story.
Japan’s Tepco sued by US sailors over radiation
Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco), owner of the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, has been sued by eight US sailors over radiation exposure. They claim that Tepco lied about the threat posed by the leaks after the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami damaged the plant. The sailors were involved in relief operations after the natural disasters.
The day after the Japanese Government have stated that they will relook at closing down all their nuclear power plants, the bBC comes out with their version of how Nuclear Power just cannot be trusted and here is the salient bits the bBC don’t want you to know:
Radiation was detected on 17 members of three helicopter crews that returned to the Nuclear powered carrier ‘Ronald Regan after conducting disaster relief missions in Sendai. The crew members washed with soap and water, removing the hazardous material; in all, they were exposed to the equivalent of one month’s worth of background radiation.
Get that, the crew members not only were based on a nuclear powered ship but they only received a months’ worth of background radiation in all. (You get much more from an X-ray) Not only that but the entire fleet moved location when they spotted a radioactive cloud coming their way. In other words the Navy knew about the risks. Which is funny as the USS Ronal Regan went into an area the bBC knew was(And was reporting) radioactive from the word go after the 13th of March 2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12727097
The Nuclear powered Ronald Regan didn’t arrive off Japan until the 14th March 2012.
The Japanese first recorded Radiation from the reactors 200 Miles away on the 12th March 2012.
I wonder why the bbC doesn’t mention any of this.
and a link from the 14th of March 2011
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/14/japan.us.navy.radiation/index.html
Which the prat who wrote the bBC article didn’t bother his arse in looking up.
The mealy mouthed ****ers can’t even do an item on the world seen from space without adding some bias.
BBC News Science and Environment.
‘This photo from DigitalGlobe shows the Olympic Park in London on 24 July 2012. More than 10,000 athletes competed at this third London games which was hailed by many as a roaring success. But the event was also marked by controversies over ticketing and security.’
No it wasn’t, the BBC did their best to create controversy, but thankfully nobody listened to them.
They did exactly the same with Euro 2012 football from Poland/Ukraine, stirring up racial tensions and telling black folk not to go, – rsoles
A bit of a lengthy extract from Christopher Booker’s report ‘The BBC and Climate Change: A Triple Betrayal’, but well worth a read as it’s about our old friend Roger Harrabin, and how even he can be subjected to the full force of the eco-fascist jackboot.
Full report here:
Click to access booker-bbc.pdf
‘An interesting test of the BBC’s response to the questioning which was beginning to emerge around the global warming issue was a curious little
episode in April involving its ‘environmental analyst’ Roger Harrabin. Normally a tireless advocate of the warmist orthodoxy, he dared momentarily to step out
of line by referring on his blog to a press release from the World Meteorological Organisation. This stated that since 1998 global temperatures had not risen, and that in 2008 they were likely to be below their average of the previous 20 years.
In itself this was remarkable, being the first time that anyone from the BBC had publicly acknowledged the otherwise easily accessible fact that the global
temperature trend since 1998 had not been positive. Furthermore, the source of the statement was the WMO, one of the two sponsoring bodies of the IPCC.
But Harrabin’s admission provoked a howl of protest from one particularly zealous activist, Jo Abbess of the Campaign Against Climate Change (honorary president George Monbiot). She emailed Harrabin, demanding
that he ‘correct’ his item. Harrabin replied that there were indeed respected climate scientists who now questioned whether ‘warming will continue as
predicted’. This only angered Ms Abbess still further. It was ‘highly irresponsible’, she wrote back, ‘to play into the hands of the sceptics’, or even to ‘hint that
the world is cooling down’. Harrabin stood his ground. Even in the general media, he pointed out, there were ‘sceptics’ reporting that temperatures had
failed to rise since 1998, and that to ignore this might give the impression that ‘the debate is being censored’.
This was too much for Ms Abbess. It was not a matter for ‘debate’, she said.
He had no right to quote the sceptics ‘whose voice is heard everywhere, on every channel, deliberately obstructing the emergence of the truth’. Unless
he changed his item, she would have to conclude that he was ‘insufficiently educated’ to recognise when he had been ‘psychologically manipulated’,
and she would have to expose him to the world by publishing his emails on the internet.
At this Harrabin caved in. Within minutes a significantly modified version of his post had appeared, given the same date and time as the original. He had
removed the details of the offending statement from the WMO, referring only to ‘slightly cooler temperatures’. But he gave reassurance to his green readers by adding that temperatures were still ‘above the average’, and that they would ‘soon exceed the record year of 1998’. The BBC man was safely back
in the fold, his exercise in re-education complete.’
I feel guilty for watching Dr Who and enjoying it despite yet more feminist propaganda, misandry, lesbianism, Left wing tosh, and too much sex.
1) White men evil and emotionally stunted.
2) Military men stupid.
3) Only relationship relationship a gay one.
4) Why does their have to be a sexual frisson between the Doctor and his assistants in the current serials?
5) Really apart from the Doctor only women take charge or drive the plot.
6) Is there a racial quota for BBC casting? White actors must out number black actors by a margin yet Clara’s friend at the end has to be black?
“1) White men evil and emotionally stunted.”
Oh apart from the central character hero – white male.
“2) Military men stupid.”
What military men?
“3) Only relationship a gay one.”
Contradicted by:
“4) Why does their have to be a sexual frisson between the Doctor and his assistants…”.
Like the central male and female characters you mean? You consider this a gay relationship?
“5) Really apart from the Doctor only women take charge or drive the plot.”
Yeah right; apart from all the men there’s only women. Duh.
“6)…yet Clara’s friend at the end has to be black?”
An all white cast and yet still you are complaining about a singular black person being on screen for less than two seconds?
Congratulations “anon”; you truly are the new king of the idiots. 🙂
“1) White men evil and emotionally stunted.”
Don’t forget the children’s father, who was neither.
Unless by “white men”, you were counting the snowmen?
“2) Military men stupid.”
I presume you mean Strax, the Sontaran clone solider-turned-wet-nurse-turned butler?
Yes, that’s clearly a jibe at all military individuals, rather than a comedic juxtaposition of expectations, isn’t it.
“3) Only relationship a gay one”
Apart from the relationship between the father and his children. Or his obvious attraction towards Clara. Or Clara’s obvious attraction towards the Doctor.
“4) Why does their have to be a sexual frisson between the Doctor and his assistants…”
Why does there have to be none at all? Really, the only fans I’ve seen who complain about the close relationship between Doctor and companion are either solitary individuals who have their own relationship issues, or have never seen the Doctor’s tearful farewell to Jo Grant, the frisson between the Doctor and Romana, or his kisses with Grace in the TV Movie…
“5) Really apart from the Doctor only women take charge or drive the plot.”
The Great Intelligence is male. The housemaid was yer archetypal run-and-scream template.
Shocking that other characters don’t fit the one-dimensional stereotypes you would ascribe to them, though.
“6) …White actors must out number black actors by a margin yet Clara’s friend at the end has to be black?”
Funny. She’s the only non-white actor in the whole thing, is on screen for two seconds – so she’s the cause of your distress? Sheesh.
So on the ball they wrote it twice. Please try to divvy out the press releases more rationally.
‘So on the ball they wrote it twice.’
It is… ‘interesting’.
One of those infrequent ‘anons’ posts and then two from the Flokk issue darn near identical rebuttals in point form.
The least you could expect is a bit of juggling the thing around.
Bet they’ll blame the cuts.
Common Purpose black ops.
Racist.
Noticed that most of the beeboid newsreaders wore red over the Christmas period….still doing the psychological vote Liebour thing maybe ???
Undoubtedly. Like that redistributive bastard Santa
The modern Santa is a U.S. creation, and the political colours of red and blue in the U.S. are the reverse of those in the U.K.
I’ve been pwned.
I thought the “Santa” colours were a marketing ploy of Coca Cola.
The colors didn’t used to be set in stone like that. The nomenklatura used to switch the incumbent party’s color every four years. Except after Gore and many on the Left – including Newnsight – declared the 2000 election was stolen, and the whole Red State vs Blue State jargon entered mainstream conversations, it stuck.
Now, the more paranoid among us might suspect that the Leftoid media darlings decided to really switch it every time in order to avoid having people permanently associate Democrats with Communism once Reagan was in power, but I wouldn’t go that far.
As for Santa Claus, personally I never saw him as an evil redistribution figure. I always viewed him as a cultural conspiracy created to teach people that it’s okay for authority figures (parents) to lie about certain things.
Sweet jebus, the point is wearing red at Xmas is not necessarily a sign that you’re a rabid commie; Betty’s (not sure if serious?) suggestion.
I always suspected Rudolph.
Relax, Jim. I’m sure the red is coincidental to the season. If the Beeboids really wanted to do it right, they’d wear green with red underneath. We know from that secret/not secret Warmist meeting that the BBC definitely believes it’s okay for authority figures to lie about certain things.
Yes, watermelon green.
well, that didn’t work! Sorry, folks.
Damn, I just realized that Santa can’t be demonized as a Commie redistributionist. I’m ashamed I didn’t think of this before.
Santa is not taxpayer-funded.
He makes all his own stuff using low-wage foreign labor, in a foreign country where they certainly don’t have any of those tedious health and safety or workers’ rights regulations. If we’ve learned anything from “The Year Without a Santa Claus”, it’s that the poor elves don’t even have the career choice opportunities to keep them out of the sweatshop.
He gives it all away of his own free will, doesn’t preen or lecture anyone about it on Any Questions or any BBC comedy panel show, you don’t see him exploiting his position by earning money for chairing conferences or trousering five-figure speaking fees, and as far as I’m aware doesn’t even take any tax deductions for it.
The reindeer might have a pretty high greenhouse gas fuel-to-output ratio, but it’s only once a year.
You never hear Santa bitching about how man-made Global Warming is melting the North Pole ice.
I mean, what’s not to like?
I mean what’s not to like
sprouts?
Did anyone catch Mr Stink?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0118z9z/Mr_Stink/
Blatant tory caricature and hopelessly naive left wing drivel.
Walliams should stick to his drag act instead of indoctrinating the kids.
never liked him anyhow
“Blatant tory caricature”
An adaptation of a book published in 2009. Remind me which party had been in power for the previous 12 years at that point?
“‘The World’ is too much say BBC workers who complain of noise at Broadcasting House.
“BBC staff have been forced to use earplugs so they can concentrate on their work during live performances at a new open plan piazza at the BBC’s £1bn headquarters.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9769818/The-World-is-too-much-say-BBC-workers-who-complain-of-noise-at-Broadcasting-House.html
I think it highlights the mindset of the BBC perfectly. They invested over a £billion in refurbishing their Broadcasting House on Portland Square, money they didn’t have to earn so they can invest it to portray themselves as artsy by having this ‘piazza’. If they had true artistic creativity they wouldn’t be so concerned with appearances. But since they don’t have to really earn their money, and want to appear sophisticated, they neglected to think through how this might affect their day to day jobs.
I wonder how many Newsnight researchers, World Service offices, and BBC 2 factual programmes they could have paid for instead. Pity about all those budget cuts.
🙂
Also no mention of those who beyond the piazza who have cause for concern for the noise being made from such a well-appointed empty vessel.
Equally without choice in the matter, while the compulsion to listen does not yet exist and hence spares the need for ear plugs at licence fee payers’ expense, the consequences of enforced funding of course remain in imposition.
Sometimes you have to feel sorry for the bBBC. They don’t know how to report the story of the 6-year-old girl, abducted (bad) by her Muslim father (good) and taken to Pakistan (good) three years ago. The girl is now back with her (English) mother in Manchester but can’t speak English, although the bBBC doesn’t tell us that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-20859656
The papers are in…difficult reading for Andrew…
Watching TV over Christmas I noticed that those promising young talents Morcambe and Wise were on the BBC rather a lot.
Bring me sunshine
Bring me licence fees in your smile bring me climate alarmism all the while
In this world where we live there should be more gay marriage
So much euthanasia you can give to each brand new bright tomorrow
Make Labour happy through your stories never bring us any Tories
Let the EU sound as great as the sun from up above
Bring us Islam bring us Arabs and bring us love
Bring me socialism in your eyes bring me rainbows from the clear blue skies
Life’s too short to be spent doing anything but drugs
We could be so content if we did away with prisons
Pay me through a service company not PAYE ‘cos I collect my expenses with such glee
Let my pension be as huge as the sun from up above
Bring me stepping aside bring me severance pay and bring me love
(Failing that there’s always Al Jazeera!)
Bring me fun bring me sunshine and bring me BBC
You can often get into the beeboid brain just by watching something as simple as a quiz show. Celebrity Mastermind 27 Dec had Crissy Rock, (me neither) a scouse ‘actress/comedian’, Hannah Cockroft, a paralympian, ethnic Lizo Mzimba one of the BBC’s own and author Val McDermid, a fat lesbian. You suspect that either this is how the BBC see the world (maybe this is what North London looks like) or the way they want the world to be. There was just about every minority represented: the dykes, the obese, the Africans, the disabled, the scousers. The only white heterosexual was Humphries (and that was pushing it). The charities they represented were interesting too, Crissy Rock represented Families Fighting For Justice (natch Hillsborough – is that even a charity?) and Val McDermid Eaves, a womens domestic violence charity. If you haven’t got it yet – all white male heterosexuals are evil – courtesy of Auntie.
Plenty of normals coming up
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrity_Mastermind
People who work for the BBC aren’t normal Jim and if you think they are then you’ve been hanging around with them too often.
“The only white heterosexual was Humphries”
Nice to see that being from Liverpool, or having cerebral palsy, disqualifies you from being heterosexual.
It’s a bit like all those sad men who accuse the women who reject them as all being dykes, unaware that there are multiple other reasons why no woman will go out with them…
I missed out male. BTW Scotty are your parents Ugnaugts cos you’re one ugly cunt.
Bless.
Do you kiss your mother with that mouth, or just let the whole town do it for you?
Sisterfucker shows learning.
So, Scotty, why did all those women reject you then?
I told them I was you.
lol.
THE tickbox broadcasting corporation, I like it.
” All white male heterosexuals are evil ” , well said Doyle.
Cherie Blair just been made a CBE in the new years honours, wait for it …………..for sevices to WOMEN.
So my friends if you have a dick you can f**k off. You are worth nothing. Womens cancers yes, mens cancers who cares. Female domestic violence, it’s only a laugh you wimps, males violence , evil.
Fair enough she got a CBE for services to wimmin. After all if she hadn’t married Bliar some other poor sod would have had to put up with been shagged by him. A valiant service indeed.
BBC-NUJ shocked:-
How can it be that socialists are told they act unfairly on tax?
“France’s Highest Court Says A 75% Tax On The Ultra-wealthy Is Unfair”
http://www.businessinsider.com/france-court-throws-out-75-tax-on-wealthy-2012-12?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+clusterstock+%28ClusterStock%29
No doubt Beeboids will be relieved to hear that French socialist government is pressing ahead with 75% income tax anyway:
“But Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said the government would press ahead with the new tax rate.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20864114
My Christmas highlight this year was University Challenge (21,12) featuring Newnham College, Cambridge’s Diane Abbott.
Paxman: In his 1632 dialogue concerning the two chief world systems which natural philosopher described his principle of relativity using the example of the relative movement of the cargo on a ship sailing out of Venice?
Diane Abbott: Einstein.
Paxman: In 1632!!!
I nearly fell over laughing. Only about 300 years out.
She studied *history* at Newnham. She’s represents Hackney in the mother of all parliaments doncha know. For the record I got the answer right and I only went to a crappy Poly.
… and I only went to a crappy Poly.
Well there is a difference between knowledge and intelligence you know …
(Retires to flame proof bunker) ;p
Tragi-comic or what?
No wonder she thought we wouldn’t spot the hypocrisy of her sending her son to public school.
And she was a government minister? Beam me up Scotty (no, not you).
How the bBC goes out of its way in which to cover up for blood thirsty Islamic
terrorists.Militants.Nigerian militants kill seven in raids on northern towns
Suspected Islamist militants have killed at least seven people in attacks on two northern Nigerian towns, military spokesmen said. Five people were killed in a raid on a village outside Maiduguri, a stronghold of Islamist militants Boko Haram. In a second attack, gunmen killed two people, including a policeman, and burnt down government buildings in Maiha, on the border with Cameroon.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20865886
So reading the above how many people were murdered 5,7 or 15. Well the headline reads 7. Now here is what comes next in that bBC article:
“A school teacher in the village told the Associated Press that gunmen had gathered people into a group before massacring them. The teacher said 15 people had died in the attack; many had had their throats slit.”
But hang on the Headline reads 7, Yet the bBC reports further on it was 15. Now before anybody tries to point out that that figure of 15 murders is simply heresay . Then could that same person explain the numerious accounts of deaths reported by the bBC when it comes to NATO (ISAF),Israel or even the British Army where heresay is reported as fact.
The bBC, the mouthpiece for Islamic terrorism paid for by British Taxpayers
So the BBC reports the story and says at least seven (presumably those confirmed) are dead. it then reports the fact that the figure might be higher.
And for Pounce this is evidence the BBC is a mouthpiece for Islamic terrorism.
The folly.
The headline could ave said ‘..killed at least seven…’: I’d say it was more a case of the reporter treating the local police ( more than likely Muslims themselves) as more reliable rather than a local schoolteacher. I’ve noticed a tendency for authorities to downplay the nature/ number of casualties of attacks by their co-religionists, in northern Nigeria, on other occasions. I think it’s fair to say that a Beeboid who does not always give Muslims the benefit of the doubt has yet to be born.
But Jim lad,
The bBC are now reporting that 15 people were murdered by their ideological heroes. I quote:
‘Throats slit’ in Nigeria village
Suspected Islamist militants killed at least 15 Christians in northern Nigeria, slitting the throats of their victims, witnesses said. The attack happened on Friday near Maiduguri, a stronghold of Islamist militants Boko Haram, but details were slow to emerge.
The thing is as the bBC reported this story the otherday, it allows them to hide the full story from the British taxpaying public who for some reason are still fed a diet of ‘Islam is a religion of peace.
Wrong again yer f-ing wanker. I’d ask you to get down on your knees and apologise, but that’s a daily occurrence for the spunk trumpet you are.
Go back to hiding behind Scots Skirt yer wanker.
Pounce
You are a potty mouth whose pants have been pulled down on this one.
You belong on the dank streets of Luton with your EDL pals, not in a place of courteous discourse and debate.
‘not in a place of courteous discourse and debate.’
I do confess that sometimes robustness can be taken further than warranted, and much more prefer Pounce’s often meticulous factual filleting of BBC ‘reports’ that can see you scurrying away to more fertile areas for… well, whatever it is you do.
Maybe he was just feeling frustrated at the degree of hypocrisy that characterises most of your posts and gave vent when it would have been better to let you dig your own holes as usual. Sadly you have been left with the moral high ground you think is your sole preserve, and… there’s a thing… the actual facts appear to have been derailed.
Thing is Jim, you really are not the one to be getting high horsey on potty mouthing, are you?
Or do you feel you are entitled to another… ‘unique exception’?
Yes, Guest, you’re right.
Pounce old pal my apologies for provoking you so with the hypocrisy of my posts.
‘apologies for provoking you so with the hypocrisy of my posts.’
On presumption of sincerity, I give you a ‘like’.
If not you get to keep it, but the archive does still stand ready for any… holes… tempted into being dug further.
As soon as I saw your comment come up in my RSS feed, Jim, I just *knew* that Guest Who would come trotting along and bleat about what a shame it is that his good friend Pounce isn’t allowed to be vile and repulsive without people calling him on it.
The pair of them are like Brussels sprouts and wind: neither particularly palatable, but one follows the other like a bad smell…
Quite.
Spunk Trumpet is a good one though. Worthy of the Martin Memorial Award for Robustness.
A response was inevitable and anticipated, but the quarter from which it originates, the failure in irony and the degree of excavation exhibited has surprised even me.
And, I suspect, rather appalled Jim, whose job in response is now made even trickier by who leaps to his defence via a *knowing* (the BBC is already being called out on its abuse of quotes… is this the next generation punctuation being issued now?) jerk of knee.
As to Pounce, or others, as I have no clue who they are, and they are neither friends nor indeed in need of my support, I’ll leave any you have issues with to respond on their own accounts.
I certainly don’t see the need to dance to the pitchfork and firebrand brigade demands on the proactive denouncing, wailing and rending of shirts front other than in extreme cases (when I usually rely on Roland D to put things in pithy context and then give his comment a ‘like’ on a considered basis, unlike the sheeple you can whip up into a lather no matter what). So if some choose to articulate themselves poorly (in my view) I tend to scoot past and leave the comment to survive or thrive on its own merits, or lack of. That Pounce’s comment has gained, so far…zero (best get on that, and hope the site owners can’t see who is trying to rig things to suit).. seems telling enough. Free speech has spoken, and when found wanting foundered..
Of course, there is the next version speech in the pipeline; that defined and modded, and obsessed about by people like the Flokking fraternity.
The one where people must not only fail, and be seen to fail, but also be dragged out into a special Star Chamber of unique composition and branded.
Which could be fine… were the self-elected members of this chamber not as guilty of the very accusations they are making of others.
Which is why Jim is pondering his reply still. Archive is a wonderful thing, when not controlled by BBC stealth edits, retroactive erasings, iPlayer limits and FoI exclusions.
I did not defend Pounce at all. I may have offered a possible explanation for his language, but I did not excuse it.
What I did point out that it was a bit rich being called a potty mouth (especially with an hilarious extra screed on ‘correct’ blog behaviour from a contrarian DOTI. Especially one with delusions of hall monitor privileges inspired by a certain level of Stockholm Syndrome tolerance from some desperate for credible levels of debate… on rare occasion delivered… compared to what you serve up) by one whose breath is less than pure too.
Scott, I hate to break it to you, but on a free independent blog, no one is ‘allowed’ by Jim or you to say anything. They just can. It may be wrong, which is what well argued and credibly-sourced criticism is then for. Neither of which you can call upon. Get your head round that and you may not find yourself in that hole so often.
Pounce can be called on anything, but those doing so need to be pretty sure of their own history and ground before choosing the manner of doing so.
What I was pointing out was, again, the sheer hypocrisy that gets deployed by the cherry vulture brigade when a tasty, if mouldy piece of fruit goes from low to the ground. But you cannot resist letting it serve without worrying it to a point you just end up tainted yourselves too.
For which, as always, thank you.
Why use three words when three hundred will do, eh?
Guest Who’s repeated screeds on this topic can be summarised as:
1) this is a free and unmoderated blog, so we can call you any names we like.
2) suggest we’re mistaken, or that you disagree, or that rude language doesn’t help debates, and that’s a personal attack.
3) you’re hypocrites.
4) there is no irony in 3) at all. None.
‘on this topic can be summarised as’
That would be a ‘summary’ like those the BBC provide, then.
Taking a leaf from Jim’s bookie-wookie of brevity, and in deference to your preferred character limit of ability: you are incorrect.
comments on this topic are now closed
Thatcher got some things right and several badly wrong particularly when influenced by Robert, now Lord, Armstrong.
She admitted she should not have signed the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement. The Irish Republic still wouldn’t agree to allow terrorist extradition nor drop its territorial claim to part of another EU member’s territory yet got part control of the province.
And nobody pointed out this outrage, least of all the BBC.
The Falklands war was directly the result of the FO (and Nicholas Ridley) agreeing to discuss sovereignty with Argentina and chatter of lease back ideas for the islands.
No self-respecting politician in Buenos Aires thwarted by endless talks would wait too long before assuming Britain was not going to defend her interest.
Thatcher may not have understood much about history and she was too late responding to Iraq’s threats against Kuwait but she was never worse than when she listened to the FO.
Just like Hague today over Syria.
Unacceptable bias by omission in the BBC’s profile of John Kerry, regarding his nomination for Secretary of State. The title of the link to it on the main US & Canada page currently reads: “The good soldier”, and the accompanying blurb says, “John Kerry, the quintessential American diplomat”. That’s bias, praise, in fact, before we even get to the actual piece, which shows a similar pro-Kerry bias.
John Kerry: From good soldier to secretary of state
I’m not even going to bother pointing out the pro-Kerry bias in the profile itself. All I’m concerned about here is the BBC’s deliberate censoring of Kerry’s anti-war activism. His position as a Vietnam war veteran (Bush served only in the US as part of the National Guard, with no possibility of joining the war, which was a big target issue for his opponents) who was also a prominent anti-war activist was the main reason why he was nominated to run against Bush in 2004. It’s all public record, all very well known, all an integral part of Kerry’s political history. Yet the BBC deliberately censored it from his profile. This is real bias, because Kerry’s anti-war activism is the key issue for those who oppose his nomination. How can the BBC possibly leave that out an expect to be considered an honest news broker?
The HuffingtonPost is more honest than the BBC here, publishing the AP news brief about Kerry’s nomination which included a couple lines about his anti-war activism. The Beeboids know about it, and know it’s an important part of his political profile.
Not only that, but Kerry has never actually served as a diplomat, unless one counts his activities as Madame Binh’s US mouthpiece to tell Nixon North Vietnam’s terms of surrender.
That plus Kerry’s stature as an enemy of George Bush is why the BBC sub editor decided it was appropriate to call Kerry the “quintessential diplomat” in the article itself as well.
A good soldier, according to the BBC, is one who turns against his own country. No wonder the BBC can confidently state that Kerry will be “a good soldier within the administration “.
This could have been written by Kerry’s own staff.
it probably was…
I recall this preposterous fool and his “reporting for duty” intro at some Democrat Convention.
That surely scuppered him as anybody to take seriously in any reasonable world…but probably was seen as “statesmanlike” in that sick liberal world that the likes of Kerry inhabit-one the BBC help create each and every day.
“Well aawwright”-to quote Kinnochio!
PS. Kerry is a dead ringer for Father Stone in the Father Ted series…with about as much charisma.
If anybody wants to know more about Kerry, you need only read what the marvellous Ann Coulter says about him…basically a gigolo who climbed over dead rich blokes to marry up into his current position…sounds about right to me!
To the bBC the only true patriots are those willing to sell their own to the enemy. Which is why they hate those willing to give their lives for their country.
The bBC the traitors within our midst.
How India treats its women – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-20863860
A feminist interpretation presented as fact…
Jeff
And what would your perspective be Jeff?
Have a read of this “feminist” perspective too.
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/29/indias_culture_of_rape_is_endemic/
You don’t have to take a left right view on everything.
Jim – My perspective is irrelevant. 🙂
I am merely pointing out that the BBC is looking at India society through the lens of a Western liberal feminist perspective, and that constitutes bias.
I am sure there are intelligent and perfectly reasonable Indians who would come to a completely different assessment of their society, so why not present both points of view?
Jeff
Very multicultural of you Jeff.
How very oblique of you Jim…
This is a reasonable topic for the BBC to pursue as far as I’m concerned.
However, note that only an Indian is allowed to write such an article, it would be not be acceptable for a British journalist to say this because that would show a colonial supremacist attitude, or something like that.
Also, the tone should be more neutral as there is obviously an agenda there, as you pointed out.
I think he was given the gig because he’s the BBC’s Delhi correspondent.
Perhaps someone should have been given a gig to write an alternative point of view, in the name of balance… 🙂
Jeff
Can’t remember the last time I saw a white English correspondent reporting from the Indian sub-continent on the BBC. Or from Bradford.
This seems to me to be a reasonable, and well-researched, article with plentiful citations to back up its assertions (unlike most bBBC items).
Now, what chance of the bBBC giving equal prominence to the mistreatment of British women by the ‘Asian’ men who come here?
(Yes, I know most of the latter are Pakistani Muslims, not Indian Hindus.)
i think Bradley Wiggins has a promising career at the BBC
Re: ‘The revolution will be televised’ –
A six part ‘satirical series’ on BBC3 – yup that’s sx shows or three dire hours solid of liberal and utter left wing shit so-called ‘piss-taking’ of Britain today.
Only it’s not Britain, is it?
I’m of an age where Soviet Press agency Tass did such a better job of spinning left wing lies and insanity among the populus.
Regarding ‘the revolution will be televised’, please don’t take my word for it. If you have iPlayer please watch for yourself this shite for yourself, but when you do ask yourself is this bilge worthy of your licence fee.?
When I worked for BBC total drama budgets were in the region of £750,000 to a million an hour.
Studio-based comedy maybe a tad less.
How much is three hours of left wing wank- fest worth spending of your licence fee?
Where’s the balance?
At the time of writing episode 3/6 of this shite has been broadcast on BBC3 –
It’s either norovirus of this shite that means I now have an appointment with a bucket for the forseeable future.
There is a huge gap in the market for a grown-up satirical programme and what we get is an adolescent prank show. Nope, I won’t be watching it.
‘America’s reckless politicians may still take the country over the cliff into an uncertain land where recession looms.But President Obama has sprung his trap. The Republicans are in a corner – over a barrel – although perilously unaware of their plight.’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20869137
Nuff said…
Jeff
Stand by for a series of ‘I am comfortable in my belief that the BBC got this one about right’ statements of the irrelevant here from the duty Flokkers today about this awesome piece of objective analysis.
So Barry ‘I have a cunning plan’ Baldrick has sprung his cunning trap on the reckless, has he?
This is up there with Laura K’s old ‘folk coming in and out of doors’ tweets to justify her ‘political editor’ status, where an Ed would stride through like an Adonis bathed in a glow of radiance, whereas a Tory surname would slink past the press pack too ashamed to meet their critics’ baleful gazes.
Interesting to see the comments have now descended to glee-club echo chamber level.
Almost tempted to pop over and pull a Drs. Scezandymanus from Oslo on their doorstep just to see how long before the pods people point and shriek and demand the mods get busy… and are obeyed.
Question for Scott M and Jim Dandy – Would you say that Mardell’s comments above show bias?
I think even you gentlemen would struggle to argue otherwise. 🙂
Jeff
Not bias, just an analysis piece.
This view is shared widely among commentators of all stripes. See here Charles Krauthammer with a similar view:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/12/28/charles-krauthammer-obama-fiscal-cliff_n_2377323.html
David Preiser often makes a case that the BBC is on thin ice with opinion or analysis pieces like this. And it is true that where journalists move into analysis rather than reporting the facts they are in risky territory if trying to remain impartial.
But Mardell’s piece is well reasoned and non partisan. Obama is playing a political game.
The main purpose of Mardell’s ‘analysis’, as usual, is to attack the Republicans and to boost his own ego. According to Mardell The Republicans are in a corner – over a barrel – although perilously unaware of their plight.
As he tells it, the Republicans are too stupid to see through Obama’s tricks, but he (Mardell) is so smart that he isn’t fooled.
Sir Arthur,
Absolutely. He’s painting the Republicans as a bunch of clueless buffoons.
Mardell also writes in the same article that ‘Republicans are voting for a tax rise on most people’. That is an extremely contentious analysis, presented as fact. I’m sure most Republicans would love nothing more than to give most people a tax cut, but they can’t because of President Obama’s spending commitments.
Jeff
You’re wrong, Jim. Analysis requires at least a nod in the direction of understanding both points of view.
Mardell makes no such concessions in his regular streams of polemic.
Mardell is correct about the President’s goal. A veteran political junkie (he’s really a political editor, not a North America editor), he’s well versed in obvious political agendas. The President’s true goal – as I’ve said all along – is not to fix the economy, but to destroy the Republican Party. The problem with his “analysis”, though, is that he’s portraying the President as being on the correct side of the issue, not just the winning side of this battle.
“Perilously unaware of their plight”? LOL. He’s projecting here. He knows what he’d do in their position, and assumes that if they don’t do what he thinks is right, they must be ignorant or just plain stupid.
I suppose he’s entitled to his opinion – which is what this is – that the President will always win the public blame game. Krauthammer isn’t quite saying the same thing, though. He’s instead talking about how the President’s refusal to compromise is splitting the Republicans’ resistance. It doesn’t take a genius to figure this out, either, considering how this is exactly what’s been going on since the rise of the Tea Party movement and the 2010 midterms. Krauthammer is actually probably overlooking that as well, so consumed is he by anger at the President and weak Republican leadership.
Mardell acknowledges the infighting, but takes it a couple steps further to declaring that not only do the Republicans not understand what’s going on, but that, rather than the civil war Krauthammer describes, the Republican Party will be unable to change, stuck in aspic. Not the same thing at all. I guess if the establishment wins the civil war, the party won’t change much soon. I realize he’s referring to the Party’s public reputation getting stuck as much as the actual direction of the Party itself.
But again, this reveals Mardell’s bias. He’s saying that the Republican Party needs to change after their defeat in November. Yes, we all know more change needs to happen. The question is, in which direction? The people sticking to what Mardell sneers at as “principle” are, of course, mostly the fiscal conservatives and small-government advocates supported by the Tea Party movement. The Republicans didn’t lose in November because of them, as the election wasn’t won on the economy after all. It was won on identity politics: Hispanic illegal immigrants, women’s issues, class war. What Mardell is saying is that the Republicans need to move further to the Left (more towards what he sees as the center) in order to succeed in future. That’s his opinion, but it’s clearly based on his political ideology. The Republicans took the House in 2010, then kept it and now have 29 Governorships after 2012 by campaigning on core Tea Party-type principles. That doesn’t suggest a move to a more Left-wing economic approach. But Mardell is a Leftoid, and believes that the only path to success is to the Left. Otherwise, he says, they’ll be condemned to all eternity as the party of the evil rich.
As unions lose more political control around the country, more local governments are forced to become more fiscally conservative, and more people are starting to feel the crushing blow of big-Government ObamaCare (the move to dump of tens of thousands of employees off employer-provided health care onto the Obama Exchanges (PDF file) has already begun), all Mardell sees is simplistic class war. That’s what the President is banking on as well, so no wonder the BBC’s US President editor sees Him as a political genius, and anyone who doesn’t roll over for it must be stupid.
Krauthammer seems to be saying the opposite.
In any case, where is Mardell’s scorn for such nakedly partisan behavior by the President? He often scolds, or uses terms with negative connotations for Republicans when they make what he sees as purely partisan moves. For him, it’s Republican intransigence, but when the President does it, it’s a “powerful incentive for a better deal”. The President is also willing to send the country over the fiscal cliff on “principle”, yet Mardell thinks that’s a good thing.
Why has Mardell never asked why his beloved Obamessiah can’t work well with others like Bill Clinton did? It’s also his biased opinion that the President is going to offer a better deal for the economy than the Republicans have.
Did you notice our friend Dez rushing here the other day with a hop skip and a leap to the defence of Dr Who?
Of course it’s not riddled with PC messages, or so Dez insists.
And are we to take his word for this? I suppose if we suspend disbelief or in fact fail to take the proper perspective. In the same way I guess one might maintain that a BBC news broadcast of the 1950s wasn’t a master class in RP?
I’m afraid if you don’t see today’s BBC biases you must be either oblivious, know no different, or be personally so imbued with leftist opinions that you can quite happily accept BBC promotion of an imaginary PC world as reflecting your own favoured norm. I don’t think I’m being rude to Dez here – I think he is in the latter category.
How can Dr Who be leftist propaganda, he asks, when the lead character is STILL male, white and heterosexual? He hints there perhaps of where true friends of the BBC would like to see the character of the Doctor develop.
I sense a regeneration coming on.
“Did you notice our friend Dez rushing here the other day with a hop skip and a leap to the defence of Dr Who? … How can Dr Who be leftist propaganda, he asks, when the lead character is STILL male, white and heterosexual?”
Well, he was actually pointing out how an idiot had implied that having an occasional guest character that was gay, or one black character appear for two seconds at the end of the Christmas episode, was somehow the end of civilisation. Which it isn’t.
Well, he was actually pointing out how an idiot had implied that having an occasional guest character that was gay, or one black character appear for two seconds at the end of the Christmas episode, was somehow the end of civilisation.
Which he wasn’t.
He was characterising the chaps attack as that. Which it wasn’t.
Anyhoo, Dr Who appears to be bi-sexual rather than homosexual given the number of flirty bits he does with chaps. Not a judgement BTW just an observation.
What I’d like to know is why are they introducing sexual stereotypes into a childrens show anyway? Why is the Doctor emotionally involved with any of his assistants beyond the master-pet relationships prevalent upto the New Era Dr Who? AFAIR the only sexual reference in the old Dr Who was the farcical de-skirting of one of his female assistants. Oh and Leela (pauses for reminicence). Despite that lass wearing next to nothing there was no hint that she and the Doctor were anything other than master and pet.
Is the modern depravation at the BBC far lower than Savile after all?
I you think there was no emotional connection between the Doctor and his companion in the old days, watch the last scenes of The Green Death. Or numerous interactions between the Doctor and (either incarnation of) Romana. Or Nyssa’s last stories – especially her final story, Terminus, in which contracting a fatal illness seems to involve all her clothes falling off.
And let’s not forget that fifty years ago he was travelling with his granddaughter. Basic biology should tell you how that came about.
Such straw men are bare worth responding to but ….
Romana was an equal to Dr Who, a fellow Time Lord, and AFAIR there was not physical relationship between them, ever, even alluded to, in the series.
Nyssa of the Fallen Skirt, was treated like a child – even more disturbing when one considers what happened to her clothes – and, again, no evidence of a sexual relationship with the doctor is ever shown.
And Susan Foreman? So you are saying that every childrens programme with a parent and child relationship is an allusion to sex? Come off it!
No. Prior to the latest incarnation sex was not part of the mix, barring the occational sly reference thrown in as a joke.
So instead of throwing up chaff answer the question. Why is sex a part of a childrens programme?
‘….an occasional guest character that was gay…’
Now be fair, and explain how or why that is appropriate in an episode of Dr Who?
Because some men like men and some women like women. And just because some other men and women are desperate to avoid that being seen as okay doesn’t mean that shouldn’t be reflected in drama.
Scott, do you not see the irony of you jumping to Dez’s defence with your earlier pronouncement about Guest Who jumping to Pounce’s defence and “following him about like a bad smell.”? You and Dez are the true Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dummer of this blog.
Typical leftie – “Do as I say, not as I do.”
I happen to think that there’s a difference between someone who had already contributed to a discussion trying to drag the topic away from a personal attack, and someone who defends somebody else who uses grossly offensive language against those he doesn’t like.
‘I happen to think that there’s a difference’
Not, perchance, a ‘unique’ one?
You seem to be operating in areas of extent, which is a BBC CECUTT Director’s dream territory (noting how you kick off is how they do in ‘getting about right’ attempts).
Actually fair enough, but not if, as you also fail to grasp in irony, you are the one defining the parameters.
Given a choice between a world of folk who use offensive words as part of communicating freely, and one where you are in charge of policing how we all get to talk, backed by more than words at your disposal… I think I know which, though not to personal taste, I’d still prefer.
Sadly, your version seems to be prevailing at present.
However one can live in hope that where we are all being dragged by your vision of social control will prove unpalatable to more and more as the realities dawn.
And, in the interim, karma can be a fickle minx.
*sigh*
Guest Who, if you ever decide to give up your relentless “you’re trying to police what we say” victim complex, you might actually realise what people are trying to actually say.
*sigh*
Always a winner.
Scott… I will write this very slowly in hope that you will not rush to read it, and realise I don’t value much of what you have to say because it seldom has coherence, credibility, consideration or any comprehension that what other people believe may be different to you, and currently that what you demand all follow is by choice, not compulsion specified and overseen by you.
But at least here, on this site, you have the absolute right to share that presumption.
As I do to disagree.
Can someone (anyone?) translate this for me.
‘Can someone (anyone?) translate this for me.’
If she existed, Hoshi Sato. Possibly.
Not sure where you’re from has yet been located, mind.
Looks like 3 fronts have opened, and the BBBC site is best left to only those who wish it doesn’t exist to talk to.. each other.
Which is bizarre enough in its won right.
“I don’t value much of what you have to say because it seldom has coherence, credibility, consideration or any comprehension”
Irony much?
Can’t resist as the bacon beckons.. Scott, just because you think it doesn’t translate into an argument.
You do need to actually do some work.
‘jumping to Pounce’s defence’
Appreciate the namecheck, Andy, but to clarify I was not and did not defend Pounce at all. That is the point Scott M missed and Jim is praying everyone forgets.
Pounce is a big boy, does not need my or anyone’s defence and can argue his points, and method of arguing them himself.
I merely pointed out, as you kindly saw repeated, a case of “Do as I say, not as I do.”
Don’t know anything about isms, ists or zis, but simply as a matter of recorded, hypocritical fact.
All that has disgorged subsequently from Tark Mwain, International Man Of Many Letters, in ironic cumulative volume, is just bluster.
He hopes to prevail by being the last one standing. Seems he may succeed by simply keeping others away, the question being whether they are bored into it, or cowed by his risible appeals to a version of free speech that is a little bit pregnant with him as the father.
Not one I’m inclined to accept, or let pass.
Anyoo, the family stirs and brekky calls.
But looking at the weather, I may dip back in to share my t’pennyworth.
In Guest’s defence, I did once call him an arsehole. I apologised subsequently.
“Pounce is a big boy, does not need my or anyone’s defence and can argue his points, and method of arguing them himself.”
And yet, when Jim calls him out on his language, you pop up. You did it on the Flag Day thread as well, where Pounce directed violent and sexual language in Jim’s direction – language which, if anybody had used it against Pounce, Guest Who or any other of BBBC’s other regular commenters, would have caused outrage. Instead, it got lots of “likes” and paragraphs from GW about – well, I’m not exactly sure what.
I’m sure that the next time Pounce is rude, somebody calls him on it, and Guest Who pops up trying to convince himself, and the rest of us, that he’s not insignificant, that’ll just be another coincidence.
Blimey, still just you and me, with Jim, rather oddly as a neutral zone erring on backing me up. In fact at least.
‘And yet, when Jim calls him out on his language, you pop up.
I ‘pop up’, as you quaintly describe contributing vs. your mob-rule demands for action, when I see a two-faced collection of nanny-statists getting away with hypocrisy, and expecting to go unchallenged by holding all sorts of daft counters in reserve if taken to task. What I did here was suggest Jim was ill-equipped to refer to potty mouths and reasoned discourse.
Which he, to his credit, has now admitted and apologised for.
And having at last grasped that you’ve now swanned off elsewhere to dig out your next line of weak argument.
‘You did it on the Flag Day thread as well, where Pounce directed violent and sexual language in Jim’s direction
We can go back to archive, but did I agree with or support violent language (I’m less sensitive than some to ‘sexual’, as this seems a stick (oo, er) that some deploy rather variably according to how secure they are in their victimhood status)? Speaking of which…
language which, if anybody had used it against Pounce, Guest Who or any other of BBBC’s other regular commenters, would have caused outrage.
Blimey, ‘outrage’? You are Paul Mason and I claim my airmiles to the next ‘anywhere but Newsnight’s studio’ location to ‘report’ on anger and protests with you.
A justified and warranted mocking maybe, which you seem to feel is your sole purview to dole out (and to whatever length you feel you are entitled to) but when getting as good back soundly retreat into ‘Sir…sir’ territory, on a blog you profess to dislike yet keep coming back to berate.
‘Instead, it got lots of “likes”
If unnecessarily ‘robust’, not from me.
‘…and paragraphs from GW about – well, I’m not exactly sure what.
Therefore begging the question as to how you know what you know exactly to get so exercised by what I write; enough to make demands left, right and centre that I back you up.
I don’t operate on the schoolyard bully follower basis you appear to. I don’t have to ally with anyone if I consider one as bad, or at least as less good than another.
What I do however treasure is the ability to speak freely, which includes pointing out rampant double standards and selective ex-pram toy projections.
Silence on my part does not mean support of anything, or anyone. If I support I may say so; I may not. If I don’t, I may say something…or I may not. My choice. Not as you demand or dictate. In fact the more you do the less likely it becomes. Doesn’t mean I’ll err more to those you have a problem with, simply the more I’ll leave you to behave like a petty jobsworth with a dubious vague law to wave around if you think it will serve your skewed vision of societal rectitude.
I support the right for people to say what they like and then defend themselves, or not as they see fit.
What I won’t do is joining mob-rule witch-hunts.
Here’s the URL:
What I see is you filling the thread with shaped versions what you think people are saying, what should be happening and then demands of others to agree with you. Over and over.
Didn’t happen then. Not going to here.
Deal with it.
‘I’m sure that the next time Pounce is rude’
Which, on past evidence, he will be. But ‘rude’ is rather a by-product of free speech. It’s when it goes beyond that I get concerned, and areas do get grey, especially for unfortunate site owners walking a line between modding to appease box-ticking referrers, and accusations of censorship from those who like to push boundaries as well as buttons.
There are a few, from all ‘sides’ here who delight in doing this. Why I have no idea if (false flags are effective) they think the site has value, as it simply offers excuses to those who do not, and seek ways to shut it or at least discussion down any way they can.
I would wish any sexual allusions or overt ‘isms were not used. It simply hands the distractors a gift on a plate.
Equally I wish people would not dive off down overt faith-based routes or write ‘I note the BBC hasn’t…’. But it’s their right, folk will and what will happen will happen.
‘…somebody calls him on it, and Guest Who pops up trying to convince himself, and the rest of us, that he’s not insignificant, that’ll just be another coincidence.’
Double negatives aside, my personal significance, or otherwise, seems a real concern to you. In fact you seem more worried about my articulation on the rights to have an opinion than anything Pounce has penned. Telling in its own right.
Oh, and who, exactly, on this site are you including in with that ‘us’?
I see BBBC to have a value and support it with my visits and comments. Yet you appear to now feel you speak for ‘the site’ (albeit comprised on many individuals) more, despite being on record as trying to pull it apart and down.
That is not a little bizarre.
next they’ll have Zeb Atlas as a guest star on Dr Who
“BBC’s Michael Buerk savages his ‘airhead’ colleagues… and ‘that pneumatic bird-brain from Strictly (sorry, Tess, he DOES mean you)”
By AMANDA PERTHEN.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2254682/BBC-veteran-Michael-Buerk-savages-airhead-colleagues–pneumatic-bird-brain-strictly-Sorry-Tess-DOES-mean-you.html
The former foreign correspondent and newsreader finally dismisses the Corporation as out-of-touch, saying: ‘The BBC is a private school old boys’ and girls’ association . . . now, while most of us are being squeezed, senior executive pay soars and, even at the top of public service organisations like the BBC, fortunes are flung at failures.’
I was going to say that this ought to be included with the comments from Marr, Paxman, Garvey etc at the top of the biased-BBC page, but I have only just noticed that they seem to have been a casualty of the move to the new website.
Not for the first time, I would have a bit more respect for Mr Buerk, had he said something at the time.
Like Sissons and Oakley, a man who gives the BBC both barrels when he`s not going to lose much if anything for saying what he does.
That “private school” old boys/girls network quote of his may yet be a good `un though…worthy of further exploration as long as we don`t let Panorama or Newsnight mess it up on us.
Time for the nation of Little Platoons to refuse to pay for the firework displays that so amuse the leeches on the cruise deck of the Titanic surely!
One can sense the anger building up in Michael Buerk over many years for a variety of things he saw at the BBC, until ‘the last straw that breaks the camel’s back’.
It seems as if the Savile debacle was that straw.
‘On the screen, a succession of Daytime airheads preened themselves, or gossiped with even more vacuous D-list “celebrities”. With barely an exception, they were cringingly inept.
He also attacks George Entwistle, the BBC executive responsible for the Jubilee coverage who was subsequently promoted to director-general. But he was forced to resign after just 54 days in the job following the Jimmy Savile and Lord McAlpine Newsnight fiascos, pocketing an estimated £400,000 pay-off.
Mr Buerk says: ‘The BBC actually congratulated itself, and the executive ultimately responsible was promptly promoted to become the most disastrous director-general in the Corporation’s history.’
‘The BBC is a private school old boys’ and girls’ association . . . now, while most of us are being squeezed, senior executive pay soars and, even at the top of public service organisations like the BBC, fortunes are flung at failures.’
‘… has claimed the BBC has an institutional bias towards the Left, and openly criticised the ‘pressure to deliver’ on today’s news reporters.’
Poetry to my ears.
Michael Buerk joined the BBC in 1973. One of his sons, Roland, is also a BBC journalist. He was involved in much that is wrong with the BBC for most of his working life.
It seems to me that it’s a bit late to come out as a critic of the BBC.
Does anyone else sense the sour grapes that he didn’t get as much as someone else?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20869246
How the BBC and the Labour Party have the brass neck to suggest that coalition cuts could cause civil breakdown when in fact mass immigration is the more likely cause, beggars belief. They really do know how to wind people up.
The basic premise of the leaders of Newcastle, Liverpool and Sheffield councils is that their cities are basket-cases, with people unable to exist without copious handouts. Like all socialists, they want to be able to spend our money, preferably on themselves and their supporters.
But the veiled threat is that, if we don’t keep on paying for them, they will riot.
Listened to Radio 3, and rather hoped that it would not be the Labour Party prop that Radio 4 is.
I was wrong-their 1pm news bulletin just now was even more a blabfest for the Labour Party than Radio 4.
All items that led were Labour Party spokesmen, or issues set as Labour would have it set out( The Tories responding to Labour in effect)…oh yes, Syrian intervention too please, and let`s not fuss too much about Sunni killing Shia on the Afpak border-or vice versa-because Israel and the USA are not that particular problem in this case).
Al least the BBC are transparent..utterly transparent, predictable and …yes, “evil” in their continual droning towards LennonLand…imagine and all that….
I’d be surprised if the citizens of Sheffield ever rioted. They rarely seem to stir from thier torpor. The last time I heard of it was when Blunket decided to invite the IRA to a May Day parade. The invite was recinded when the amount of rope that had been sold in the previous week was discovered.
No, Sheffielders are happy with their constant re-modeling of the Moor and the paper thin city centre ‘impovements’ that happened 1997-2010. Millions spent and only a few pretty facaded to show for it. Typical lefty council really.
Still at least the USSR knew it was a nuclear free zone …
“But the veiled threat is that, if we don’t keep on paying for them, they will riot.”
I can see your point but who is likely to do the rioting? Lefties and Ethnics, a la UAF ,I’ll wager
Who else remembers the BBC and its useful fools in the liberal media banging on about gun control last month for the USA?
They have a real problem with violence, you know-and Piers Morgan is bravely flying the flag(white of course, unless the EU could spare us one of theirs)…in the face of the ghost of Charlton Heston yada, yada…
Fast forward to Christmas Eve-and a church organist is battered to death as he walks a few hundred yards to his church to play at Midnight Mass.
Not a peep from the liberal media in regard of what this evil means to us as a society…no analysis, no “cri de coeur” about whether our pensioners should now be given guns to defend themselves in response to this all-too-predictable act of barbarism…not a peep!
Still-at least South Yorkshire police aren`t telling us that this is an isolated incident and ought not to put granny off from visiting Meadowhall for the January sales..they only say it was maybe a “robbery gone wrong”…oh dear, aren`t they training them properly at the Methadone Clinics or Probation Outreach Centres how to rob “correctly”?
This murder of a pensioner is a new low…but the best the BBC give me on their bulletins today is that not enough Paralympians got a gong in the Honours List(not an “equal footing” apparently!…do the BBC newsreaders ever think about what they`re reading to us?
Still-as long as the liberal elite can fuss about gun laws in the States, it keeps them from worrying about grandad and his nutty church visits after dark doesn`t it?
Now if only he had been going to a mosque, and wasn`t white…THEN we could link it to Hillsborough couldn`t we?
F*** the BBC!….f*** em, f***`em, f***`em!
R.I.P Alan Greaves(68)…and though his wife may not want vengeance, I fear we`re going to need some if the likes of these murdering scum can continue to “create a crisis in the church ” by killing the few that still go to them.
Hands up who thinks that the BBC reckon the murderers will be pleading their dismay at the lack of women bishops, or the refusal to consent to gay marriages then?
We are all Church Army today…
“no analysis, no “cri de coeur” about whether our pensioners should now be given guns to defend themselves in response to this all-too-predictable act of barbarism”
Is anyone sensible suggesting they should be? Then why should the bbc analyse such a preposterous idea.
As it is, the BBC has given this terrible incident the coverage it deserves. It’s currently the leading item on the website.
So we`ll be getting days of analysis on this then Jim will we?
The “idea” is preposterous…it was meant to be flippant, but is no more stupid than a two bit liberal elite telling Connecticut how best to protect its kids from the safety of Hampstead, England.
You`re a bit literal Jim-we may not gun them down in schools, but we let them get battered when they`re old and are forces for good in a sick society…and you Jim, quibble about website pixels.
This murder happened on Christmas Eve Jim…and both Radio 3 and 4 led with the Paralympian jostle in a jackstrap on their lunchtime bulletins just now…so you`re wrong.
As if you don`t know that though-this mans death ought to lead to some real questions, not whether American teachers should be armed or not.
Ah, but in Beebworld a little-read article on their website balances what is broadcast to millions.
And don’t forget these are people who found nothing to report on ‘that nature trick thing’ of ‘hiding the decline’.
You know – morons. (With apologies to Mel Brooks).
Jim,
‘Is anyone sensible suggesting they should be? Then why should the bbc analyse such a preposterous idea.’
Unless you take the view that anyone supporting the right to bear arms cannot possibly be sensible, then the answer is a resounding ‘Yes’!
Jeff
Interesting deconstruction of the methodology behind the recent Antarctic warming scare, and the BBC’s inevitable eagerness to report it, though if you look at Peter Miller’s comments they did issue a retraction later (too late, too little, damage done – or rather, ‘mission accomplished’).
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/27/antarctic-warming-courtesy-of-mr-fix-it/
But then if the BBC had followed the science on sceptical websites it might have been a bit more cautious of findings arising from ‘adjusted’ or ‘corrected’ data, as the warmists are being exposed for doing this ad nauseam….
Does the BBC have a contractual obligation to publicise as widely as possible every bandwagon sitting / grandstanding utterance of the oleaginous Vaz? Apparently the government is to blame for the conspiracy to fit up the chief whip as they had ‘undermined police morale’ The man appears once a week every week
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20869023
Abu Qatada.
Will he get similar BBC-NUJ political support to that given to
Binyam Mohamed?
‘Telegraph’:-
“Abu Qatada family say they want to leave ‘racist’ UK.
The family of Islamic preacher Abu Qatada have broken their silence to claim that they are desperately trying to leave the UK because they have ‘suffered so much’.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9771576/Abu-Qatada-family-say-they-want-to-leave-racist-UK.html
GO!!!!!!!!!
Should we start a travel fund for them?
I’d happily contribute a tenner if they piss off and never come back …
“Europe, wind, warming… we’re slowly waking up to reality
It was the year when many long-dominant belief systems began to collapse”
By Christopher Booker.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9770705/Europe-wind-warming…-were-slowly-waking-up-to-reality.html
The BBC at its biased best!
Today, the Telegraph leads with the horrifying (though perhaps not so surprising) news that three quarters of the doctors struck-off by the GMC were foreign trained.
And how do the White City Wonders report this disturbing story?
” Training push for foreign doctors:
Foreign doctors in the UK will face a more rigorous assessment, after figures showed a high proportion of doctors who are disciplined are from overseas.”
Now that is spin, pure and simple: calculated to mollify valid public concern and to minimise a story which reflects badly on immigration.
It reflects badly on the NHS even more.
I can never understand why the lefties are so proud that the Nationalised Health Service needs to steal the most talented people from the rest of the world, especially countries where their medical/ surgical/ nursing skills are sorely needed.
Obama ups pressure on Republicans over ‘fiscal cliff’ – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20869725
Funny how the BBC isn’t reporting John Boehner’s response: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-30/boehner-responds-obama-stop-blaming-and-lead
They’re at it again.
Sir Irvine Patnick, a former Conservative MP in Sheffield, has died. The bBBC’s obituary has 157 words, 105 of which are about Hillsborough. The whingeing Scousers will be proud of their puppets at the bBBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20872924
Is the DM also a puppet for the “whingeing scousers”:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255074/Dead-83-Tory-MP-blamed-fans-Hillsborough-notorious-Sun-page.html
Or perhaps the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9772079/Former-Tory-MP-Sir-Irvine-Patnick-dies-aged-83.html
Or maybe the Independent:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sir-irvine-patnick–source-for-sun-story-that-smeared-liverpool-fans-after-hillsborough-disaster–dies-aged-83-8433856.html
And here’s the usual bBBC slant on another of today’s obituaries.
The Italian Nobel prize-winning neurologist Rita Levi-Montalcini has died at the age of 103.
Miss Levi-Montalcini lived through anti-semitic discrimination under fascism to become one of Italy’s top scientists and most respected figures.
…
Instead of telling us, at the beginning, what she did and why her work deserved a Nobel Prize, the loony lefties have to get their political bias into their second sentence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20871120
Shouldn’t that be “lived through anti-semitism and under fascism…”? The anti-semitism was there for centuries, and is still there to some degree, nothing whatsoever to do with fascism. Why does the BBC feel the need to whitewash the region’s history of anti-semitism like that? Or doesn’t the obit writer actually know about that?
I’d go for ignorance over conspiracy on this.
After all Italy under Musselini was not anymore anti-semitic than other countries and there were Jews in the fascist government.
That all changed when the Germans took over.
BBC News broadcasts have all the buzz words about the US fiscal cliff. Tax increases for the rich, President Obama, Republicans, spending cuts, austerity, recession etc….
Mind you, I hope that the word DEBT ain’t on your bingo card, ‘cos you ain’t ever gonna win BBC buzz word bingo sweating on that one!
Meanwhile, back at the ranch:
Gallup: Disapproval of Obama Has Climbed 5 Points Since Christmas
In Gallup’s three-day tracking period that ended on Dec. 23, the poll’s last day before Christmas, 37 percent said they disapproved of the job Obama was doing as president and 57 percent said they approved. That was the lowest disapproval Obama had enjoyed since Gallup’s three-day tracking period that ended on Aug. 1, 2009.
Over the four days that Gallup polled after Christmas, however, Obama’s approval dropped 4 points to 53 percent and his disapproval climbed five points to 42 percent. That is where it stood on Dec. 29, the most recent day of polling Gallup has reported in its presidential approval survey.
Huh? Mark Mardell told me the other day that it was the Republicans who were taking the blame for everything. The Koch Bros. and Fox News must have hacked into Gallup’s servers or something.
Still, I wonder what happened after Christmas that turned people off? Surely the racist bastards can’t complain about the poor man taking a much-needed vacation. If it was a problem, the BBC would have said…..
North West News at it again last night on the savagetorycutz. Up pops mayor of Liverpool whipping up a frenzy about the inevitable civic unrest that’s going to be visited upon us (he was treading a very fine line on incitement, in my view) followed by library film of the Bishop of Manchester carefully tending his charity food store (funny we never had them under Labour even though nothing much has changed unemployment/benefits -wise) whilst his voiceover was hailing it a miracle that people had held together so well in times of such extreme hardship.
BBC world view biased bollocks – unadulterated, unchallenged.
Yes, incitement it is, Blunkett too.
http://owsblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/olid-oligophrenic-opposition.html
Of course, BBC-NUJ politically lines up with ‘Observer-Guardian’ in giving credence to three Labour northern council leaders who claim that ‘cuts’ could ‘break up society’.
BBC-NUJ:-
“Cuts could ‘break up society’, council leaders warn”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20869246
In contrast, Andrerw Gilligan, of ‘Daily Telegraph’ has:-
“Is it really grim up north?
“Northern pleas of poverty as a result of government cuts fly in the face of the facts, argues Andrew Gilligan.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9772250/Is-it-really-grim-up-north.html
And, ‘Daily Mail’ has this:-
“Councils pleading poverty have put £16billion in the bank despite railing against ‘Dickensian’ cuts.
“Reserves up by 15.5%, from £14.2billion in 2011 to £16.4billion this year.
A third of councils’ annual spending now put straight into the bank.”
By JASON GROVES
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255067/Councils-pleading-poverty-16billion-bank-despite-railing-Dickensian-cuts.html
Are elements of the political left inciting riots in the north of England?
All this talk of government austerity from the BBC is bs. Here’s something the BBC won’t tell you:
[i]’Calculated in 2012 money, Labour was spending £615 billion seven years ago. Next year, Mr Osborne will spend £104 billion more than that, a real increase of about 16 per cent since 2005.'[/i]
From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/9769514/Ignore-the-trade-unions-George-Osborne-youre-still-not-cutting-enough.html
‘Too fast too deep’ my ar$e…
Jeff
“‘Autotrader’ suitors eye Guardian Media Group’s stake.
“Guardian Media Group has received expressions of interest for its
‘Auto Trader’ subsidiary that could lead to a £600m windfall for the struggling newspaper group.”
By Emily Gosden.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/9771797/Autotrader-suitors-eye-Guardian-Media-Groups-stake.html
The Gay Vote TheGayVote.co.uk
A four-month-old site and the winner of this year’s Guardian Unlimited Politics award, the Gay Vote is written and edited by Scott Matthewman, a 33-year-old technical manager at Gay.com who compiles it in his spare time. Independent of any political party, it backed a campaign to force Cirque du Soleil to reinstate an acrobat who was sacked when he revealed he was HIV positive. Michael Howard’s support for gay civil partnerships is the latest topic of debate
This was not done by Jim Dandy. Second of all, who cares? Nobody is going to be surprised that Scott is active about these issues. It means nothing, shouldn’t affect the way anyone here deals with him (it can’t get much worse anyway). If anything, it says much about the character of whoever posted it.
Scott, if for some reason you want this removed, just say so. I don’t see any point to the post but I don’t see any actual harm done, other than to the reputation of whoever did this, should it become known.
Congratulations on the award, of course.
‘shouldn’t affect the way anyone here deals with him (it can’t get much worse anyway)’
There are strong passions on both sides of the BBC bias debate, but hopefully in 2013 we’ll all be a little more tolerant of each others’ differing opinions.
I will never, ever subscribe to the liberal worldview of Jim Dandy and Scott, but I respect their right to believe what they believe, and I hope they respect my right to hold the beliefs I hold.
Peace out. 🙂
Jeff
Well, it was eight years ago, but thanks.
I note whoever impersonated Jim Dandy missed off the very next sentence, which talked about then Tory Leader Michael Howard’s support for civil partnerships. I wonder why that might be?
You won’t be surprised to learn I didn’t actually click through to read it. But the bit about Michael Howard is right there in the last line.
Oops, so it is, my mistake. That’s what you get for not putting the iPad down after the NYE bubbly gets opened!
Happy New Year to all.
Not me either.
Scott Matthewman @scottm
Laughing at some idiot online who wants Doctor-companion interactions in #DoctorWho to go back to “the master-pet relationships” of pre-’89
Expand
Reply Retweet Favorite
I felt the same way – fingers in the ears, la la la I am an asexual fanboy and don’t want to see my heroes soiled by the flesh, etc. – until I considered that the current Doctor is young, physically, and it would be silly to pretend otherwise. They already had him married to River anyway, so that horse is lightyears away from the stable by now.
This still isn’t Scott, by the way. Time to ban the IP?
This post wasn’t from me.