Monday arrives and so does this! Off you go…
OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Zephir Dec 26, 07:23
Christmas 2024
I could shed some light on that, having spent some time at Hs2 head office in Snowhill, Birmingham. The most… - Zephir Dec 26, 06:19
Christmas 2024
12 year old dealing drugs in Luton, no idea who dad is, mum, somewhere in Sheffield no one knows where,… - Doublethinker Dec 26, 06:00
Christmas 2024
King Charles obviously thinks of the good of family firm before the good of our country. He calculates that the… - Zephir Dec 26, 01:31
Christmas 2024
Diversity is…strength. Yep, we all feel so much stronger than we did 20 years ago don’t we ? I know… - atlas_shrugged Dec 25, 22:58
Christmas 2024
Stew It is kind of like being stalked/harassed online all in one go. Each direction you turn it is leftist… - G.W.F. Dec 25, 22:51
Christmas 2024
The King’s Speech. Communities of all faiths and none come together - digg Dec 25, 22:34
Christmas 2024
I totally believe the BBC has gone totally Muslim and is working to project Islam in the UK. - digg Dec 25, 22:31
Christmas 2024
QI has just rolled out about 5 anti-Christian or anti-Santa segments in a row. What is driving these W1 luvvies… - StewGreen Dec 25, 22:20
Christmas 2024
@emilyhewertson tweets Switched on Doctor Who. Heard the word “mansplaining.” Switched off.
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
Anyone notice how quiet the BBC are about a MP who lied and lied right to the end about speeding fines.
When a certain Conservative got caught it was non stop news on radio and tv, expect the reports to be very quiet and short.
Just proves once again that the libs will do anything but tell the truth and do the right thing.
‘Daily Mail’ has:-
“Chris Huhne finally admits he did it: Former Cabinet minister quits as MP after pleading guilty to perverting the course of justice on speeding offence TEN YEARS AGO”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2273149/Chris-Huhne-quits-MP-pleading-guilty-perverting-course-justice-speeding-offence.html
And for perverting the course of our national energy policy, based on what we now know to be the bogus claim catastrophic global warming (no increase in sixteen years now) and “energy security” (as long as the wind blows ) – nothing.
No case to answer, since the finger points at his successor Red Ed Davey pursuing the same ruinous nonsense, while Cameron’s father in law continues to trouser millions off the backs of the freezing elderly.
“Chris Huhne: right result, wrong reason”
By James Delingpole.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100201314/chris-huhne-right-result-wrong-reason/
BBC give reaction from Eastleigh:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-21322091
Blimey if they are all like this is certainly a very weird world we are living in!
would like to see comments that didnt make it past the ministry edit
Note the BBC is already refocusing our attention in this subject – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21333624
“He couldn’t have done it alone” “They would have had to do it together” “She said she wanted to get revenge”
Beeboids reluctant to pursue this:
‘Migrationwatch’-
“Benefits for Overseas Children Cost UK Taxpayer £1 million per week”
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/288
“DAILY MAIL COMMENT: A child benefit policy is of no use to Britain”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2272957/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-A-child-benefit-policy-use-Britain.html
Comment from the BBC : No no no. Today’s scandal is the ‘theft’ of dead children’s identities by undercover police in the 1980s. Without parental permission! Some of these children died of bad things! It is a scandal. The Guardian says so!
And it happened under Thatcher’s reign. She’s a Tory you know. Back of the net and double Brucie points.
You’re aiming at the wrong target with this.
Those Poles are working here and entitled to the benefits. In fact, by keeping their kids in Poland and elsewhere they save us a fortune in education and health costs.
The big issue is those immigrants not working and not deported back to there homes outside the EU.
If you make too much of a fuss about it you’re going down as described in:”Unacceptable Radical” at:
http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/
Well, in theory, until you discover that the same couple is claiming benefits for 10 kids in 5 different countries, and the biggest beneficiary is the Sicilian Mafia.
It will happen, just remember how tax credits was blown wide open, and is still not fixed.
The Big Question, Nicky ‘the ego has landed’ Campbell asked the question ‘is torture ever justified ?’
Obviously he’s never listened to his own Radio 5 breakfast programme.
BBC News 24 at 2pm and Emily Maitlis hands over to Norman (‘…cough…cough..but Labour say….’) Smith for his comments on Chris Huhne.
‘…The end of his political career….?’
‘Sadly, it is……’
Sadly, Norman? Really is that an appropriate comment for an impartial broadcaster?
‘….He was one of the few Lib Dems willing to take on the Tories….the likes of George Osborne….’
Yes Norman, I can understand why you as Labour supporter liked Huhne standing up to the Tories….but I ask again, is that an appropriate comment for a supposedly impartial broadcaster?
No it’s not. But then if they’re able to take the licence fee by force why should they give a monkey’s toss????
I heard the same comments about ‘…taking on the Conservatives, and George Osbourne, particularly…..’ on the BBC earlier in the day…..so it’s not just one person’s take on this, it’s part of the BBC ‘theme for this event’.
Never mind that he’s been lying through his teeth since ‘Day 1’ about an offence he committed 10 years ago – that must pale into insignificance because he doesn’t like the Tories… therefore will be sorely missed by the BBC.
(Ah, I should have remembered – he’s also a major Climate Change protagonist, I should have guessed that this would be the response to his imminent jailing !)
I watched an edition of University Challange yesterday (on Sky+) where Paxman had a pop at George Osbourne. purely as a reflexive aside.
And some posters here think the BBC don’t have an agenda!
An appalling bit of bias, if Smith said it like that. James Landale reiterated the sentiment about the LibDems having lost a “big beast” who “took the fight to the Tories” in his “Analysis” inset on the main BBC online article about Huhne, although he didn’t express his own disappointment there. I’m not accusing them of collusion or planning their story together or anything like that. It’s obviously a fair assessment of the situation, and I don’t have a problem with them both saying it. It’s just interesting how
Still, if Huhne does do a couple months in jail, he ought to be out in plenty of time to make the rounds of the BBC’s Disgraced Left-wing Politician Rehabilitation circuit.
Will BBC offer HUHNE job when he gets out of prison?
Employed alongside Harrabin in the BBC’s pro-wind farm dept, or in the anti-fracking dept. next door?
First will be a light segment for The Week, then a couple of rehabilitation appearances on sympathetic radio shows, then he’ll present a documentary, Jacqui Smith-like, on something somewhat related to his crime.
BBC-NUJ: Keeping the MARR propaganda flag flying.
1.)
SUNDAY:
Marr Show –
Al Gore (he was on after Labour’s Tony Blair) gets easy propaganda ride from Ms Williams (of ‘Islamic-‘left’ tendency) re-his hypocrisy on selling out to Islamic Al Jazeera.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0080bbs
The political opposition in America especially to Al Gore-Al Jazeera hypocrisy can be seen here:-
Pamela Geller’s ‘Atlas Shrugs’ blog a month ago:-
“LEFTIST JIHADIST MEDIA NEXUS: TERROR TV, AL JAZEERA ACQUIRES GORE’S CURRENT TV ‘AL JAZEERA AMERICA'”
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/01/leftist-jihadist-media-nexus-terror-tv-a-jazeera-acquires-gores-current-tv-a-jazeera-america.html
And:-
AND:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/01/afdi-pamela-geller-to-address-investigate-al-jazeera-now-press-conference.html
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/al-jazeera-jihad-tv-in-america/
2.)
TODAY, MONDAY:-
INBBC: ‘Start the Week for Islam’. (With Islam-’left’tendency, Ms Kendall.)
INBBC: Radio 4 ‘Start the Week’ this morning: more propaganda for Islam by INBBC resident Islam propagandist, William Dalrymple ;also obligatory INBBC repeat plug for his book of propaganda.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qdsmj
‘Biased BBC’ had this appropriate thread less than a week ago:-
“Any Excuse”
No Marr means no diversity.
One might think that such is Beeboidal apparent penchant for ‘diversity’, that while Marr recuperates this would be an ideal time for a shift away from ‘left’ and pro-Islam propaganda to something more diverse. but no. We get Marr political clones.
Mini-Marrs, or Marr-mites?
I’ll get me coat.
What a disgrace to let St. Algore drone on and on and on about how “big business” controls the media, and how horrified he was that after all the clear climate-related disasters in the US last year nobody talked about it during the election. The Beeboid just let him go on as if it was all real, no mention at all about the UN admitting that all those record heat figures were bogus, and that there’s no evidence of Hurricane Sandy being caused by man-made global warming. And what a load of crap about how big business controls the media when the mainstream media is in bed with his own political party and most of the big outlets have been busted for lying and bias in the last year or so, never mind their admissions about 2008. All of his words were dutifully lapped up.
Warmism is fact at the BBC until further notice. The Beeboid woman made a pretense of asking challenging questions about his selling Current to Al-Jazeera. Another joke in the guise of journalism. Is he bothered by being an “environmentalist” who sold out to a network funded by a giant carbon footprint? “I don’t agree with that,” he dodged. St. Algore was allowed to dodge the whole thing by saying, “I disagree”. No actual explanation from him was required at all. It was bogus challenge, a fraud of journalism. At no time did anyone at the BBC actually want to get a real answer out of him. It was all fake seriousness, as were all her “challenging” questions. All just softball, leading questions intended to set him up for a monologue about his new agenda. They wouldn’t dare ask him about his own massive carbon footprint, with his constant globe-trotting. Unless he has a private jet powered by unicorn farts?
Plus, St. Algore was also given the leading question about if US politics are more divisive than ever, a favorite BBC Narrative we’ve covered here many times. “Oh, yes,” droned the venerated billionaire. Your license fee hard at work, providing a political platform for one of the biggest hypocrites and fraudsters around.
David,
Your comment above is excellent because you dont need to be in the club to understand it. I’ve been here before about the site preaching to the choir – which is fine if the reader is a politico and gets the nuances. But the site must try and reach a wider audience.
When I first arrived on this site four years ago I was politically ignorant across the board – including the BBC. This site was instrumental in me being able to put the big picture together, particularly the BBC’s bias and how massive their sphere of influence over the people is.
However, today the sites content will not appeal to the casual, politically ignorant passer by as I was back then. Its to heavy, to Israel/Palestinian centric and much of the content assumes a good degree of knowledge of the political landscape. It doesnt get across what I think its prime objective should be – The abolishment of the licence fee. A topic of how that can be done I have never seen. But your message above explains things in lay man terms – something which is quite rare on the site these days, but such a style of writing is essential to open peoples eyes to the BBC’s corruption and bias. Remember Im talking about most of the general public who are not steeped in politics. Its them we need to bring to the cause. Be assured that swathes of the general public do not see BBC bias because they have been brought up with it since birth. The BBC has influenced their world, political, and social views. I know, I was one of them – and I thought I was enlightened…..
One of the writers on this blog requires GCHQ to decipher what hes on about. Seriously, when I read his articles I glaze over. He presumes everyone has a direct connection to his political thinking. I dont mean to be rude, just pointing it out.
Essentially the site has turned in to an echo chamber (your words) and I believe much of the content needs to be more to the point – and state clearly on the website why the BBC is dangerous/corrupt/bias and what needs to be done. Where is this information?.
The site also needs discussions on how to bring about the end of the BBC’s licence fee. I know it will never be abolished and such calls are music to the ears of the BBC. But voluntary subscription is a definite possibility and something the BBC does fear Subscription is much more palatable to the public and politicians. Remember the public have been brainwashed in to believing the BBC is a National treasure. This area of discussion needs to be promoted so it can eventually be brought in to the widespread public domain, and the god news is the public understand subscription and when you ask them about it they are overwhelmingly in favour when its easily pointed out to them the benefits. For example, they can have their SKY Sat without having to pay the BBC licence fee. Its really that simple. Subscription wont shut down the BBC, but it will curb its sphere of influence massively and of course they will be at the mercy of the public’s will. purse strings.
Many of us who understand what the BBC is all about fall in to the trap of repeating the same message to each other using logic, reasoned and quite often complex debate – which of course we agree with. But it doesn’t translate to the masses. The left (ie the BBC) are much better at using sound-bites and basic messages to spread the word to the masses in language they can understand – and it works.
Fair and interesting points, musosnoop. Your viewpoint is appreciated. I’d say events drive the prevalence of Israel/Palestinian stuff more than any particular fetish of people here does, but obviously I’m biased on that score.
I don’t believe that the objective of this site should be specifically the abolition of the license fee. The rights and wrongs of the license fee system are a separate issue entirely. Plus, taking this stance either assumes that the bias has already been proven, or that it’s irrelevant because the real issue is the license fee system itself. This site is about the bias. I’d say that only if real, systemic bias is proven can the license fee itself become an issue. That’s why I occasionally end my comments with “Your license fee hard at work”.
The site should be about providing real evidence that there’s an institutional bias at the BBC, and encourage people to do something about it. How we go about doing that, and whether or not any of us is actually capable is a matter for discussion, of course. And it’s a discussion well worth having, over and over again.
As you say – and as I’ve said many times – the general public doesn’t see it, as love and respect for the BBC has been entrenched by a legacy of trust and deep cultural connection spanning generations. Every time there’s a real public complaint about BBC bias, we get the same song and dance about how wonderful the BBC is with all the orchestras and documentaries and the World Service and dramas. You hear it from your Prime Minister as much as you hear it from the usual edgy Leftoid comedians. I’ve found it nearly impossible to get people to separate in their minds the biased News division from the rest of the BBC output. To both the likes of Cameron and Will Self, an attack on the Marr Show for being biased is an attack on Blue Peter and the Proms. Unless a real intellectual separation is made between them, the license fee will never be threatened.
Having said that, Charles Moore proved a while back that the BBC definitely does respond to a public boycott of the license fee – when it’s led by a prominent, not-very-controversial figure. Moore can command respect from the likes of Mark Thompson in a way that someone like Delingpole or Littlejohn could not. So a public campaign to boycott the license fee isn’t easy to do.
Even if the license fee was abolished, I would bet you any money that your government would simply follow Canada’s lead and just pay for the BBC out of your taxes anyway. I’m sure there are plenty of clever lawyers around to rewrite everything in order to maintain a facade that the BBC is editorially independent.
I feel we should mostly try to stick to basics: highlighting bias in BBC reporting and showing the ridiculous Radio 5 Live Left-wing ideologues for what they are, as well as calling attention to it when they infuse a political agenda in their light entertainment output, as we learned they do from 28-Gate and what they obviously did with Mrs. Brown’s Boys. And a lot less focus on complaining about Islam or homosexuality or whatever in general without any connection to BBC bias whatsoever would go miles towards not turning people off.
In my opinion, a purge and complete reformation of the News Division would accomplish more, and would be more achievable than shutting down The Archers and Strictly and Top Gear and CBeebies and The Proms. Which I don’t see happening.
I didnt quite mean the sites main focus should be the abolishment of the licence fee – but it does read like that. Thats due to my lack of education at my experimental socialist school…
I beg to differ on one major point. I am in little doubt that if the licence fee were voluntary subscription based the BBC’s bias would be reduced substantially. You actually sound like your in favour of it. At the very least the masses could buy a TV and subscribe to any cable or satellite media company without their details being sent to BBC licensing. Its a disgraceful criminal tax and should not be around in today’s world.
Anyway, thanks for listening.
Cheers
Now Britain has reached a higher level of multiculturalism it seems we need political prisoners to crush all remaining opposition.
There’s a great take on one of the more high profile examples in:”Unacceptable Radical” at:
http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/
The first few comments so far have shown that Biased BBC may soon need to be supplanted by Astoundingly Uncurious ADHD BBC as their ‘news’ output looks for any reason it can to delay or ignore… the news. And top of today’s headlines is…
Got the same thing in Scotland Guest with tirades from Adolph Salmond and the SNP calling for the Scottish Defence League to be banned. Calling in a huge police force to remove them from peaceful protests although there was only about a dozen of them and Nicola Sturgeon telling us that freedom of expression will not be tolerated in Scotland.
At the same time the SNP nutjobs are always in the forefront of radical Islamic hate marches telling us that ‘we are all Hamas now’, cheering those who call for the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jewish people, having MSP’s that call for a Caliphate in Scotland and using taxpayers money to fund the Scottish Islamic Foundation, the offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood who’s affilliates Hamas, Hizbollah, Al Qaeda and the Taliban have told us that the streets of Scotland will one day turn into rivers of Christian blood.
I find it sad to see my country being dragged back to the dark ages by Alex Ahkbar Salmond and his neo Nazi thugs.
Countryfile last night and Adam invited weatherman John Hammond on the programme to explain ‘what has been going on with out weather’. (40 minutes into the programme) Drought in the spring , followed by ‘all that wet weather’ in the summer and now in Adam’s words ‘this big freeze’. So 10 days of cold weather in January is something that we need the weatherman to explain! I just thought it was called winter.
Wouldn’t have been so bad if I hadn’t watched our local ‘Inside Out’ this week. Paul Hudson visited Professor Steven Mobbs at Leeds University to explain that the great flood (or is it The Great Flood?) of 1953 . In the last 30 seconds of the programme Proff Mobbs explained that sea levels are rising quite quickly making flooding like we had in 1953 a more common event. I understood that there is little evidence from reliable sources (ie NOT the Met Office and others) that the sea is rising to any significant degree.
“A more common event” When was the last time a combination of a high spring tide and a North Sea storm caused a massive storm surge that flooded East Anglia and drowned 307 people and over 2,000 in the Low Countries….. perhaps I missed it but I think it was 1953.
Perhaps the reason we need weather men to explain the weather is because the BBC in particular no longer see the weather as a physical phenomenon but a political one.
You should know, the BBC never allow the facts to get in the way of a good story.
(‘what has been going on with our weather’) Ask , Piers Corbyn of Weatheraction.
(‘all that wet weather’ in the summer) Barbeque Summers predicted by Met Office.
(‘this big freeze’) Mild Wet Winters predicted by Met Office.
(I understood that there is little evidence from reliable sources that the sea is rising to any significant degree) Global Warming ended 16 years ago, so thermal inertia means that eventually the sea level will stop rising. Indications are that this has already started, but my understanding is we would have to be 11 years into the little ice age in the 2020’s before the sea level would start to fall.
The morons are depending more and more on outdated data.
I saw that too Deborah, and his ‘explanation’ drawn in the snow, PBC-style, was complete nonsense – blaming a lack of ice in the Arctic for the bad winter weather when Arctic ice levels right now are completely normal (zero difference from the 1979-2000 average). Just total crap. And I’m pretty sure neither of them believe a word of the crap they were spouting. Just parroting the BBC’s line about ‘extreme weather’ to ensure the paycheques keep coming. Don’t want to end up like Bellamy eh?
surprise surprise
not anywhere on bbc news europe 😀
you could look at this nod and say hmmm “tower hamlets”
but the difference here … the f-ckwits from no 10 in the uk,
would fall over themselves, to build new erm “faith” schools
to encourage more non integration
http://youtu.be/oX_h3gbARK0
but they were STILL trying to drag that “moe s pork dinner”
palava over prison meals, into the news for another day
the name of the program “panorama”….
oh the irony! 😀
Stop all Halal food to prisons altogether. Those that do not wish to eat non Halal meat can choose the vegetarian option. Do the crime, spend the time.
Yes, it is not as if they are good muslims is it – otherwise they wouldn’t be in prison? Apart from causing aggro do any of them really care if what they eat ain’t halal?
I would like to re post something Beeboidal highlighted in a pdf link to page 67/8 of “From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel: Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century” in the ‘compare and contrast’ thread. It is a brilliant illustration of the BBC ‘Canteen Culture’.
“Helen Boaden said that the BBC’s institutional attitudes were sometimes confused with its editorial policy. As an employer, the BBC was ‘passionately committed to diversity beyond what the law requires’, and this led to muddled thinking. ‘I’ve literally had conversations with my journalists, who think we can’t say nasty things about black people even if they’re true, “because we’re committed to diversity, aren’t we?”’
She quoted an example from some years ago when she was editor of File on Four. A reporter working on a programme about victimisation at Feltham young offenders’ institution rang her up. ‘He said, “Helen, we’ve found out that most of the victims of the bullying are white, and most of the bullies are black. Can we say it?” And I said, “If you’ve got the evidence and it’s fairly weighted, of course you can say it”. It was terribly telling, that. Because of the confusion with the institution’s aspirations, that had filtered into the journalism.’ The programme went on to win a gold Sony Radio Award.”
Now you know why vox pops all seem to support one argument, why QT audiences are the way they are, why the ‘knee-jerk reaction to the re-distribution riots was that they were really political protests, why people are starving in Dickensian squalor in down trodden Britain and require soup kitchens to keep them alive, why AGM propaganda has deliberately been introduced into ‘every aspect of BBC output’ as a matter of policy (you know, when the ‘science was decided at 28 gate’), why push polls and political advocacy is the norm…………….. It’s
“BECAUSE OF CONFUSION WITH THE INSTITUTION’S ASPIRATIONS”
A frank admission that BBC is institutionally biased and irrespective of ‘editorial oversight’ that there is an underlying assumption of left-liberal orthodoxy throughout the workforce and fundamental to the Corporations’ ethos.
David, please can you add an extract from this to the side bar quotations of egregious and damning BBC quotes. Thanks Beeboidal, this has confirmed everything I have suspected for years
who think we can’t say nasty things about black people even if they’re true
So reporting that someone committed a crime is “saying nasty things” about them? What a bizarre world they live in. And what an indictment of the intelligence of the average BBC journalism. This speaks volumes about the BBC’s hiring standards and practices. Also, I’m beginning to suspect that when they say “diversity”, they really mean something else entirely. The term as I understand has nothing at all to do with reporting a story. The BBC must really be pushing something else in its name for people to say such dopey things.
As for quotes on the sidebar, management did away with those in the last redesign, I think. I agree this one should be added to the collection, and they should be restored somehow. I’ll ask about restoring them to the sidebar (or maybe a separate page?), plus make a separate page for all those tweets.
I have been told from a reliable source that Helen Boaden is about to be charged with perjury. Further information on this is due soon.
If so, my popcorn order will need to be revised upwards.
The era of folk getting it about wrong but not getting it about in the neck seems to be coming nearer.
Which is nice.
When did “Hugs” testify on anything under oath?
Presumably on this occasion:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/29/boaden_tribunal_information_refusal/
‘…the corporation made a decision to abandon impartiality when covering climate change – and that’s according to the BBC Trust. This was an unprecedented decision for the BBC in peacetime.’
Well, once a precedent is set… sheep, lambs, hanging ‘n all.
‘When it came to a cross examination by Newbery, David Marks QC, the presiding tribunal judge, threw a thick protective cloak around the BBC’s star witness, refusing to allow the blogger to pose many of his questions to Boaden directly. As a result, most remained [sic -un?]answered.
It’s the way she doesn’t tell ’em…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/posts/helen-boaden-director-of-bbc-news-at-the-lse
(Those comments again having ‘problems’ again… bless)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/speeches/stories/boaden_lse.shtml
‘how much does the audience trust you when you question those in power?’
Good question, luv.
Thing is, hardly the best one to pose when the £4Bpa power that is the BBC sees itself as above such questions being asked at all.
‘Complaints come in all shapes and sizes.
Believe me, I bear the scars.’
Yes, and no.
They do come in.
But you, Ms. Boaden, ensure they disappear, often before they get near you.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/the-tossers-who-could-win-for-the-tories-425799.html
‘Helen the hidden
Don’t bother emailing complaints to BBC head of news Helen Boaden. She was at the launch evening for the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism in Oxford last Monday night. Discussion turned to protest groups and lobbying outfits which email their views to senior editors. Boaden’s response: “Oh, I just changed my email address.” So much for the Beeb being accountable.
That goes well beyond unique, really.
Oh, of course! I completely forgot about this lawsuit. Thanks, wally.
Boaden in the stocks? That is the best and most long overdue news I have heard in a long time. I assumed she had some special oral talents, as she survived whilst all around her had fallen, yet she is Head of News, the most hated arm of the bBC: everything was on her watch.
All we need now is the head of Chris Patten, the freeloading traitor Chairman. Fresh deck called for, privatisation-minded.
Wake up Cameron! Sod Mali – there is a country here to run.
Oral talents? You must be thinking of heavyweight intellectual Stephanie Flanders.
The other heavyweight intellectual economist that the BBC liked to invite onto TV was Vicky Price.
It seemed to bother no-one that the great Euro which is so good according to Vicky has collapsed the economy of her own country (Greece)!
Now as the court case involving her husband makes her look a bigger and bigger fool we wonder who she is “respected” by?!
Well this confirms the Pollard report.
Pollard reported a management vacuum in the BBC and a chaotic environment. If Hugs Boaden is aware that the political beliefs of her staff are getting in the way of them doing their jobs in the correct way then she is not a manager.
She identified a serious problem within her jurisdiction of management and failed to ensure that training and rules were implemented to correct this.
Such a position indicates that she is aware of the shortcomings of staff under control and either lacks the managerial ability to deal with it or she supports this kind of behaviour.
Once again this falls in the lap of the incumbent DG (Thompson?) who should have fired her.
Why are they passionately committed to anything but abiding by the law and ensuring that they fulfill their charter to the letter.
Have they ever asked the British people if they should be more diverse than the law requires? How do we know what impact that will have on their output?
Its all part of their misguided strategy of socially engineering Britain by non democratic means.
I hope that one day they will pay a heavy price when the indigenous population wake up and realise what the BBC has been up to over the past 30 years.
This, by the way, is a great example of how the public sector could behave.
Cheshire East Council started a building project without planning permission, so the (Conservative) Council has ‘deleted’ all management jobs and forced staff to apply to get their jobs back. Except that there will be fewer jobs.
If the bBBC Trust took the hint …
Justin Welby, New Archbishop of Canterbury, educated at Eton and Cambridge.
I wonder how much his education will be sneeringly highlighted by the BBC when he makes any pronouncements, as it seems to be for anyone else in the public eye the BBC/Labour Party/Guardian clique dislikes
Well just make sure that this posted everytime the Guardian mention his name.
the bbc are just a closed club for university educated lefties and liberal presenters like the awful rentagob richard bacon,,,the smarmy arrogant nicky campbell,the anoyying giglling shelagh fogarty just to mention a few…why dont we have some balance at the bbc and employ centre right presenters like peter hitchens and richard littlejohn !!!!!!
Whoa, that might alert the sheeple to the idea there are other points of view on many issues. That would never do. They are “impartial”. Boaden says so, its in her genes. There is no need for any other point of view (cue expert on speed dial to explain Left is right)
With the impending vote on gay marriage just arriving at the church door, having driven swiftly past the mosque:
http://www.faustiesblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/gay-marriage-governments-argument-in.html
Getting stoned after the wedding ceremony would take on a whole new meaning.
I am really confused in all honesty. Can anyone explain to me the difference between a civil partership and a “gay” marriage? Apart from being a different word what is the difference? Normally the BBc will produce an infantile graphic to explain such issues.
I THINK it has something to do with the “I do” declaration. I also believe there are issues about inheritance tax and divorce. Unfortunately, we know very little because proper, detailed, debate is likely to attract accusations of homophobia from certain quarters.
Hmm. When I looked at Wickepedia (OK I don’t believe Every word on that site) it stated that legal provisions were in line or words to that effect. Funny enough I’m not that interested. Having been married and having had a very expensive divorce in the 1990s.
“Funny enough I’m not that interested.”
Sick of hearing about it, frankly. “The love that dare not speak its name” – if only.
Gay marriage means that consummation and adultery become untestable and therefore irrelevant. Which means that marriage becomes irrelevant too.
i imagine that divorce lawyers are rubbing their hands together at the prospect of gay marriages. Am looking forward to the reasons gays give for their marriage ending, it’ll be good for a giggle.
“Gay marriage means that consummation and adultery become untestable and therefore irrelevant.”
How? How does allowing same-sex couples to marry change existing adultery law for opposite sex couples?
I’m sure you can use your imagination, Scott.
It’s you that appears to be using your imagination to just make up rubbish about the bill. It’d be far better if you stuck to facts – although that would mean your opposition to same-sex marriage would be far harder to justify.
Here we go. The usual suspects with their ever-so-clever questions which they think will entrap us.
Sorry, not interested.
I know. How DARE someone challenge assertions that have no basis in fact. Why can’t you just be left alone to make stuff up, eh?
You poor loves.
And go… on and on… they will.
After so long in the bunker, any chink of light will attract them, blinking, out again.
It’s fair enough, as the opportunity was presented.
The BBC’s obsessions were not made the priority, rather less on topic broader issues of subjective view, which is of course the most fertile of grazing grounds for those who know what is important and what is best for one and all.
Again, as I listen to Sky’ peroxide sink wet her panties at ‘how much damage this will do to the party’, which is what gets such as her out of bed at 4am in the morning, rather more pressing matters of importance get distracted from.
As here.. Job done.
Ian Hills,
“Gay marriage means that consummation and adultery become untestable”
What a bizarre statement. How exactly do you think consummation or adultery is “testable” in straight marriages?
In divorce proceedings, Scottdez.
I’m not Dez. Are you hippiepooter? He lacked the intellect to tell two people apart, too.
You’re right in that non-consummation and adultery can be used as grounds in a divorce. However, while those phrases are defined in statute, what they mean in practice has been refined by case law over the decades.
How exactly will gay couples being allowed to marry affect the “testability”, or otherwise, of other, unrelated couples’ divorce proceedings?
Just to clarify, if lesbians and gays can’t consummate or commit adultery how can they have their marriages annulled, or get divorced on grounds of adultery?
Legalising homosexual marriage therefore makes a joke of the word marriage. Stick with a civil partnership, or get therapy (maybe you were abused by a woman when you were little?) and go straight.
“…get therapy (maybe you were abused by a woman when you were little?) and go straight.”
I think that with that paragraph, you’ve explained far more about yourself than you probably intended to. In any case, you’ve just exempted yourself from reality. You sad, pathetic excuse for a man.
The salient difference lies in the word itself and the associated societal stature. If they get that word, then it’s de facto acceptance by society.
Priceless!,
The BBC are cock-a-hoop about their present from David Cameron – ‘Gay Marriage’.
Don’t expect any balanced appraisal of this issue from BBC staff who have the slogan ‘celebrate diversity’ printed on their BBC ID tags.
And why has the PM who is vaguely conservative (with a small to middling sized ‘C’) gift wrapped this one for the progressive left?
Well I may be giving the game away here but the secret is that David wants the BBC to love him. You see he has noticed how Mrs Thatcher was demonised by our national broadcaster. Well, would you want a million Scots and Scallys threatening to dance on your grave because the Beeb brought them up to hate you?
Oh and one more thing. If you don’t realise that ‘Gay Marriage’ will be just a stepping stone to the next in whole series of oddball pick and mix sexuality preference demands – then my dear gender non-specific comrades, you aint’t seen nothing yet.
‘BBC staff who have the slogan ‘celebrate diversity’ printed on their BBC ID tags.’
I decided to wade through the Seesaw to Wagon Wheel navel fluff gazing exercise from a different time, and have to wonder how big these badges are and what else is upon them.
Because ‘It is not by chance that all BBC staff carry an identity card which proclaims as the first of the BBC’s values that they are independent, impartial and honest.’
Lest they forget while tripping over a banana wedged in the rotating entrance doorway.
And surely there is space also for ‘Don’t write anything stupid on Twitter. Love Hugs’, maybe tucked next to ‘Please don’t wash your feet in the sinks’.
The place must look like a remedial kindergarden class with staff attempting to navigate the stairs, befuddled by not having a card that says, ‘First lift your left foot, leaving your other left foot (we at the BBC only have left of anything, and two of these) on the floor’, like a scene from Mercury Rising.
‘celebrate diversity’
Maybe it’s a mindset at the BBC, caused by the fact that the Guardianistas fell guilty of the fact that they prefer to live in the “hideously white right-wing Tory areas“, on the outskirts of the ugly city of London.
Cameron thinks he’s doing it for votes. He and his braindead trust believe this will help defeat the Nasty Party meme. It won’t, but he really needs the positive publicity right now to distract from the economy. I just can’t wait for the legal rulings about what constitutes consummation and adultery. That’ll be fun. The Beeboids will have a field day with all the titillating talk. Maybe Evan Davis will bring Iain Dale back in so they can giggle and snort about how the straights just don’t get it, like they did over David Laws.
Plus the UN is as hot on gay rights as it is on foreign aid increases, which is enough to pervert (sic) any weak PM’s mind.
UN policy is gospel to the bent broadcasting corporation, so it never gets questioned.
“Why failing to stand up for marriage is the reason Tories are always in crisis”
By MELANIE PHILLIPS.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2272935/Why-failing-stand-marriage-reason-Tories-crisis.html
David Cameron is a leftie in centre right clothing ie a twat.
exactly!
“If you don’t realise that ‘Gay Marriage’ will be just a stepping stone to the next in whole series of oddball pick and mix sexuality preference demands”
In the other countries which have already introduce marriage for same-sex couples, can you point out where such demands have already been made? I mean, if it’s as inevitable as you seem to think, then surely you’ll have concrete examples to hand…
Warning. Reply to him and you’ll be here for the duration.
“Don’t engage in discussion! You might actually have to stop making things up and tell the truth! And how are your own prejudices going to survive if they’re exposed to FACTS?”
Scott, you giving us unadulterated facts would be a good start. Unfortunately, we only get selective facts, or your interpretation of facts.
I now eagerly await your practice of regurgitating a past one off mistake of mine with which you hope to avoid acknowledging your many faults.
“A past one-off mistake”?
Yes, every mistake you made about the US elections were apparently one-offs. You had an awful lot of oneoffs in quick succession, as I recall.
‘you’ll be here for the duration’
QED….fact!
Perhaps Mrs Dromey will unearth her deeply buried and never-mentioned-by-the-leftist-media advocacy for the rights of other ‘minority preference groups’.
In terms of the domino effect discussed, the BBC are actively advocating for the introduction of “positive” ‘transgender’ propaganda into mainstream ‘comedy’. Though they will never beat the “call me Loretta” sequence in the Life of Brian.
Personally I want to see gay marriage accepted, but that’s because I am an atheist. Were I religious I would be outraged at the sheer arrogance of the ‘forced conversion’ of religious doctrine being envisaged here.
In addition I loath the double standards being applied, I can’t see this gross insensitivity to, albeit offensive, religious views and practice ever being applied to Islam for instance. Does anybody realistically think that the liberal elite would force Islam to change any part of its doctrine just because it was illogical, anachronistic, inappropriate and illiberal?
“Were I religious I would be outraged at the sheer arrogance of the ‘forced conversion’ of religious doctrine being envisaged here.”
What forced conversion?
Marriage is defined in civil law. Where it comes to the established church (the CofE) or a previously established church (the Church in Wales), clauses in the bill specifically protect those churches’ rights to determine whether or not to officiate same-sex couples’ wedding services in their premises.
Any other religion can choose whether or not to opt in to preside over same-sex marriage services. They’re at liberty to choose not to, just as they’re currently at liberty to not officiate over marriages of those of other faiths, of divorced people, or for other reasons.
So where, exactly, is the “forced conversion”?
The lobby is seeking to change cannon law as well to permit ‘marriage’ in the Church of England. This is in effect a change of doctrine and would be one without the consent of majority of Anglicans (especially the African members). The Church of England as the established church is the only one empowered to solemnise both the civil and the religious aspects of marriage, a hang over from the 17th C – which quite rightly pisses Catholics off of course!
As I have indicated Scott I dislike the illiberal nastiness of people who deny same sex relationships the same apparent status as heterosexual ones and as far as the civil law goes I am all for ‘marriage’ between people who wish to commit to a permanent relationship, good luck to people. As you say marriage is primarily a civil contract who so gives a damn if it is called a civil partnership, a marriage, or whatever. However this whole approach is being used by a powerful lobby in the CoE to change doctrine. It is therefore entirely legitimate to permit people to argue against it.
they can always move to Iran and try to get married………
tumbleweed
“The lobby is seeking to change cannon law as well to permit ‘marriage’ in the Church of England. ”
Which lobby? There may be people who would like the CofE to change its canon law, but that’s for the General Synod to decide. Sure, people can campaign for such a change if they want to – but the current bill makes it crystal clear that such a decision is for the Church of England to decide.
“It is therefore entirely legitimate to permit people to argue against it.”
Oh, I agree: it’s just your argument would be much more powerful if it were based in reality.
Now you’ve all gone and done it! You’ve provided Militant Gay Scottieboy a soapbox to espouse his favourite subject – Gay Rights.
He’ll make this thread a hetero-free zone with his polemical rants.
Militant gay? Polemical rants?
Do you have anything to put forward towards a discussion, or is your sole contribution to fling out what you imagine to be putdowns?
‘Do you have anything to put forward towards a discussion, or is your sole contribution to fling out what you imagine to be putdowns?’
This dragged out ‘discussion’ being little to do with BBC bias, so job done all round. The only news of heft across the media estate are still matters gay, with Sky News hijacking a supposed interview on dogs (titter ye not at the back, Howerd) to probe (I won’t say it again) to obsess on this and how damaged the apparent only party involved is by splits caused through rare free votes.
In other, irony alert news to match your latest quaint claim, R4’s website has them ‘reporting’ on an old boys enquiry into a string of abuses by public sector employees at state facilities, where all incompetent or complicit senior managers either side-stepped to more money or cosy quango sinecures.
One imagines the BBC will be relentless in exposing the failures and demanding accountability.
Or maybe… Banging on over gay issues until all else has passed.
“This dragged out ‘discussion’ being little to do with BBC bias, so job done all round.”
If you struck out every conversation on Biased BBC on that basis, what a barren site it would be.
Funny, isn’t it: when people stand up to him by disagreeing, or suggesting that his beloved pounce could do with using less offensive language, Guest Who will produce paragraph upon paragraph about how people are trying to stifle debate.
But if a conversation isn’t going his way, he’s the first to screech “job done”.
Does anybody think Guest Who actually realises how much of a hypocrite he is?
‘Funny, isn’t it’
Coo-ee…Scott, I’m over here!
Reply… sorry, screech (can’t resist the uni-directional adjectival enhancement still for what anyone but you can deploy I see) to someone but doing so in the 3rd person may work in the world of kindergarden girls’ locker rooms for the rest of the crowd hiding in the stalls, but on a blog thread it is just odd.
Anyway, I’ll play the distraction game a while longer as we’re down to one line (get back Bacon!) and this thread’s going to roll over (and you Prescott) soon as events move on. Just you and me now, I think, kid. And if I keep you away from trying to spoil actual discussions on actual BBC bias elsewhere (with the raising of ‘hypocrisy’ indeed being brave to the point of foolish), no harm done.
As to my appreciation of the written contributions (as I know him only by these) of Pounce, daring to speak in name of love is for you to attempt, if not again helpful to your cause.
I find most of his contributions factual, insightful and of value as a consequence when proven correct, especially with URLs or, often, subsequent events in support. Hence I often show support with a like.
When I don’t like, I don’t support by not adding a like.
What I don’t get into is the cheerleading squad’s demands for all sorts of idiot public protestations and atonements by all and sundry.
You have a problem with what he writes… may I suggest you take it up with him.
You have a problem with what I write… take it up with me.
I have a problem with what you write, I’ll take it up with you directly. With trolls or trolling in general I may well talk about you but not to you.
Deal with it.
Now, about the BBC and how it holds fellow national public sector treasure the NHS to account… or not.. to the degree it warrants.
Compromised by the BBC having one set of rules for itself and those it likes (unless they really, really put them on the spot), or not?
That…is hypocrisy… four billion pound’s worth a year, by compulsion.
See you on the next thread.
Who really gives a damn
I to am an atheist.But I deeply resent the imposition of the new ‘horizontal faith’ of moral relativism.
Having,in my life time, seen society freed from the control of one orthodoxy it is has now become subject to another more sanctimonious and censorious than its predecessor ever was.
What I find most odious is the dissembling. The idea that ‘gay marriage’is about equality (homosexuals are all ready free to marry on the same basis as heterosexuals) It is about deconstructuralism and the mullahs of the this new received truth should have the courage of their convictions and not hide behind weasel words.
“homosexuals are all ready free to marry on the same basis as heterosexuals”
Really?
Yes scott you are free to marry any woman you choose as I would be.if I were not allready married.
And there was I thinking you actually valued marriage. Trapping gay men into marrying women – or gay women into marrying men – shows even more contempt for the sanctity of marriage than any campaigner for equality could ever be accused of.
more weasel words
No one is compelled to marry.
Or ever has been
As I say this has nothing to do with equality
But you would say that, as a gay man, I can marry a woman I don’t love, but not my partner?
How contemptuous of marriage.
It is for you to choose wether to enter into marriage (with a woman) or not
for what ever reason you see fit
Again this has nothing to do with equality you allready have that
And little to do with love however you choose to define that.
As for my attitude to the institution of marriage (an institution particular to the life union of a man and a woman enshrined in law for the benefit of the common wealth)
I have been very happily married for 30yrs ,have a daughter and grand daughter.that happiness was not/is not dependant on the sanction of the state Thank you for your concern
Scott, how many gay men have married women as a cover to improve their career prospects? We’ve all seen stories about such “men” from politicians to pop stars to movie actors. They then deceived their trusting wives for years by clandestinely carrying on with their homosexual lifestyles. You know this is true , we know this is true.
Who are the ones showing contempt for marriage?
“some gay men are closeted” has to be the weakest attempt at an argument against equal marriage to date. Well done, Andy: you’ve found the bottom of the barrel, and scraped right through.
Scott, ‘….just a stepping stone to the next in (a) whole series of oddball pick and mix sexuality preference demands…’ that’s my prediction and I stand by it.
I listen to the BBC and based on what I hear there I expect my prediction to be confirmed in the near future.
I hear they do all sorts of odd things in Europe – that’s not the point.
So to repeat the question you tried to dodge. If equal marriage is a stepping stone as you claim, there must be evidence to that in other countries which have had full marriage equality for years.
What evidence is there for your prediction? Or is it just based on your prejudice?
You seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word prediction
Oh, predictions don’t have to be based on evidence or knowledge, but the ones that are most likely to come true certainly do.
Yours seems to be based upon little more than “this’ll happen because I say it will”. Elsewhere, similar legislation has not produced the effects you claim, so your already feeble attempt to state what will happen is looking even more dodgy.
Huhne’s and Harrabin’s epitaph:-
“Wind farms could become ‘monuments of a failed civilisation’, top environmentalist claims.
“One of the world’s top environmentalists has said wind farms risk becoming ‘monuments of a failed civilisation’as he fights to stop a 275ft turbine being erected near his home.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9847324/Wind-farms-could-become-monuments-of-a-failed-civilisation-top-environmentalist-claims.html
I can remember Lovelock on the Simon Mayo show on radio 5 a couple of years ago, expressing his contempt for the wind power fraud.It was met with some surprise by Mr.Mayo which was compounded when Lovelock told him that Britain should be ringed with an electric fence (nuclear powered of course) to prevent the country be overwhelmed by immigrants from the 3rd world
I kid you not
These sound like the sort of peple we need in this time of crisis, not the recycled double talk peroxide-sink presenters who haven’t had an original idea since they were concieved.
Just in case some of us might think that islam is behind the troubles in Mali, Radio 4’s aptly named Beyond Belief has rushed out a programme to cover the matter.
It will come as no surprise to hear that the rebels aren’t really muslim, as anyone that knows anything about islam would see that that is the case.
Although the library in Timbuktu has been set on fire by people Dawkins called ‘muslim barbarians’, not to worry, many items have survived and indeed the good muslims claimed to have removed ninety percent of the items for ‘safe keeping’.
Why are there troubles in Mali? Well apparently the secularists have disregarded the excellent provisions in islamic law in respect of women and this has caused people (who are not muslims, obviously) to get upset.
The answer, in future, will be for the government to listen to the religious leaders.
So that is all right then. OK
“#MYJIHAD IN MALI:
JIHADISTS TORCH LIBRARY, BURN ANCIENT HISTORIC MANUSCRIPTS, DOCUMENTS IN TIMBUKTU”
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/01/myjihad-in-mali-jihadists-torch-library-burn-ancient-historic-manuscripts-documents-in-timbuktu.html
I have been conducting an experiment , for the last 4 weeks – I havn’t watched/ listened to much domestic radio or TV and have replaced it with internet radio and podcasts from outside the U.K. I havn’t a clue what is going on (especially in BBC lala land). Ignorance is bliss and I am sure it is good for my blood pressure.
That said, one is sure all in the Frank loft was pretty mellow until the crashing of the hatch.
Forewarned is forearmed.
i like the sound of that scrappydoo, i think i will give it a try myself.
Scrappydoo
So you’re on a 12 step recovery program ?
I gave up on the BBC and Channel 4 news years ago. I was sick and tired of the Cultural Marxist brainwashing propaganda, you wont miss it.
Get one of these and use your computer.
Instead of the usual large rodent in Pennsylvania, for Groundhog Day the BBC gives you a sighting of another one, their hero, Fidel Castro, coming out of his hole to vote in the Cuban parliamentary elections. Why is this news, really? I guess it’s always news when the most heroic world leader in history (he stood up the nasty US for 50 years!) makes a public appearance to speak up for the heroism of the Cuban people.
To her credit, Beeboid Sarah Rainsford does mention that there’s only one party allowed in the country, and clearly shows her skepticism when she says that the Cubans she spoke to “insist” that the one-party system is the way to go for them. But that hardly balances out all the propaganda footage from their sister Official State Broadcaster they show of the Bros. Castro and all the happy citizens participating in democracy. It’s also a bit silly for a Beeboid to act all critical about a one-party system when most BBC staff want only one party to rule Britain for eternity. I guess she has to say that for the cameras, in the interests of maintaining impartiality.
I was also struck by the line in the blurb accompanying the video about how the party picks all the candidates. Isn’t that pretty much what you have in Britain? Don’t the party bosses choose your candidates for Parliament? It’s certainly a problem in a lot of local elections in the US.
Yes the beeboids do seem ‘cock-a-hoop’ with the prospect of gay marriages.
How the bBC goes all out in which to promote ‘Islam’ as the most compassionate faith going.
Muslim leader: Pork DNA find could hit Irish beef sales
A leader of Ireland’s Muslims has warned that the discovery of pork DNA in halal products could damage the reputation of Irish meat. Tyrone food company McColgan’s and distributors 3663 withdrew products after pork traces were found in pies meant for English and Irish jails. Pork is strictly forbidden by Islamic dietary rules.
Dr Ali Saleem said on RTE’s Morning Ireland that for a Muslim, eating pork was “equivalent to taking drugs”.
So after yet another “bBC, believe it or else we chopp your head off” where Islam is made out to be a victim yet again. The bBC reports from Dublin (Note to bBC, Dublin isn’t in Northern Ireland and so this story should really be in the European section) and they come out with this classic:
Dr Ali Saleem said on RTE’s Morning Ireland that for a Muslim, eating pork was “equivalent to taking drugs”.
The biggest reason for why Muslims get sent down is for drugs. The men whom the bBC never mention who we find in the dock week in,week out regards raping little girls all use drugs and yet the bbC tries to tell me that for Muslims to eat pork is similar to taking drugs. Really?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1237184/Muslim-police-chef-defeated-bacon-roll-tribunal-faces-75-000-legal-bill.html#axzz2JxE7ppav
Couldn’t make this up if you tried:
Lancaster County inmate suing jail over sausage scrambler, asking for $250K
A Muslim man is suing the Lancaster Correctional Facility for allegedly serving him pork while he was in jail awaiting trial for delivering cocaine. Dario Scott, 48, pleaded guilty to the cocaine charge and is now serving three to five years in the Community Corrections Center, a state-run prison in Lincoln.
It appears that for Muslims the world over taking drugs just isn’t a problem. Anybody else get the impression that
somebody is telling Porkies
From The Commentator…
Bacon baulks at accusations of leftist anti-Semitsm :
Richard Bacon’s reaction to Jonathan Meades’s reasonable equivalence of leftist anti-Semitism of old and new is symptomatic of exactly what Meades was trying to portray.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2642/bacon_baulks_at_accusations_of_leftist_anti_semitsm
Thanks for this Reed I thought my opinion of Meades couldn’t get a any higher but the squealing of Bacon and his pets lift him up in spades !!! so funny !
I have to admit that in the past I’ve had no time for Mr. Meades’ programmes, as I’ve often found his use of language to be impenetrable.
Having seen a good few comments recommending his latest offering, I might just have to consider a re-appraisal. Best to keep an open mind. I’ll look out for a repeat showing.
He,s OK as long as he sticks to gabled roofs and dormer windows
I`d heartily recommend this programme from Meades.
Brilliant-Victor Lewis Smith meets Adam Curtis.
Yes, a bit clever at times for me-but he skewers the left continually throughout the piece…so rare to find these days.
Hats off to him!
I’ll have to have a look then, if he’s pissing off the ̶r̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ left people.
Shouldn’t Bacon change his somewhat insensitive name? 😉
Richard Bacon is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
if Bacon(taking into account his past ahem misdemeanours in the illicit substance field) was interviewing a muslim,would it not cause offence to call him richard bacon…….or is that richard drugs
you know-pork/drugs same thing in muslamic nutter land?
what could we call him then?
I’ve got it
dick the wanker
or maybe just dick wanker
Wanker is fine. Everyone will know who it is.
ps
and don t put bbc in front of it
or it will go from 1 to 1001 😀
that image with that ridiculous junior school blazer 😀
overt “projectionism”, and his jim carrey gurning
“squealing bacon and his pets” – detective
One of the most astonishing things I heard was a Lib-Dem response to Chris Huhnes admission that he had lied to us for 10 years. The chap said he wouldn’t be surprised if “Chris” made a return to politics in a year or 2. I’m flabbergasted! A Lib Dem, high ranking MP can lie to the public for a decade and still thinks he can continue to have a credible voice. I didn’t hear any such nonsense when Archer and Aitken bit the dust.
What that soundly pro-Europe Prince of Windmills? Course he will find a job. The BBC are planning their bookings already.
I would not be surprised to see him back in the next Lab/Lib coalition or given a sinecure in the EU
Oxford pedo story appears very briefly on the 18:00 news. No pictures no film and prominent use of “alleged” in reference to one of the victims evidence.
Followed by Vietnam veteran story complete with film and photographs.
Argentina has been censured by the IMF for their bogus inflation numbers and other economic data. The Kirchners’ Left-wing economic policies over the last decade have driven the country into the toilet, and the BBC is fast asleep. Nothing about it in the Business section, and the Latin America section is filled with tabloid fodder about disasters, accidents, and updates on the health of the BBC’s two favorite far-Left dictators. Your license fee hard at work.
The BBC has admitted in recent reports about the Falklands controversy that Argentina is in a sad state and Mrs. Kirchner’s sabre-rattling was largely an attempt to distract the public from it, so it’s not like they’re unaware of the problem.
What’s more important to the big picture and the long term – this or a bus crash in Tijuana? As with their US news, aside from those “bespoke”, lightweight human-interest video magazine pieces, the BBC’s Latin America news section can easily be replaced by a news aggregator.
The Kirchners’ Left-wing economic policies over the last decade have driven the country into the toilet….
Shouldn’t that read ………again! Ten years ago Argentina recorded the biggest debt default in history;
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/24/us-argentina-debt-idUSBRE8AM0Q420121124
So now we know that Kirchner is pulling a David Copperfield by focusing attention on the Falklands whilst going bust at the same time.
Perhaps our own PM has been taking lessons ……… gay marriage is a smokescreen for ?????????
It’s a joke. And now the US Government, run by people who don’t pay their own bills and want to borrow and spend more than ever instead, and who are suing S&P essentially for criticizing The Obamessiah’s economic incompetence in 2011, are telling Argentina to pay on some bonds.
I’d say this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but that would be racist. And no astute analysis from the BBC. “Two Eds” is too busy bashing Osborne again.
With the Dateline London ‘debate’ that managed to accumulate only folk who saw the Argentinian side as valid still fresh in CECUTT’s ‘we can’t answer so we’ll procrastinate’ mind… from a year ago now… it will be interesting to discover at what point the BBC may grudgingly concede that the lunatics in BA are the ones hell bent on war and not the sabre-ratting British and Falkland Islanders.
Though I would not bet on it.
When reporting the story of Richard lll being found under a car park. The BBC gave him a title, King, and a description, hunchback.
But why didn’t they do the usual, ”man” found under car park, or is it because he’s white ?
Body found in multi-story car park, wrong on so many levels!
BBC-NUJ preparing to STRIKE, again:-
“BBC industrial action to be extended across the corporation.
Escalation may include strike action, as National Union of Journalists steps up opposition to compulsory redundancies.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/feb/04/bbc-industrial-action-extended-strike?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+theguardian%2Fmedia%2Frss+%28Media%29
BBC-NUJ’s ‘Asian Network’ apartheid radio station must be financed by British licence payers forever, apparently.
Please let them strike
and never go back in again
Lets hope the strike break all records for longevity and keeps the BBC off the air.
These days I watch so little, I wouldn’t even know it was gone!
From several news sources, including this one :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/9845442/EU-to-set-up-euro-election-troll-patrol-to-tackle-Eurosceptic-surge.html
In the run-up to 2014 Euro elections, the EU is confidentially to spend almost £2 million to fund bureaucrats to trawl the internet, seeking out any on-line debates which might demonstrate any tendency towards euroscepticism, and to then trample in with the EU propaganda line as fast as possible. Oh, very transparent and democratic.
Of course, I tried to find what the BBC was saying on this topic………………and wasn’t really surprised at what I found.
they will have a hard job trying to change my mind. sneaky little weasels.
Will E.U increase its financial support for BBC?
“EU FUNDING OF THE BBC” (2008).
http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2007-08/791
Wait: I thought it was the Left who always accused everyone expressing an unapproved thought of being a paid agitator? Even that ex-BBC producer who used to debate with us here under the name “John Reith” accused a couple of us who supported Israel as being paid by the Israeli government. You see it in Leftoid fora all the time when somebody speaks out against Warmism (“You’re in the pay of Big Oil!”) or Hamas. Now it’s for real, but the other side.
I know some people here are too quick on the “You work for the BBC” trigger for defenders of the indefensible, but now we know there’s substance behind the suspicions, at least EU-wise.
Goebbels eat your heart out. If this isn’t a reason to get out of the EU and work for its destruction, I don’t know what is.
Scott, dez …this job is right up your street and they will even pay you to be here. 🙂
The police, the media, and victim Tory minister Andrew Mitchell.
Only now, does BBC-NUJ, on the back of tonight’s investigative journalism by Channel 4 TV in ‘Dispatches’ indicate the devious, anti-Tory role played by some of police.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21326604?
I’ve just finished listening to the evening broadcast of “Start The Week” with Bridget Kendal.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qdsmj
Included in the program was Dr Christina Hellmich. As you can see by her resume at Reading University’s website, she has more qualifications than all of us put together.
http://www.reading.ac.uk/spirs/about/staff/c-hellmich.aspx
However, when she stated that we should listen to what Osama Bin Laden said about his motives for Jihad I became a little worried. I thought it was generally accepted that the “mastermind” invented reasons for his murderous activities as he went along, cashing in on the cause célèbre of the moment. However, there was no-one on the panel to put this viewpoint. In fact the words “I agree with…” were the most common words used on the show. Even if she was right (which I do not believe) she should have had to support her statement by further robust questioning.
Here was another show about the great western oppressors going back the The First Afghan War and the battle of Kabul and the retreat to Gandamak in January 1841 and the justified response of the downtrodden Afghans/Iraqis/Lybians/Syrians etc A case of the West’s “chickens coming home to roost” I guess.
I understand how difficult it is to put these sensitive shows together but, for the sake of balance, where were Andy McCarthy, Caroline Glick, Mark Steyn and Frank Gaffney? I guess an organization that introduces Mark Steyn as Mark Steen (Newsnight) would not know who any of the others were either.
Its a shame. Many uninformed listeners would have been left believing that if only we’d listened to the thoughtful sage Osama Bin Laden the world would be a different place…
Presumably they all actually believe that guff themselves but it’s an appalling indictment of a culture that one of it’s chief sources of information is actually distorting and obfuscating an extremely important issue and leaving the public blind.
By the way, bin Laden gave the usual stuff about western imperialism, attacks on Muslims etc when addressing western audiences but to his fellow Muslims, his justification was always given entirely on the grounds that he was following Islamic teaching. There was no arguing with him from them as the sacred texts do in fact instruct Muslims to subjugate infidels by means of terror, warfare or whatever means are available. They had, however, to first invite them to become Muslims: all Osama’s addresses to western audiences began with such an invitation.
Just a thought: Why does the BBC keep talking about the ‘Gay Marriage Bill’ when is the ‘Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, i.e. I presume one doesn’t need to be homosexual to be included in this proposed legislation.
I gather that some of the drafting problems relate to this distinction, such as how to define consummation or adultery.
Shouldn’t the BBC be discussing these Equality issues? Mixed sex couples just get plain marriage with mandatory rules relating to the sex they must have and sex they mustn’t have, while ‘same-sex’ couples get a choice of Civil Partnership or an any sex you want or don’t want with anyone you want Marriage. Some are more ‘equal’ than others in this brave new world.
“… with mandatory rules relating to the sex they must have and sex they mustn’t have,”
Really? And in which current laws are those particular clauses?
If a marriage isn’t consummated, (having sex with your spouse), then the marriage can be annulled.
If a spouse commits adultery, (having sex with someone who isn’t their spouse), then that is grounds for divorce.
a) There is no compulsion by the state to force married couples to have sex. Annulment and adultery can be cited as grounds for a divorce, but a sexless or adulterous marriage doesn’t automatically end in the eyes of the law.
b) These grounds will not change for opposite-sex partners. For same-sex partners who marry, it will be possible to cite non-consummation or adultery in divorce proceedings where it’s not currently possible to use those as grounds for dissolution of a civil partnership (although either could be argued to come under the heading of unreasonable behaviour).
Stating in statute what behaviours may be possible grounds for divorce is one thing: but that is most emphatically not saying what “sex they must have and sex they mustn’t have”.
People of the same gender shouldn’t have sex with each other!
“People of the same gender shouldn’t have sex with each other!”
In your opinion. If I believed that people who hide behind dairy-based pseudonyms shouldn’t have sex with anyone, would it be fair for me to call for that belief to be enshrined in law?
Yes it would if that had been the prevailing cultural norm since time immemorial. However the Fromagists would be quite at liberty to oppose such an oppressive and illogical position
Sorry to disappoint but I have been married to a woman for 26 years and surprise surprise we have had sex and children as a properly married couple are supposed to. This scenario just cannot be applied to SSM as two men or two women cannot procreate and therefore cannot get bloody married. They can have a civil partnership and I am prepared to accept that even though I feel it is promoting Homosexuality. Please though do not think that because of my views I endorse violence or intimidation against Gay people because I also find that unacceptable.
As for my views on whether two people of the same gender shouldn’t have sex, I think you will find that world wide my view is the dominant one.
The Equality agenda is actually opening a whole can of worms and there will be many negative unforseen consequences in the future. We will reap what we sow that is for sure.
You really must address your discriminatory attitude towards dairy products.
if these people want to do that let em get on with it, but preferebly in private. cant the government and media try and deal with the real problems instead ,cos there is certainly plenty of them.
Exactly
Yep let them join the dying institution of marriage if they want then they can shut up and let politics go back to being about sorting the bloody mess out so we can live a less crap life in this country!
But then again the activist gay lobby will just start up an new war on another perceived slight , if they win and they get everything they want then what will they do for a job ?
Who will listen to them who will ask them on TV ?
Oh and is it just me but the gay lobby keeps going on about how they shouldn’t be defined by their sexual preferences and then spend all their time only defining themselves by their sexual preferences ????
Newsnight (04,02,2013) – stories in order of importance:
1, Mid Staffordshire hospital (no mention of who was in power at the time when they were being given ‘targets’).
2, Richard III (Walk really spun it out by asking two guests their favourite Shakespeare quotes).
3, and finally at 11.05 Chris Huhne
So, the skeleton of a five hundred year old king is more important than a lying Lib Dem MP admitting perverting the course of justice. Now, if Huhne was a Tory … think Mitchell times a million.
They did mention the labour party and the influence of trying to meet targets set by the labour party.
@Ron Todd, I must’ve missed the mention of Labour, did they whisper it?
@Ron Todd, I’ve just watched it all over again (thanks for that) and there were three mentions of Labour. Firstly, Kirsty Wark in the intro said Jeremy Hunt blamed Labours targets. The next reference was more explicit when the VT showed Labour ministers (Reid, Burnham etc) and said a series of Labour ministers were in charge when there was this ‘target culture’ in hospitals (that hoped for foundation status). The third reference was to a previous Labour inquiry. Three mentions of Labour, one in the intro, two in the piece and no mention at all afterwards during the ‘debate’. All in 22 minutes. Now, if this was the Tories there’d never be any doubt who was in charge and who was to blame (btw, I hate the Tories but even I can see that the BBC is biased against them).
‘…Now, if this was the Tories there’d never be any doubt who was in charge and who was to blame…’
Correct. But they wouldn’t have left it with a passing comment. They would have relentlessly pursued the Tories they held responsible and night after night call for their resignations.
…and they wouldn’t have just left it at a few mentions of the party that happened to be in power at the time. They would have gone on to suggest that these failures where entirely the result of the whole political ideology at the heart of Tory governments. As it was a Labour administration, it’s just an individual isolated failure, not systemic.
This is the sort of background hiss of bias that gives Labour the downward slope and prevailing wind.
When something bad happens during a Labour govt it is treated as incidental; yes, a fact, but not with any direct link. When the Tories are in power, well, that’s clearly cause and effect. The relentless attempt to link anything bad from the 80’s (Hillsborough) to Thatcher is a stark example of this.
“So, the skeleton of a five hundred year old king is more important than a lying Lib Dem MP admitting perverting the course of justice.”
Doesn’t have to be a king. Any old stiff is more important than a Lib Dem MP. And more useful.
And on the day that Ms Wark asked two guests for their favourite Shakespeare quotes…..
Now is the winter of our BBC discontent
Made glorious summer by these sons of Miliband;
And all the cold weather that pissed upon our global warming
In the deep bosom of the Met Office buried.
Now are our hands bound with frozen licence fees;
Our precious Olympics consigned to un-played dvds;
Our stern alarums are changed to climate change,
Our protest marches, occupy and deceitful Newsnights.
Grim-visaged Iraq war hath moved to the Afghan front;
And now, instead of supporting our brave boys out there
We take fright and are fearful of our adversaries,
Then again, some may say, on t’other hand,
We quite admire the Taliband.
We caper nimbly in a ladyboy’s chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of an old Radio One DJ.
We were determined to shield the villain
We hate the prying measures known as FOIs.
Plots have we laid, inductions dangerous,
By drunken prophecies, LibDems and dreams,
To set the Coalition, our former mate Nick and King Dave
In deadly hate the one against the other:
And as if King Dave were really anti-EU and just
As we are subtle, false and treacherous,
This day should Cleggy closely be mew’d up,
About a prophecy, which says that
Of Huw Edward’s heirs the murderer shall be.
Dive, thoughts, Dimblebys to our souls: here
Lord Patten comes.
Oh I like this!
This surely could be a regular event-and remind us of the great bard into the bargain.
Brilliant…sir , forsooth!
Would dearly like to oblige – but there are only so many quill pens and very few words will rhyme with ‘extreme weather events’.
…’warmists seeking their rents’
…’more taxes for governments’
…’blowing away Glastonbury tents’
Brilliant – hope some BBC trolls are watching as it should cause them to think again (or start thinking!) Love it AsIseeit!!
Shouldn’t be long before this silly kid appears on the BBC:
Margaret Thatcher had “psychopathic tendencies”, says actress who played her
I’ll say.
Probably as a medical correspondent on par with those other science, defence, etc analysts that the BBC seems to hire on the basis of knowing zero about their avowed subject.
One looks forward to her ”Luvvies do Freud, they do”, next in the series after “Ecuadorean Ambassadors as ENT specialists”.
Be fair, this was said in an interview with Radio Times. How’s a luvvie supposed to get a job if the BBC thinks she might be a conservative? Playing Mrs T like that could scupper a promising career.
I think it should be remembered that this actress has spent so much of her life pretending to be someone else, like so many other ‘Luvvies’, she doesn’t know who she is now, seemingly blurring the boundaries between reality and the fantasy life she has chosen for herself, this time as some sort of forensic psychologist (perhaps she fancies a part in the remake of ‘Cracker’) .
Clearly in patholgising Thatcher, there is some transference taking place.
From her wiki page…
Riseborough grew up in Whitley Bay, England. In reference to The Long Walk To Finchley, she has described her parents as “working class Thatcherites”.
‘Daddy issues’.
Actoooors and their ostentatious boasts of empathy.
UGH!
It usually is.
Good morning, you’re listening to the BBC. Today we bring you a new initiative – our very own BBC Love David Cameron Day. We know what you are thinking, but hold your horses a moment while we do something that may frighten them. We have never believed in any gay bar to entry into the UK. We support equality for all British people from the top nobs down to the smallest cottagers. And now our special Love David Cameron Day expresses the love that dare not speak its name on any other day of the year. This programme will not be repeated.
The alarm came on waking me up to the dulcet tones of the Today programme – unusually for me I thought ‘Oh, good; I am going to enjoy Huhne’s downfall brought to me by Justin and John’. Well during the time I was listening there wasn’t a peep – too much time being taken up with gay marriage (where was Evan?)
The Today prog is full of the gay marriage vote. I can’t muster too much enthusiasm either way but I am bemused by “liberals” who screech about “equality” “fairness” and “tolerance.” Some of them seem to be almost hysterical. It seems to me that Cameron is doing his usual bit to suck up to the guardianistas that infest the media, but in fact make up a tiny proportion of the population. Still, now we have been told just how impotant gay marriage is and that anyone who opposes it is intolerant, narrow minded and a bigot
I look forward to all the demonstrations outside mosques.
Oh, maybe not!
Seriously, stop listening to the Toady programme. It is enough to upset the most generous and forgiving of level headed of people for days afterwards.
They were doing the same thing on BBC Radio Manchester this morning. It must be everywhere today, across every BBC station. There’s a simple solution though: the off switch.
Re Today: comment from someone called ‘Thinking person’ on Cranmer, today:
“Time and time again the BBC sides with the pro-gay marriage view. Just this morning on the Today programme when John Humphreys tried to pick apart the argument from the man from The Telegraph who was against the bill without picking apart the view from the pro-gay marriage person.”
5th Feb 11.06
I’ve swapped my daily listening from Radio 4, 5 Live & Radio London to TalkSport. There are some downsides, I can recite several builder supplies adverts, including impersonating Mr “Selco” and I am listening to far too much about Arsenal FC but on the plus side my blood pressure is down and my fantasy football teams are performing rather well.
Dame Nikki is having a mass debate about Gay marriages.
him and bacon are both mass debaters
Bangladesh, Britain and Islamic Jihad.
“Bangladesh: Abdul Kader Mullah gets life sentence for war crimes”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21332622
Will there be outraged Bangladeshi immigrant Muslims in:
Tower Hamlets, Birmingham, Oldham, Luton, Bradford, etc?
You would have thought the Beeb might have mentioned that Britain has an eminent member of East London’s Bangladeshi community, Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin, who was involved in murdering Bangladeshi intellectuals at the time. He even had a hand in trying to abduct a BBC employee.
http://www.genocidebangladesh.org/?p=296
It tells you a lot about the powers that be that offal like him achieve positions of power in our society (and a Qatada lives in comfort) while the hated Tommy Robinson is kept in solitary confinement for using someone else’s passport to enter another country.
Supplementary.
“Leading British Muslim leader faces war crimes charges in Bangladesh” (2012).
By Andrew Gilligan.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/bangladesh/9204831/Leading-British-Muslim-leader-faces-war-crimes-charges-in-Bangladesh.html
London: ‘Muslim Patrol’ update –
“UK: ‘The police cannot stop us, the kuffar cannot stop us. We are coming to implement Islam immediately…We will implement Islam upon your own necks.”
[ inc 3 min video clip.]
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/02/uk-the-police-cannot-stop-us-the-kuffar-cannot-stop-us-we-are-coming-to-implement-islam-immediatelyw.html
The Naomi Oni acid attack should be the cause of a nationally publicised manhunt. In stead the the Beeb tell us that police are keeping an open mind. Taliban tactics have come to Dagenham
Great Jim al Khalili interview( the Life Scientific 9.00am today) where a great woman (Val Beral) puts the blame squarely where it belongs in regard of breast cancer( not enough breastfeeding, not enough kids when young! in the West)…she scotches the notion of radiation as a cancer cause , and gives the sisters the dangers of HRT as a cuase of cancer later.
I simplify of course, but poor Jim just HAD to tell us that lots of kids when young, long breastfeeding times are NOt BBC policy in effect.
Val would have smiled…but to hear a proper scientist give us simple home truths without the Womans Hour gloss was great.
No wonder she`s so feared and hated…like Lovelock, she follows the science to difficult endings…and brave for doing so!
Anybody else catch the snipe against George Osbourne from Paxman during University Challenge?
The cheer from an audience member said much too.
How typical then , to have St Valerie being followed by some guff where John McCarthy( ex guest of Hezbollah militia for a few years in Beirut) talks to some lady who had been the victim of an abusive, violent arranged marriage…she was “Asian” I believe!…in Long Eaton.
Now then…do you think that John and our outsider of a lady might both have been the captives…the victims of something more than “the global conspiracy against Socialism”?
Yet it`s the bond-the love -that dare not speak its name?
Was the lady only Asian…or did she have a belief system shared by McCarthys over-exuberant hosts…after all, we know that Islam is big on hospitality, and maybe they kept plying him with sheeps eyes and pistachios, long after he`d felt the need to get back to the BBC or whoever.
Was she Muslim Johnny Boy?…there I`ve asked it!
And now another actress has piped up with fascinating revelations:
Helen Mirren attacks ‘racist and sexist’ trade unions
I wish they’d stick to what they do best.
I suspect that she pretended to be a left-winger not because it was ‘“more interesting” than being a right-winger’ but because she knew she had to to get on.
It turns out that Google is even more useful than we had thought. Search terms including ‘black’ names like Leroy, Kareem and Keisha yield advertisements that read “Arrested?”, with a link to a website which could perform criminal record checks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21322183
Not surprisingly, the bBBC is against it, and the author, Latanya Sweeney, isn’t entirely impartial, either.
Beeboids interested?;-
“Where’s the liberal outrage at this sinister threat to our freedom?”
By RICHARD LITTLEJOHN
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2273451/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Wheres-liberal-outrage-sinister-threat-freedom.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2273469/Thousands-BBC-journalists-strike-row-compulsory-redundancies-Corporation.html#axzz2K1w1NJUx
Good!
I’m assuming that the striking staff will not be paid so what will happen to the license payers’ money – will it be returned and who decides anyway?
“BBC staff complain of busy lifts, narrow staircases and ‘rock-hard’ baked potatoes in new HQ.
“BBC staff have complained about the revamped £1 billion headquarters, saying the canteen food is ‘awful’, the stairs too narrow to walk up and that they ‘dream’ of returning to White City.”
By Hannah Furness.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9849399/BBC-staff-complain-of-busy-lifts-narrow-staircases-and-rock-hard-baked-potatoes-in-new-HQ.html
Send ’em to Salford.
The poor loves. Someone remind them that they’re paid a damn sight more than our soldiers in Helmand.
Would they care to swap for a while?
Stairs too narrow? Have they given another job to that Abbott woman again.
Pity about those budget cuts. If only they had been able to spend even more cash on the place instead of having to absorb the World Service. Although, with all the coming redundancies, there ought to be a bit more room to maneuver on those narrow staircases.
less queuing for the microwave as well
I was only kidding about absorbing the World Service impacting on the amount of money the BBC had to spend on this refurbishment, but I see now I wasn’t so far off:
BBC TV Centre to include hotel, flats and offices
London’s BBC Television Centre is to be developed into a hotel, flats and offices but will also see the broadcaster make programmes in three of its studios.
The £200m development plans for the historic site have revealed the building’s forecourt will be opened up to the public.
The main circular building, known to BBC employees as “the doughnut”, will become a hotel and apartments.
Studios 1, 2 and 3 will be refitted.
Other buildings will be transformed into offices and houses and the 14-acre site will also house the BBC’s commercial arm, BBC Worldwide.
No sniggering at the back about the name of the developer’s rep.
Comming to a telescreen near you, Archive on 4 why Orwells distopian vision 1984 is not at all the anti left wing diatribe we have all known for years, it’s just that we’ve been reading it wrong !
No doubt the BBC would like to erase all kinds of criticism of the left regardless of how unrealistic that might be. I await it with the usual bored hopelessness
On the BBC R4 Today Programme this morning (05/02) at “10 to 8” there was a slot on banking regulation. Some Yank went on about “twin peaks” for the first half. Then Justin Webb interviewed Professor Geoffrey Wood of the University of Buckingham. He had been an advisor to the Bank of England.
Professor W: “Politicians have a tremendous tendency to interfere with these things. Before the first -er- Blair/Brown government, the regulatory -er- bank regulatory system in Britain actually seemed to work rather well. In that it delivered the most stable banking system in the world and that is tremendously important for the economy.”
Justin W: “Well it’s said – yeah but there were quite a few problems it was storing up weren’t there?”
Professor W: “Not that far back, no…what’s led to problems and released them, was the new regulatory system for people focussed simply on carrying out what he seemed to want. A detailed rule book, and if people broke those rules – people were punished. What we need is not a detailed rule book, but a reliance on judgement and a reliance on the wider implications of the bank’s action.”
Justin W: “Professor Geoffrey Wood, thank you very much.”
I wonder if the Prof. will ever be invited back…
I heard this too!
The University of Buckingham is about the only independent new university created in our lifetimes.
No wonder the Prof had a mind of his own.
As you say…it`ll be Blanchflower and all his drooling lefties, Krugman and all his Democrat shillers now from now until election day.
How very DARE some academic bring up the unfortunate Brown and Blair dream team…for didn`t St Bono Himself call them Lennon and MacCartney of politics?
And poor Brown….he`s unable to defend himself you know, seeing as he`s never in the Commons…so he should never be criticised…got that?
No doubt the BBCs friends in charities, academe and Goldsmiths/LSE(which are both charity and er..”academic”) will be wondering how best to stop any future funding to the Socialist-denier…only to find that he`s free and beyond their maw, thank Buddha!
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2644/_muslim_patrol_returns_to_address_david_cameron
“anyone who tries to stop us, we will take their alcohol, we will tell the women to cover up, and we will implement Islam upon your own necks, David Cameron”
feel the love eh! …
will they turn up on nexts weeks “make a muslim
hope we don t have to wait 3 weeks to read all about it on al bbc.
http://youtu.be/UlSknRlQSqs
More of the usual bBBC bias. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21302065
Let’s take a typical 24-year-old everyperson. They’re one of the 18.5% of people aged 18-24 in the UK who are out of work.
So, according to the bBBC, the vast majority (more than four-in-five) of 18-24-year-olds have a job but their ‘typical’ person is one who hasn’t.
Brilliant piece of demolition, there.
The BBC understands what it is doing with numbers, and concepts like averages, means, medians, etc. It’s just hoping that its audience doesn’t. And the way our education system is going, it’s probably not too far off the mark with that hope.
I was still getting my head around the main picture featuring your average British everyperson youth out and about when I arrived at the comments:
Header: 5 February 2013 Last updated at 14:08
Opened: 1. undergroundsteez 8 HOURS AGO
Last: 995. Bridgeburner 3 HOURS AGO
Now, closed for comments having been open for 5hrs, all during the working day.
The BBC seems to be a club reserved for a very unique audience, and one that is not restricted by work demands from accessing the internet.
This seems hardly representative of the licence fee paying public compelled to fund them.
ps: The lowest rated comment is either false flag or insane. A hoot either way.
I was trying not to read the usual BBC bias into the piece, although the signs were there (this is evidence of the widening gap between the rich and poor, ooh, those awful EMA cuts, greedy rich oldies living in big houses they don’t need) and was not encouraged when they wheeled out a Conservative MP to support the agenda. My suppressed suspicions turned out to be right, though, when the article ended with a call for a taxpayer-funded pension for the 20-somethings. A nice bookend to the blatant bias at the top which Sir Arthur noted.
I see the BBC is still giving Alex Salmond house-room when it comes to spouting about his goals re Scotland. ‘Independence Day’, we are now being told by this megalomaniac, will be some time in March 2016, if he has his way.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21331302
What the BBC doesn’t point out (amongst a multitude of other things) is the electoral problems that this will raise if Mr Salmond ever convinces enough people that Scotland would be safe in his hands, since in May 2015, we will have a UK General Election….and I’m sure more than a few people will want an answer to the West Lothian Question long before that… like the day after the referendum if it goes Mr Salmond’s way.
For those who may be interested, there’s an interesting side panel on the above web-page which also sheds some additional light on Mr Salmond’s attempts to’gerry-mander’ the key dates for the process.
If the Scots vote to leave the UK in 2014 I want their MPs out of our UK Parliament forthwith.
You fail to understand that a “Yes” vote in the Referendum is merely the start of the process and empowers the Scottish Government to enter into negotiations with Westminster to agree the terms of independence.
As for BBC Scotland “giving Alex Salmond house-room”; would it not be rather biased of them to ignore the views of the democratically elected Scottish Government?
As far as I’m concerned, you vote out – you’re out. Of course we all know that what Alex Salmond is really all about is the attempt to seize an even larger slice of the UK pie. His game is to demand more or else he and the Scots take the high road. To which I would answer – well go on then! There’s no future in a pick and mix UK. Now that the genie is out of the bottle there’s no going back. Independence for England – the sooner the better.
” Independence for England – the sooner the better. “……………… Why note vote for the English Democrats” then.
http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk/the-english-democrats-democratics-policies-policy.html
As you say it starts the independence negotiation process. I think most of us understand this full well. Effectively it is the beginning of the end of the Union as it can only end in full independence.
What will happen to the BBC in Scotland then I wonder?
At least our TV tax will have to go down.
You fail, Albaman, to understand that I obviously DO know what the impact of a ‘Yes’ vote will be if the referendum goes Mr Salmond’s way, and it is perhaps yourself that fails to comprehend what the impact of the dates in the calendar all mean.
I haven’t heard the BBC at all discuss what will happen when, IF Mr Salmond’s views result in a vote late in 2014 for Scotland to leave the UK, then we will have the situation where a number of MPs will be elected only for the period May 2015 (UK elections) to March 2016 (Scottish Independence), and I am pretty sure no-one is going to allow these MPs to vote on any issues which affect the remaining countries in the UK beyond the point where Scotland exits. And, of course, there is the clear likelihood that, given the preponderance of Labour and LibDem MPs likely to be elected in Scotland versus Conservative MPs, this could skew the make-up of the UK Parliament, and perhaps even the alter the status of the UK government only a few months after the UK election.
I am not averse to Mr Salmond being afforded a platform on the BBC, but it must not be an uncritical one (which it has been to date), and those who oppose the SNP’s aims beyond this referendum must be given an equal platform to tell all of the people in the UK what this vote means. Because Mr Salmond’s clear aim is to destroy the UK, not just for Scotland to leave it, since he’s clearly aware what that that would mean in world terms – i.e. the UK will move on as before, and Scotland will need to start again. So he’s not just trying to affect Scotland’s future, it’s everyone else’s he’s trying to dictate.
The rest of the UK would be crazy to let this small-minded, but clever, megalomaniac get away with any of this. And the BBC must not be allowed to be complicit in allowing this to happen.
“Mr Salmond’s clear aim is to destroy the UK, not just for Scotland to leave it……”. Can you back this little piece of unionist rhetoric up with fact?