Hi folks. I’m currently in the Hague on business and thus beyond the remit of the BBC. But this is for you poor souls who listen to it today!
Open thread
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- StewGreen Nov 15, 00:27
Midweek 13th November 2024
Quick bit of info from GBnews.. “Musk has retweeted GBnews twice in the last 24 hours” One tweet was about… - StewGreen Nov 15, 00:20
Midweek 13th November 2024
The Alison Pearson case The police are now saying she was wrong to say it was a non-crime hate incident… - StewGreen Nov 15, 00:17
Midweek 13th November 2024
Police breaking the law again. They cleared someone 2 months ago But only decided to tell her tonight Yes #TheProcessIsThePunishment… - JohnC Nov 14, 23:48
Midweek 13th November 2024
University cash crisis to get worse despite tuition fee rise, BBC told https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c14lv7e61d3o [img]https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/c006/live/66b8a290-a27e-11ef-9881-317cd05de9c4.jpg.webp[/img] By one of the BBC’s own… - Guest Who Nov 14, 22:28
Midweek 13th November 2024
https://order-order.com/2024/11/14/guardians-self-deplatforming-post-420-times-more-popular-than-average-tweet/? - non-licence payer Nov 14, 22:01
Midweek 13th November 2024
Zephir, how times are changed. This was the sort of advice that was printed in the Socialist Worker. It is… - vlad Nov 14, 21:58
Midweek 13th November 2024
After woke Welby, next woke Francis maybe? (Any non-Catholics, take it from me: he’s just as bad.) - Nibor Nov 14, 21:56
Midweek 13th November 2024
Taffy, Make friends. I’m a moaner and complainer and haven’t paid the telly tax for 20 years, and other taxes. - vlad Nov 14, 21:55
Midweek 13th November 2024
I’ll be a Socialist for 1 night. Nah, too high a price. - Eddy Booth Nov 14, 21:19
Midweek 13th November 2024
He’s too obsessed with “the genocide in Palestine”.
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
How the bBC has become the mouthpiece for the left who hate everything the present government do.
Dogs in England must be microchipped from 2016
Every dog owner in England will have to microchip their animal by April 2016 under plans aimed at cutting the growing number of strays. The government says owners who refuse to comply with changes to the Animal Welfare Act face fines of up to £500. Tiny microchips, coded with the contact details of owners, will be fitted to dogs, which can then be traced. A legal loophole could also be closed, meaning owners could face prosecution if their dog attacked on private land.
Hands up those people who think the above is a good thing? Far too many people (scum of the earth types including Muslims-who the bBC keep on telling me can go nowhere near dogs- are keeping dogs simply to use as a penis extension and yet the bbC have this to say on the matter:
But Beverley Cuddy, editor of Dogs Today magazine, said the scheme was flawed because many owners did not keep their information up to date.
Yup to the bbC, this is a bad idea. I just hope that lots of those idiots who the bbC defends day in day out allow their strap ons to defecate all around the new bBC studios.
It’s only a dog. Don’t they have dog registration in the UK? What’s the difference between a compulsory and removable collar and tag and a permanent microchip?
If the chip stops a valuable (or simply loved) pooch from being destroyed or allows a stolen animal to be conclusively identified what’s the harm?
Dogs used to be licensed but it was unwisely abandoned in the 1980s. As I recall, it was ridiculously cheap with the result that it probably cost a lot to administer and wasn’t taken seriously enough.
When I heard this announcement, my first thought was “will it be enforced equally?”.
Fat chance.
“will it be enforced equally?”.
Of course not.
Any who can pay and may stray.. put down at dawn. And their dogs too.
Any with an excuse and a rights lawyer on funded retainer… probably get issued with a breeders licence. And for dogs too.
Will dogs be allowed to marry unchiped?
Historical curiosity, the dog licence wasn`t it?
Fancy a regressive flat tax on dog owners that brought the authorities into disrepute each time that they tried to enforce the idiocy.
So unlike the TV Licence eh?…thank Allah, we`ve all moved on from THAT nonsense!
Good point.
As stated I approve the dog chip as it holds owners to account. There are responsibility and accountability issues abounding to pet and others. Like a car. You want one, you take on the consequences. It is an opt-in if not essential, so rules apply.
I do not approve the TV licence. For a start it is by authority upon the individual for something they may not want, may not need and over which they have no control.
Also, clearly on matters of account holding and responsibility, there is zero obligation on the BBC for the money sent their way.
If the dog has nothing to hide it has nothing to fear?
Hmm this plan has a problem I just tried to chip my dog but the bugger [no new marriage pun intended!] wouldn’t stay still when I had a go with the peeler [no police one either] bit me and ran off!
Dear BBC/watchdog is my dog dangerous or well informed ???
The RSPCA and other welfare bodies have been calling for the introduction of a £25 dog licence fee. So far the government have not indicated a desire to ring fence this income for, say, animal welfare concerns. Microchipping is fairly relaiable, but problems have arisen regarding the data protection act where the information regarding identity might not be supplied in the case of disputed dog theft. DNA data banks have been rejected as too expensive, but the cost is being reduced and worth considering as it is 100%. reliable, Microchips can store information, concerning innoculations etc, and might inform about rabies jabs. Hopefully this might deter government officials from slaughtering all dogs in the event of a rabies outbreak. Lots of things to consider, but as with all our laws the problem lies with enforcement. Try persuading travellers with aikita/rottie crosses to present their dogs for a microchip scan. Then we have the no go estates which our police pretend not to exist, and we are left with the honest joe who can be harrassed by local authority officials.
This legislation will be connected to proposals for dealing with aggressive and dangerous dogs. I am sure the BBC will conduct interviews with postal workers who have had unpleasant encounters. But will the BBC take the side of dog owners who are victims of burglary? The Welsh Assembly are proposing penalties for dog owners whose dogs attack burglars, and this extends to situations where the burglar attacks the dog first. I wonder if the BBC will consider this along with their belief that criminals are a victimised class
The Welsh Assembly are proposing penalties for dog owners whose dogs attack burglars, and this extends to situations where the burglar attacks the dog first.
Please tell me you are joking, surely no rational body of people would come up with that nonsense.
Maturecheese, I love jokes. I picked this one up in a discussion from the Kennel Club in the newspaper Dog World, over the proposed legislation. It was briefly mentioned by the BBC. But here are a couple of references. http://www.manchesterwired.co.uk/news.php/1472847-Kennel-Club-fears-criminal-charges-if-dogs-bite-burglars
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/pets/9222226/Owners-could-face-jail-if-dogs-attack-burglars-under-new-plans.html
Sense has prevailed. The new proposals will now exempt home owners from prosecution if their dog attacks a burglar. Someone listened to responsible dog owners
‘to the bbC, this is a bad idea’
Sorry Pounce, I have added a like. To some this may mean more than it is, and I fully expect the Spanish Inquisition.
On topic, though getting same sex dog activity involved is not now beyond the bounds of possibility, the BBC at best has an erratic attitude to social responsibilities and engineering.
I’m surprised they are against.
I am for. First thing our puppy had, along with shots & the full pack up to his recent… well… legs still crossed.
It’s part of responsible ownership.
Hence certain groups not into responsibility or accountability less keen. Can’t think why. The breed and deployment beyond pet status may offer a hint.
Also why the BBC would be in such camps?
It’s a mystery.
it is totally flawed.
if your dog is chipped, which actually is no guarantee of finding the owner, if its not chipped chances are its uncared for, so called owners get away scott free, just get another dog from one of many many 1000s of illegals on council estates all over – as usual half baked a “soundbite “solution
a simple solution
all dogs should be muzzled more like – if outside, no exceptions, as an issue of safety,
and then stringent no exception rules on mistreatment, backed up by prison time, which could include due care/cruelty/and illegal breeding, succinct and clear
ps
how to address, the “market forces”
disaster of vets fees though, the expense of which
for many is crippling, and what is little more than “scam”
vet insurances for the poorest in our society
then again, can t afford it/no dog eh!
but, hey … won t be long under this bunch of devious, and divisionary scumbags, that we will all be treated the same way, with the NHS, its obvious thats the long term plan, the agenda.
“But Beverley Cuddy, editor of Dogs Today magazine, said the scheme was flawed because many owners did not keep their information up to date.
Yup to the bbC, this is a bad idea. ” …………………. Is there a reason that you omitted the following supportive comments from your post:
“The RSPCA welcomed the proposals, but said it doubted that they alone would “make owners more responsible or ensure fewer dogs bite people”; and “Clarissa Baldwin, chief executive of the Dogs Trust charity, said the scheme would make “a huge difference”.
In your attempt to prove “bias” on such a mundane issue you also failed to include why Beverley Cuddy said the scheme as flawed: “The National Dog Warden Association says 40% of the dogs they pick up that are chipped have got incomplete or inaccurate data, meaning they can’t be returned,” she said.
Any law is flawed if people break it – what a fuck wit!
Whatever the law achieves it’s not going to increase the number of untraceable owners and more than likely it’s going to decrease that number.
How about we microchip every immigrant/Islamist terrorist, instead?
theres not enough microchips, and its probably forbiden by the koran.
I’ve always wondered why a chav needs a licence to keep a Bull Terrior but the same scummy chav can have a baby without any restrictions even several babies, all at taxpayers expense of course!!
Pounce;
“How the bBC has become the mouthpiece for the left who hate everything the present government do
But Beverley Cuddy, editor of Dogs Today magazine, said the scheme was flawed because many owners did not keep their information up to date.
Yup to the bbC, this is a bad idea.”
Poor, very poor Pounce.
You pick out one quote from the bbc report in a feeble effort to try and prove your point; while ignoring several other quotes from the report, such as:
The RSPCA welcomed the proposals
Microchipping is a simple solution that gives peace of mind to owners. It makes it easier to get their pet back if it strays and easier to trace if it’s stolen
Compulsory microchipping and extending the law to cover private property as well as public spaces is a welcome move
Clarissa Baldwin, chief executive of the Dogs Trust charity, said the scheme would make “a huge difference”
Top marks for the totally random “Muslim” stuff though! Nothing like a bit of hate in the morning is there?
Perhaps the BBC will run some dog chipping ads along similar lines to their TV Licence ads. You know, “We’ve got you in our database, Fido!”
Don’t give them any ideas – otherwise everyone who owns a cat, a bird or a goldfish will have to pay the Dog License too.
So we can look forward to hundred’s of vans full of jobsworth civil servants prowling the streets with dog detecter guns.
The muggers and rapists go free to fill the prisons with unchipped dog owners.
And thousands of Romanian and Bulgarian “special breeds” that will not need to be chipped…just allowed to bring rabies or what have you as their culture would demand.
Equal Rights for we British Mongrels…as if!
There’s a lot of rabies in Eastern Europe, which might have a lot to do with compulsory dog chips.
I’ll have a horse burger, with a side order of ‘dog chips’ please. 😯
You see, this is the great thing about immigration – it’s really enriched our modern national cuisine compared to the blandness of the fifties British diet.
😈
Did people with Dalmatians only pay for a black and white licence?
LoL. And props if original.
http://order-order.com/2013/02/06/how-ipsa-tip-off-mps-facing-expenses-exposes/
Lumme, dodgy checks & balances at high level in the public sector?
IPSA better rebrand as a Trust, STAT!
It has worked sooooo well for the BBC & NHS to date. Well, in world-class envy cover-up terms. It’s a wonder some countries don’t send delegations to learn how they do it? Or is that what Prescott & Hodge etc are always off on junkets to ‘share’?
Not so much for improving the lot of their no-choice client bases, but there you go.
You just wait until WE all have to be chipped…
First they will have you pay for an ID card. But what do you have to fear if you are a law abiding citizen…..
Next they will have your DNA on a database. But what do you have to if you are a law abiding citizen.
Then they will have you electronically tagged. But what…
Well you get the idea.
It’s progressive politics at work.
Anybody else find Sarah Montagues “interview” with a midwife(who could not be named “for fear of losing her job”…so played by an actress) a bit too “on-message”(Today 8.10 am 6/2/13)
It` s not that I would not agree with much of it…I do.
It`s just suspicious-the editing etc and the “it`s not quantified” response to a prompt from Sarah, sounded very much as if someone creative at the Beeb is writing words that need to be said, not what the midwife actually DID say.
I reckon there`s scope for a scandal here….the BBC do a lot of these “played by actors” bits…and I`d be very surprised if they weren`t using the cover of anonymity to add their two cents every chance that they get to!
‘the BBC do a lot of these “played by actors” bits’
Making it a total fiction in terms of news value.
And after McAlpine the BBC has zero credibility in source testimony.
http://audioboo.fm/boos/1196619-nhs-nurses-penalised-for-caring
The piece itself is more nuanced, and even critical of the world-envied internal structures, and especially berks managing and overseeing it, but this intro was pretty amazing…
‘where nurses are allowed to give up on the most basic standards of care’
I am perplexed as to how a caring vocation candidate gets ‘allowed’ to give up on the fundamental basis of their profession as if they have no contribution.
I am also not sure how much of this is genuine interview or staged edit.
Everbody knows, but no one is saying anything
Sound familiar?
The bit about getting sacked for trying to put it right… not so much.
This is the biggest arse-covering campaign you will ever see since Prescott climbed on top.
Some dope in the Comments pages of the DM seriously suggested cutting NHS staff wages to the point where only the most altruistic caring dedicated staff would want to work for the NHS, at a stroke solving the problem of badly motivated staff. If his ideas came about I wish him luck dying in the gutter until Britains last remaining doctor wades through 500,000 patients to tend to his needs. What happens to common sense when people think they have a solution to the NHS problem that basically replaces the NHS with their Mum?
What with gay marriage, EU equalities directive and the ECHR right to a family life, gays could have a right to foetal implants on the NHS soon.
Pity children haven’t got rights, like normal parents.
How the bBC reports the news when its bad news day for Islamic terrorists and thugs.
France action in Mali is real war, says Le Drian
French forces are embroiled in a “real war” with “terrorists” around the Malian town of Gao, Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian has said.
And here is what everybody else in the world is reporting:
French troops kill ‘hundreds’ of Islamist fighters in Mali
Hundreds’ of rebels killed in Mali
So what is this war the bBC quote all about: Here is the full statement from French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian:
On Tuesday, Le Drian said “several hundred” Al Qaida-linked militants had been killed by French air strikes as well as “direct combat in the key central and northern towns of Konna and Gao.
“This is a real war with significant losses but I’m not going to get into an accounting exercise,” he said on Wednesday when asked about the toll.
France’s sole fatality so far has been a helicopter pilot killed at the start of the military operation 27 days ago.
http://gulfnews.com/news/world/other-world/france-braces-ahead-to-win-back-northern-mali-1.1142675?
Not exactly the message the bBC promote is it.
The bBC, the traitors within our midst”
Hundreds of terrorists and only one Frenchman killed.
I expect we’ll soon be hearing about the ‘disproportionate’ casualty figures in this ‘unfair’ war. (not) 🙄
No time to read in full, but were the Islamist fighters ‘daring’ and ‘audacious’ in their valiant efforts?
Or are those terms reserved for the BBC for guys in drains setting off IEDs, launching Grads, taking potshots at bases, killing colleagues in canteens or kidnapping aid workers?
Wonder how long the comments will stay open today?
The BBC did report this story many times on air and here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21343473
Does anyone here reserch. Course not, its bias to check your facts!
The very fact that you had to run a SEARCH for that article shows that this headline is not one that the BBC want to highlight. Even the ‘Real War’ headline has now been replaced by France seeks quick UN Mali handover on their Africa webpage.
If it would have been Israel killing ‘hundreds of terrorists’ (or ‘militants’ as the BBC likes to refer to them), one can be certain that not only would it have been the lead Mid-East webpage story, but also the main Home and whatever other webpage they could slot it into.
Another element is that France has been using air strikes to target these terrorists, which have also been in towns that they had controlled. Strange there’s no outcry about the ‘innocent civilian casualties’ which also would have been a consequence, like when Israel does the same.
A Google search shows that this has been the case. Clearly Mali lives have less import to the BBC than Palestinian, as well as to the rest of the Muslim community.
Just a comment on Gay Marriage.
Driving home last night, caught 5-live report.
“David Milliband hailed the passage ….” I would have thought it would have started off with. “The Gay marriage Act has been voted through by Parliament.”, followed by a statement from the coalition and then one by a representative of her majesty’s most loyal opposition.
A bit of an aside, but The Register are reporting “that one of the key factors in the increasing support among straight men for same-sex marriage comes down to how much pornography they consume” (article link). Not sure what this says about “call me Dave”?
‘Hailing the passage’, a wonderful euphemism for gay high jinx. Poetic.
Someone on one of the threads said recently that the French were passing their own laws on gay marriage so there was bound to be an EU dimension to this. (Sorry, can’t find it now.) It chimed with my own feelings.
Well, lo and behold. Not strictly an EU dimension, but the Council of Europe.
This will come as a surprise to no-one except the wilfully blind, of course. But how typical that I have to rely on Richard North to tell me, because I’ve heard diddly-squat from the BBC despite large quantities of airtime being given to this.
There have been big street protests (tens of thousands of people) both for and against it in France.
‘The least government is the best’ according to Thomas Paine or perhaps some Frenchman in the 17th century. We are all suffering from Government, EU and even Councils all hooked on making laws. Its like a drug.
‘I do not approve the TV licence. For a start it is by authority upon the individual for something they may not want, may not need and over which they have no control.’
A bit like taxes then.
True.
Of course, like all less than perfect systems (including democracy) taxes are meant to cover idealistic essentials on a community-benefit shared basis.
Health, Education, Transport, Defence, etc.
EastEnders not so much.
Or double hush-money payoffs, Salford relocation packs, McAlpine legal bills, FoI exclusion lawyers, Microwaves for sulky staff to cook food as sarnies or a Pot Noodle just won’t do, or CECUTT investigations that make Stafford Hospital’s look like the ultimate in cost-saving transparency.
All of which most functioning democratic, free-speaking, free market cultures appear to manage, uniquely, just fine without.
Anybody heard this reported anywhere?
Report: Gunman fires at Danish anti-Islam writer, misses
Report: Gunman fires at Danish anti-Islam writer, misses
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21341878
The report looks a little less slanted against Hedegaard than the shorter version I saw posted yesterday, which was positively indecent in its haste to mention a conviction for insulting Muslims and his support for the “far-right anti-Islam Dutch politician, Gert Wilders.”
I think it’s the same report. News Sniffer has two very slightly different versions of it. The first one is what George R linked to yesterday in the previous open thread.
At least the BBC managed to discover that the charges of insulting Islam were thrown out. I’d still like to know how the Danish government can express support for Hedegaard’s right to free speech (saying he shouldn’t be shot for it is about as much support for free speech as one can find in Europe these days), but still have laws against insult Islam, which curtails free speech and serves only to tell nutbags that their anger is just.
It contains a correction (kicking myself for being too ignorant to spot it yesterday)
“Correction, 6 February: We said earlier that Mr Hedegaard had been fined in 2011 for making insulting statements about Muslims. However, the judgment was later thrown out.”
His original off the record comment, about Muslims raping their daughters and granddaughters, was pretty outrageous but then you come across a story like this:
http://www.examiner.com/article/saudi-arabia-islamic-cleric-rapes-tortures-kills-daughter-pays-fine
What a bloody awful story…poor kid.
I’m sure some of our esteemed board members will be more than happy to defend the evil brute though.
“Tsk….welllll, it’s their way, innit?”…rolley eyes.
No, they’ll say it’s not the way of the vast majority of Mohammedans, all of whom would obviously condemn such an act. This is an isolated incident by a single, lone extremist who was driven to this act by Western Foreign Policy and the racism and oppression he experienced every day. There is no connection whatsoever to his culture.
The BBC won’t worry too much, they reflexively label people like Mr. Hedegaard as extremists and so anything that happens to them is to be expected.
If you’re a ‘right-wing extremist’, you probably had it coming, whatever happens to you.
Scroll to about 40 minutes in to hear Douglas Murray’s recollection of a reply to a complaint he made to the BBC about a Panorama episode that was titled ‘Geert Wilders – The Most Dangerous Man In Europe?”
So – the evidence that the man is an extremist is that he needs bodyguards to protect him from members of the Religion of Peace. This isn’t mere moral relativism, it’s a complete inversion of reality.
There is no greater demonstration as to why anyone who is considered to be right-wing by the BBC either has a hard time being taken seriously or is deemed to be beyond the pale…
40 minutes in…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2013/02/bbc_arabic_and_the_complexitie.html
3 days, 18 comments.
Closed now.
I wonder if it was what folk were saying they didn’t like.
Nothing complex about the BBC and how people express themselves.
February 17th last year is the last time the BBC deigned to cover the story of Emma West of the “Rant on the Tram” fame.
That’s curious because they had been really interested. It’s also sad for the viewing public as this now surreal story is just getting interesting.
Check out:”Two Racist Crimes” for more at:
http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/
I posted yesterday to point out how little was on the today programme about Chris Huhne (well it was the day before that he pleaded guilty). But because the BBC didn’t know about the change of plea they couldn’t cover it on the day.
Well this morning was absolutely wall to wall about the gay marriage bill in spite of yesterday being dedicated to it.. As usual they BBC only covers the news they want to cover.
Guest Who says:
3 days, 18 comments.
Closed now.
I wonder if it was what folk were saying they didn’t like.
Doesn’t seem unusual to me to close after that period. Compared to most Editors Blog comments these seem quite complimentary. They shouldn’t be taken to be representative of the public or viewers though, they’re mostly from the same collection of saddos and conspiracy nuts.
Do you check the Editors Blog every day or do you get some type of alert?
Unique.
Doesn’t seem unusual to me to close after that period.
In a Dr. Gregory ‘I’m genuinely just interested’ way, are you qualified beyond personal opinion in that?
Compared to most Editors Blog comments these seem quite complimentary.
All is, of course, relative.
They shouldn’t be taken to be representative of the public or viewers though,
You have authority in such advice based on what again?
they’re mostly from the same collection of saddos and conspiracy nuts.
The kind that would, if allowed here, compromise this blog? That sounds… familiar? Just like all those Germanic types driving by and taking a pop.
Do you check the Editors Blog every day or do you get some type of alert?
Questions, questions. No. Don’t know.
Unique.
Sadly, not, Else I’d copyright it.
Oh, and from the same BBC series…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/posts/Welcome-to-the-new-look-Internet-blog
‘Up to now on the Internet blog comments were normally open for three months. In the absence of the “Topical posts on this blog” feature we have reduced this to one week (with exceptions)
Guess this was an exception then?
Now, as you are here and savvy in such things, this notion of opening comments only during one working day, is that allowing fair representation by the majority of licence fee payers at work and without internet access do you think?
Or might it be a way to leave ‘comment’ on the BBC platforms more for those in rather niche areas, yet get sampled and portrayed as ‘speaking for the nation’?
When you’re ready.
‘All of which most functioning democratic, free-speaking, free market cultures appear to manage, uniquely, just fine without’
And yet most are envious of our system.
And yet most are envious of our system.
World class envy of the UK public sector services a brave thing to raise today.
This ‘our system’ of whom you speak? This what be who and what?
If the one I think you are referring to and seem proud enough to almost be part of, it might also be wise to not conflate what was with what is now.
One would imagine, given the parlous state of the UK economy and strength of many others (the BBC tells me), it would be but a small matter to have such a thing in place in a heartbeat.
Why has no one matched the ambition with action?
Ignore Barabas. He’s not here to discuss BBC reporting. He’s here for ideological/political purposes only.
Really? That’s a shame.
And here was me thinking that just as I was in process of engaging in a bit of air to airhead combat with an established Flokker, a new friend had happened along, in no way creepy or stalky-like, to engage in objective debate on matters media.
Guessing the odds on my getting informed answers on the BBC’s odd habit of pulling comments or only allowing them up when most are at work won’t get a reply at all, much less a genuine one then?
Still, he did manage to see some valuable points get made, so no real loss.
‘…air to airhead combat….’ – nice turn of phrase.
“You daft bugger – the crowd told you to let Jesus go and crucify the other one”
Nah, we chose Barabas because it sounds funny when your boss says his name.
In fact did not the Australians who had ‘our’ system dump it by popular demand?
Presume so as to become envious.
Wasn’t that their version of the license fee?
And yet most are envious of our system
links please.
I was brought up believing that, but by the time I eventually found out that this was not so.
Canada, the only country to copy the NHS idea, had already dumped the failed socialist ideal of a National Health Service.
I suppose this means that BBC propaganda wears off over time.
Canada still has socialized medicine. Only it’s like a federation of individual systems for each province, and not a one-size-fits-all national system. It’s still all free at point of care, paid for in full by the taxpayer. Doctors get paid per service by the provincial government, which is why there are waiting lists and a lack of top quality ones in some areas.
Sometimes you almost have to feel sorry for the bBBC. (No, not really!) But they’re completely mixed-up over how to spin the damning report into the Stafford Hospitals. You can imagine the editorial discussion:
Can we criticise the Nationalised Health Service – Envy Of The World? (Er, no)
Can we admit that Labour’s policies killed people? (Er, no)
Can we interview any politicians about the failings of the NHS? (Er, no)
I’ll tell you what: why don’t we just report the findings, without putting any political slant on it? (Shocked silence; no-one at the bBBC knows how to do that)
‘no-one at the bBBC knows how to do that’
It’s taken them most of the morning to ponder the dilemma, but from what’s spewing out now in analysis, views, vox pops and opinion from the usual suspects, they have opted to give the pure reporting a miss again.
Watched Sky and BBC news side by side this morning (no, not I’m not a weirdo with two TVs side by side, just split screen). Sky News opened with that abattoir in Stafford that has managed to kill more people in the UK than the Taliban. At the same time, BBC was opening with Cameron’s gay marriage problems in Parliament.
Says it all, really.
Which of course, on Wednesday, was actually Tuesdays now old news. The BBC just can’t help themselves.
I am sure every story (or potential story) carries a 1-5 ‘can this harm the Tories?’ scoring system which makes News department’s editorial decision meetings very easy.
Never mind…there’ll be a RBS / Libor story along to bail them out.
(It does seem, though, that Labour are keeping their heads down today)
Unfortunately Cameron apologised on behalf of the government for Stafford so the BBC tonight can play that on a perpetual loop. On the other hand that can intersperse it with Milliband saying that all governments should be guarded about too many reorganisations of the NHS. Could the BBC just remember under which Party’s watch the problems at Stafford happened?
It’s that year zero thing again at the BBC.
On Channel 4 News, Julie Bailey, an articulate & rightfully angry member/founder of ‘Cure the NHS’ was refreshingly unambiguous about where the blame lay for the heartbreaking mass-neglect at Mid Staffs Hospital – yes, the Blair/Brown years. Years of targets & bullying management. She also launched a ground-to-mandarin missile up Sir David Nicholson’s well-padded khyber. Snowy allowed her full rein to put New Labour up there where it belongs – in the dock. Good Snowy. Sometimes.
Dear Richard Bacon,
You spoiled an otherwise decent interview with Jeremy Hunt about the Mid-Staffs scandal. You asked Hunt when he had last visited someone who was a patient in an NHS hospital. This was an attempt to portray to Hunt as an out of touch Tory. His reply “the Saturday before last” took you quite by surprise. The disappointment in your reply, “was it?”, was almost tangible.
What was that Bacon said about senior BBC staff having BUPA insurance?
The BBC coverage of the Scottish independence referendum will be interesting. If the Scots vote for independence then of course the Tories on the current non Scottish Westminster seats would have a clear majority . So the next election , post Scotland leaving the UK, would be an interesting one. If BBC Scotland favoured independence , and many of the Scottish contributors to this site think the BBC favours the SNP , then they may well find themselves at odds with the rest of the BBC who would face much higher probabilities of future Tory governments in the rump of the UK.
The BBC must be working out what they should do . Perhaps keeping their views to themselves would be the best thing. Pity they can’t do this all the time!
Beware of thinking that the Scottish Independence Referendum is solely to do with Scotland. It is Alex Salmond’s contention that Scotland will not be leaving the UK and starting off as a separate country, having to therefore apply for membership of the EU, having to therefore take the Euro as a currency, complying with Shengen agreements, and all that these things will entail (e.g. border controls, fiscal dependence on the Eurozone, etc.). His contention is that the UK will be breaking up, and that it will not exist as an entity within the EU, and that therefore Scotland and the rump of the UK would BOTH have to apply for re-admittance to the EU, or both be granted automatic membership on the SNP’s terms.
The BBC is sleep-walking us into this morass by not highlighting what the SNP are attempting to do. ‘Wee Nappy’ Salmond (referring to his uncanny resemblance to so many portraits of Napoleon Bonaparte, and his personal views as to where he should stand on the world stage) is a cunning, devious politician who would not hesitate to attempt to destroy anything which stands in the way of attaining his grand vision…..of himself.
1. Scotland aka West Albania votes for ‘independence’
2. Goes bust
3. IMF bales it out with large standby facility predicated on SakaWA halving its public expenditure and attempting to pay its own way in the world for the first time in a century or so.
Independence – the best thing that could happen to this african feeding station masquerading as a country.
I suggest that you have a read of the McCrone Report before asserting that Independence will result in Scotland “attempting to pay its own way in the world for the first time in a century or so.”
Click to access MccronereportScottishOffice.pdf
The report predicted that North sea oil revenue would have given an independent Scotland one of the strongest currencies in Europe and a large tax surplus. On this basis, it went on to say that officials advised government ministers on how to take “the wind out of the SNP sails”. Thatcher and successive UK governments then classified the report as secret.
McCrone Report written in 1974.
Credibility today = not a lot !
The taxes forecast to be raised from the industry in 2011-12 include some £6 billion in income tax, national insurance contributions and corporation tax paid by the supply chain companies, with an additional £11 billion from taxes on production itself. That amounts to 25% of all the corporation tax received by the Exchequer. The production of indigenous oil and gas improved the balance of payments by £35 billion in 2011, thus halving the trade deficit, and the supply chain added another £5 billion to £6 billion with exports of oilfield goods and services. Incidentally, that aspect of the industry is doing extremely well here and overseas, and it is flying the flag for Britain effectively.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120125/debtext/120125-0003.htm#12012538003285
Seems to be still pretty credible to me.
The McCrone report is 40 years out of date….and even McCrone has admitted that he probably gave too much benefit of the doubt to the SNP.
McCrone Report credibility today = 0, as I said – you raised it in the first place as if it were an authoritative document about the current situation.
And you’ve basically listed a set of numbers which simply highlights that there’s a lot of money in oil – not where any of it is earned and tax paid on it, other than in the UK. Who knows what the division of UK assets and liabilities will bring – certainly not McCrone.
So how does that credibly support your initial assessment above ?
Anyway – this discussion is clearly going off the topic which is at the heart of this website – namely the credibility of the BBC as an unbiased state broadcaster.
Perhaps any discussion on the topic would be better addressed on another website more focussed on that issue.
The SNP are so Green they would love to give the oil to the UK crown dependency of the Shetland Islands. That and the English sector would mean that the UK would still have about two thirds of the oil.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-21357401
Yet again Moslem men raping a young girl and yet the bBBC makes no mention of their ethnicity and religion (despite their names making it obvious) nor the ethnicity of the 13 year old girl who is almost certainly white non Moslem.
I’m a little surprised they even reported it at all.
thoughtful (sic);
http://bbc.in/11XyrWc
Yet again Christien men and women raping young girls and yet the bBBC makes no mention of their ethnicity and religion (despite their names making it obvious) nor the ethnicity of the 3 young girls who were almost certainly white non Moslem.
I’m a little surprised they even reported it at all.
“My daughter came home drunk so I grounded her, unaware paedos had threatened to kill her. Evil was always going to win.
Parents of Rochdale gang rape victim speak out.”
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/real_life/4779384/PARENTS-speak-out-against-paedo-gang.html
A Christian MAN and WOMAN not a paedo gang. Christianity does not teach that the women of non-believers are fair game and have a tradition of underage marriage and sex entrenched in its canonical and semi-canonical texts. Also I don’t notice any passing the girls around their friends that is such a signature feature of the Muslim cases. You, Dez, are a simple minded, indeed asinine, would be saboteur of this site for ideological reasons of your own, attempting to magic out of existence a serious and very ugly, social phenomenon.
wallygreeninker,
“A Christian MAN and WOMAN…”
So why did the bBBC make no mention of their ethnicity and religion?
As Deborah says somewhere earlier in this thread.
The BBC choosing only the news that they want us to have for us all.
This morning I heard of some bloke wanting to buy Virgin Broadband,,,John Malone-described as a rival to Rupert Murdoch.
Come in this evening, and I hear the same phrase -and the man repeatedly referred to as a rival to Rupert Murdoch.
It`s as if the BBC rather hope he`ll be their Trojan horse to get at BSkyB-and their soft-pedalling around Richard Branson seems to confirm this…and, of course , the bonus of shafting the Coalition over their rail franchises too!
Sorry-but the BBC are not to be trusted now…suspect the worst of these parasitic lefties at the public trough
BBC news ” England is having a baby boom, the biggest in 50 years.” No explanation given.
Britain’s Mysterious Baby Boom by Mark Easton, note the photograph of a white baby, disinformation, perhaps ? We all know who’s having the babies and it isn’t the indigenous inhabitants. Thankyou Tony Blair.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13809280
Nothing mysterious about it. Large scale immigration always produces a high birth rate. That is a historical fact. Not that Easton knows any history unless it is about the slave trade, the rise of socialism and gay rights.
‘Women in the UK are having more babies’
I think there are moves to see if this biological quirk cannot be corrected in a suitably equally opportunistic and gender-blurred way in Parliament as we speak.
Meanwhile that gorgeous moppet is doubtless the progeny of ‘Sandra’, late of a certain call centre with a very crackly line (as if it were long distance) and possessor of a somewhat hard to grasp accent, back in 2011, but now one is sure benefitting from all the support a new parent in this fine land can expect as a parent of a new born.
Interesting that because the photograph is of a “white baby” you assume that it must be the child of “indigenous inhabitants.” Is it only the children of immigrants of colour that you object to?
Yes, clearly it was the first library picture of a baby that the editor came across. Just like this one was the first one that came to hand as the perfect way to sum up the British Empire (we had a lot of debate about that issue on this site in 2005)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4541610.stm
BTW I agree with your imputation of unspoken racism, but I object fundamentally to the obfuscation and misdirection used by the BBC whenever we get a ‘discussion’ of immigration (or more accurately “Eastern European Immigration”).
Ironically it looks to me like this lack of honesty and blatant ‘management’ of the narrative is creating a very fertile environment for the growth of more extreme opinions – because nobody trusts or believes the debased currency peddled by the BBC and the powers that be. They simply refuse to acknowledge the truth and even when it is inescapable and blindingly obvious because all anyone has to do is go outside their front door or take a train journey from any town in the UK to any other town in the UK and you can see and hear the fundamental change in the population make up that has happened since 1997. It is not racist to notice this fact but it is despicable to hide it in the pursuit of an ideological ‘greater truth’ identified. As someone on this blog posted the other day the BBC is indulging in “look there’s a squirrel” slight of hand.
interesting to see that they chose a picture of a black slave trader cracking the whip – what happened to whitey ?
The BBC has form here. Babies are white and schoolchildren are nearly always black or brown. Watch any news clip on education and you will see.
I thought it was a matter of record that 6 in 10 London babies are born to immigrant mothers.
If that is not a game changer which will lead to a very different London then what the hell is?
Demographics is destiny.
Oh and please stop trying to shut down debate with the old racist smear. It just won’t work any more.
“Oh and please stop trying to shut down debate with the old racist smear. It just won’t work any more. ”
Amen to that, Dave. They’ll still try of course, but the currency has been massively devalued.
The racist smear will only work if we allow it to. Branding the observation and discussion of the rapidly increasing immigrant population and the customs they bring with them that conflict with our own as racist is the most successful marketing campaign in history.
Treat this lefty clap trap as you would any other junk mail marketing that is shoved through your letter box – don’t be dictated to, treat it with the contempt it deserves ignore it and chuck it straight in the bin.
If only people like Albaman would view these accusations of racism in the same way they view our accusations of anti-Semitism in those who demonize Israel.
It could be a “Scot” of Italian decent. They seem to make the best actors and writers from North Britain on the BBC.
Two articles in The Telegraph today
This one:
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 dining at White City instead.
and this one:
BBC themed village at £1bn development
BBC Television Centre is to be turned into a £1billion themed village where tourists could eat in the Hairy Bikers Restaurant.
So on the same day we read of the poor design and planning of the new broadcasting house, after a cost of $1Billion, and all the staff complaints related to it, the BBC tells us it is planning another £1Billion development.
This is not to mention the £1Billion spent on Salford, as well as the huge additional costs in relocation and ancillary expenses in running it.
The BBC shows daily that it is substandard in its output, not to mention the damage done by its insidious bias. That it commissions a building design that turns out not to be fit for purpose is merely another area that they show their incompetence.
Besides bias, the only thing that are consistently good at is finding ways to award themselves more money and waste the rest at the licence fee payers expense.
Well past time to put this behemoth out to pasture and stop this self serving drain on our society.
Imagine: if not for all this expenditure, the BBC would have had more money for Newsnight researcher staff and Saville/McAlpine never would have happened. At least, that’s what Jeremy Paxman suggested.
So, like an NHS ward where lack of money is what meant that professional care staff walked past those dying of dehydration, a few extra bob would have meant editors, producers and managers would have had the 10p necessary to check out a source’s claim before rushing to air?
Uh-huh.
At least one awful thing did not happen.
Newsnight insiders fear it will not survive scandal
Phew… after all that, it did. Not just surviving, but thriving…. as you can tell…
http://www.facebook.com/bbcnewsnight
‘Calling all crossword fans – Tonight on Newsnight Stephen Smith meets master crossword setter Araucaria AKA Reverend John Graham – who has also created a puzzle just for Newsnight’
That’s a National TV Award right there.
Joking aside, the BBC says it’s only £200 million. Although that’s actually the amount Stanhope, the developers, paid them for the rights to run the place. Funny how the BBC doesn’t quite put it that way. Sure, the BBC news brief links to the Stanhope web page about it, but how many readers will bother going through the small print to find out? I’m not even going to bother to try and figure out if the BBC actually made a profit out of the deal.
So the BBC is spending hundreds of millions more to refurbish the facilities they’ll still be using there, instead of hiring research assistants and editors where they’re apparently desperately needed. Never mind that they continue to spend money to expand their US presence.
Of course it’s crowded – it’s in the West End where land is expensive. What did these whiners expect?
As for rock hard baked potatoes – well that’s just unforgivable. Blame the architect.
So let them go to the East End – where their ‘brothers’ patrol the streets so BBC can feel safe.
The whisper about Hugs, from this week’s Private Eye media news. (don’t know if this allowed, really)
“The BBC has delayed the release of thousands of pages of transcripts of evidence given to the Pollard inquiry into the axing of Newsnight’s original Jimmy Savile story, while its lawyers work through them removing the most defamatory of the many accusations senior executives made about each other.
Even after redaction the transcripts are still expected to represent what one insider describes as a “total cluster-fuck with everyone blaming everybody else and a picture of backbiting and incompetence.”
In the mean time, senior executives are firming up their strategy to deal with the fallout. While the release of Pollard’s report back in December saw the traditional deputy head rolling in the form of second-in-command of the news department Stephen Mitchell, his boss Helen Boaden remained in post despite being personally criticised for failing to take “a more proactive role” in managing a division that was “in virtual meltdown“.
Why so? “The BBC knows a shitstorm is coming and Helen is being kept in situ to be the high profile fall guy when the transcripts are published,” whispers the Eye’s man in the Corporate Centre.”
If they redact all the defamatory insider stuff, the final version released to the public is going to be about three pages long. I’m sure there will be plenty of evidence of incompetence. That much we can tell from the way they’ve handled just about every major issue in the last few years, from the move to Salford to their joke of a social media policy to the Fogel family fiasco to Savile/McAlpine. I’m just wondering if there will also be evidence of bias and, in the manner of 28-Gate, deliberate editorial interference for political/ideological purposes.
Yes, As far as I have been told, Newsnight is being investigated over the 28 gate scandal. But am awaiting a newsletter. I think it is about the employment of a bogus Climate Sceptic described as “Especially sceptic”.
Investigated by whom, exactly?
Investigations are in progress, set off in response to letters from Members of Parliament angered by the arrogant defence of the BBC’s Climate Change policy by the BBC Trust.
I think that the Jimmy Savile investigation has been expanded to include other news subjects.
But as far as I can see there has not been anything reported in the mainstream media in Britain yet.
The contest of the century – the Eastleigh by election to replace Huhne – is scheduled for the 28th February. I do hope the BBC can find their way to the Eastleigh constituency as on the day of Huhne’s confession they were seeking opinions from shoppers in Chandlers Ford, which for the past few years has been part of the Winchester constituency.
When it comes to certain things, the BBC do have them well trained.
‘Smartphone muggers have claimed their third female BBC radio presenter victim in six months.’
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/bbc-presenter-nikki-bedi-fends-off-mobile-mugger-8483099.html
Nikki Bedi was approached by a hooded thief at a bus shelter in west London on her way to work. Bedi, who works for Radio 2 and Radio 4, shouted and managed to fend off the would-be mugger.
“I had my phone out and was looking down at the screen when quite a big, tall man with a hoodie obscuring much of his face tried to rip the phone from my hands,”
Obscuring much of his face – thereby hiding his ethnicity. Perhaps she has a BBC staff appraisal coming up soon? I do hope she gave the Police a good description.
Don’t expect to see this one on the BBC.
‘Nurse said leave it to Allah as girl went blue’
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/
‘A hospital is investigating a father’s claims that when his daughter turned blue a nurse told him to “leave control to Allah”.’
Second thoughts it may crop up on the BBC. And will be blamed on those favourite problems the ‘target culture and spending cuts’
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/nurse-said-leave-it-to-allah-as-girl-went-blue-8483396.html
Pointless had the subject of ‘national treasures’ the other day and one was a certain … Tony Benn. Lol.
What, the tony benn who described Chairman Mao as ‘the greatest man of the twentieth century’.
That Tony Benn?
This is how the BBC operates…..
How very dare you. The BBC is a national treasure!
Wish it was buried treasure
Question Time panel…for those who still grin and bear it. I’m still in full avoidance mode, though that means I apparently missed Mr. Delingpole last week. I bet he was a culture shock to their delicate sensibilities.
Question Time from Stirling.
Michael Moore MP – not that one, the Scottish Secretary fellow
Humza Yousaf – SNP and former ‘Islamic Relief’ spokesbod
Lord Falconer – Blair’s flatmate
Mary Macleod MP – Conservative whatever
Sir Brian Souter, CEO of Stagecoach Group, SNP donor, and*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qm2ff
*Have a read of Mr. Souter’s wiki page and see why they’ve invited him this week – they always seem to need at least one designated pantomime villain to boo and hiss at in order to make them feel good about themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Souter
How the bBC has become the backstreet laundry for Islam in sanitising bad news for British consumption.
Anger over death of Saudi girl after father’s ‘beating’
The case of a five-year-old Saudi girl who died after allegedly being beaten by her father has sparked outrage and an online campaign in the kingdom. The girl, Lama, was the daughter of Fayhan al-Ghamdi, an Islamic preacher who made regular appearances on TV. He was arrested after Lama’s death in November but was reportedly absolved by the judge in the case.
The above is the bBC’s coverage of a story about how a father beat his 5 year old daughter to death in Saudi Arabia .
And here is what the bBC conveniently left out of the story:
Saudi imam rapes, tortures 5-yr-old daughter because he ‘doubted her virginity’
A popular Saudi Arabian television preacher was found guilty of murdering his own 5-year-old daughter because he doubted her virginity,
According to press reports, Lama suffered the following injuries:
A broken back.
Raped multiple times.
A crushed skull.
Numerous burns throughout her body.
A broken left arm.
Multiple broken ribs.
Gee I wonder why the bBC, left out all of the above?
found guilty? … of “allegedly beating”?
sanitised into almost a different story.
al bbc, (shakes head)
ever the confidante for islam …
but it has the helpful “more on this story”
link …… that erm … doesn t link to anything
😀 … strange that
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-21357401
child gang rape
Uddin, Mohamed, Sheikh, and Abdul
hmmm … NO … no idea
wheres the link? … why? – where?
turn up on next weeks episode of
“make me a muslim”?
How the bBC has become the backstreet laundry for Islam in sanitising bad news for British consumption.
Hezbollah hits out after Bulgaria bus bomb report
Hezbollah has rejected a Bulgarian investigation that blamed it for a deadly 2012 bus bombing which killed five Israeli tourists and a bus driver.
The bBC, in typical leftwing arsehole fashion just cannot allow the finger of guilt to be pointed at any of its Islamic terrorist poster boys. So per usual they go all out in which to play the victim card for allah’s third favourite terrorists so we have:
The Lebanese Shia group’s deputy leader said Israel was waging an “international campaign” against Hezbollah that would have no effect.
Yeah lets blame the jew as we all knw the Jew just cannot be trusted, well so the bBC says.
The Bulgarian report was part of “allegations and incitements and accusations against Hezbollah” driven by Israeli paranoia over Hezbollah’s continued military strength in southern Lebanon,
Yup blame the jew some more.
and then after some fluff the bBC decides to play you can’t trust a Bulgarian in which to defend Islamic terrorists:
Analysts had questioned how Bulgaria’s police and government were confident enough of their evidence to make the link to Hezbollah.
The country inevitably “relied heavily on resources from foreign security services” Tihomir Bezlov from the Centre for the Study of Democracy, a Sofia think-tank, told the AFP news agency.
Others described Bulgaria’s decision to accuse Hezbollah as part of a wider “game” linked to various conflicts in the Middle East, AFP reported.
And only last week the bBC, spread the message that actually Bulgarians are all trustworthy and wouldn’t do a thing wrong when they all migrate to the Uk.
The bBC, the traitors in our midst.
Yeah, the Bulgarians love Jews and are in on the plot to support Israel. What interest does Bulgaria have in a wider “game”? I know the BBC is just rehashing what the AFP wrote, but a little background context other than a link to a previous BBC report about Israel egging them on might have helped.
In the BBC “report” that you highlighted they even inserted this:
“Israel was quick to blame Hezbollah and Iran for the bus bombing”
I thought the Israelis waited for the report to be published before condemming the perpetrators. Seems in BBC world there must be a period of silence.
Now about the report ito the mass murder at Mid Staffs Health Authority, I take it anyone condemming them is “being quick to blame”.
Only at the BBC can they get away with such blatant bias.
Not much follow-up on this one was there?
Just a few old Jews on holiday…no Abu Hamza to advocate for!
In case anybody felt there wasn’t enough opinion-mongering from BBC titled “editors”, your worries are over:
BBC News: The Editors comes to BBC One this spring
Presented by John Simpson, the BBC’s World Affairs Editor, the programme will showcase the journalistic skill on offer from the BBC’s on-air editors, all of whom have a wealth of editorial experience in their specialist area.
The monthly, half-hour programme will comprise a selection of short and engaging films on a variety of topics, including arts, sport and science alongside business, politics and foreign affairs. Each informative report will focus on one editor’s particular area of expertise and will strive to answer a specific question, such as ‘has the welfare state had its day?’, or ‘what’s wrong with football?’
The programme will ask the editors to draw on their experience and expertise to explore some of these big questions. On occasion, a contributing editor will also feature; they will be experienced correspondents with an in-depth knowledge of a specialist subject.
Now you get a whole show dedicated to these people expressing their opinions. John Simpson says this about it:
The point of ‘The Editors’ is to free us up to think about the big questions of the day in more depth and to provide answers to the questions which our audience has about the world around them. Our aim is to make it challenging, and really exciting.”
BBC editors providing answers is stated twice overall, then. Not reporting or informing so much as opinion-mongering.
The BBC is unrivalled in providing challenging, impartial and informative news and current affairs output and BBC News: The Editors will add to the stable of programming on BBC One, which includes the daily news bulletins, Panorama and Question Time.
If it’s all their opinions, how can it be impartial?
Just been watching a discussion on the Staffordshire hospital scandal and this lady, rightly, poured scorn on the enquiry findings that no individual was to blame and that it was a systemic failure. She said managers were to blame but that the failures came from the attitude of those at the top in the NHS, but as she began to put the blame squarley on the Labour Government at the time and the then Health Secretary, the BBC women cut her off and switched attention to some businessman in the discussion who appeared unable to string a sentence together.
Commenter on Guido’s about the coverage of the issue on the Beeb today:
http://order-order.com/2013/02/06/download-the-guido-app-today/#comment-1585938
And I head off to bed tonight, confident in the knowledge that the BBC will have caught up on the following story about the head of the NHS, and will have wall-to-wall coverage and castigation of this guy and his failures/pecadillos/potential frauds/ etc., etc.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274701/David-Nicholson-The-ex-communist-NHS-chief-young-wife-fast-tracked-lavish-lifestyle.html#axzz2Jvc3BqwU
What’s the betting it won’t have, or maybe it will zero in on the one crumb of comfort fro the BBC in the article, namely the un-supported comment about still having the confidence of the PM ?
Tough decision as to whether I should have posted this here, or on the ‘Reds on top of the Bed’ thread.
Newsnight on the Staffordshire trust. Pre recorded segment which mentions the present government or Conservative politicians 6 times before the labour party gets a mention. Labour politician is given free rein to defend labour party health policy and attack previous Conservative government policy. The Tory is asked to defend labour party health policy and attack previous Conservative government policy. The Tory is asked to defend result of enquiry and given hard time. They then go to panel discussion which starts with ‘how do we know this is not still happening under the present Government…’
Sorry copied and pasted above from word, something went wrong hope meaning is clear enough.
This morning on the BBC… 14 times ‘cuts too far and too fast’ to blame for the Staffordshire NHS problem, which was before the ‘cuts’……. Genius
They’re playing to the gallery. It works, unfortunately.
Oh my god… ‘Are any Current Ministers going to resign over this issue’….. BBC when did it happen…
by the way now up to 16 times ‘too far too fast’ …. the 2 Ed’s must be lapping this up!
All the trots were tweeting yesterday about why was cameron answering instead of hunt. When asked about Andy Burnham they went speechless. One of them even said…..and your point is!……..LOLLLLLLL
After the NHS day of shame in Parliament yesterday the BBC and Guardian are leading with…..Gove U-Turn on GCSEs. The NHS is fourth on the Graun front page under the Headline “Cameron – Dock Pay of Bad Nurses.”
A let-off for Labour’s foul up of the NHS. And where is Burnham?
The BBC smothered debate on mass immigration. BBC predilection for the Labour Party, their loyalty to the EU and the constant plugging of their own diversity agenda meant that Tony Blair faced a wide open goal for his wide open door policy.
Amusingly it was BT who stepped in to broadcast a concise TV deconstruction of the open door policy. Albeit coded. Remember the adverts featuring that hapless young student with his wonderful Wi-Fi installation? In one of those memorable two minute adventures the lad finds a Euro lovely on his doorstep clutching her laptop and eager to access his BT home hub device. He wasn’t about to say no. Come in, make yourself comfortable. And my friends? Also welcome. Open door policy. Unfortunately within a very short space of time the small flat is crammed full of pouting senoritas. All that is achieved by this sudden influx is a strain on his limited supply of custard creams. He has moreover given his female flatmate the right hump (not perhaps in the way he had envisaged). To add to his woes the naughty boy doesn’t seem likely to get a shag out of the newcomers – they are all busy saying ‘hola’ to their boyfriends back in Barcelona.
If only immigration were that attractive.
Today Program 08:45 the return of a Saudi Prince jailed for the murder of his servant.
This murder took place against a background of drinking sadism and a gay relationship, in a hotel in London.
The thing which struck me was the interviewers utter naievity concerning Shariah law in Saudi and the way it’s manipulated by the royal family.
There was the odd question / comment that it might have been done to sweeten arms contracts deals but the interviewee stopped that dead.
The interview ended with the the BBC interviewer shocked & incredulous saying ‘it’s a different world’.
Given the support that the bBC gives to Moslems and Shariah law it’s not unreasonable for us to expect that they at least understand the system they are supporting, and not some pink tinted vision that everything is sweetness & light! It reminds me of the Labour MP who left a Moslem wedding outraged that men & women were seperated, because he didn’t have the first clue about the culture he was supporting.
Does INBBC support HEZBOLLAH?
As indicated by other commentors on here, it seems so.
‘The Commentator’:-
“Surely now the EU will finally proscribe Hezbollah.
If the EU does not want Iran operating violently in the heart of Europe, it must list Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation without delay.”
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2660/surely_now_the_eu_will_finally_proscribe_hezbollah
According to the following anonymous report on INBBC pages on Bulgaria, it seems, from tone of INBBC ‘report’, that Hezbollah Islamic jihadists are not really culpable for murders of Israelis:
“Hezbollah hits out after Bulgaria bus bomb report”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21359254
Of course, we should not expect INBBC to make the connection that Bulgarians, including Hezbollah followers, will have free access to British society as residents from next year.
Same should happen in Britain:-
“Terrorists should lose Canadian papers, minister says”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21359533
If a BBC “news report” is supposed to “look behind the issues” and “explain the facts”, it should included a s many points of view as possible.
However, in a “news report” on the BBC website, an event (“Today at the Boy Scouts of America’s annual meeting in Texas the organisation delayed a vote on whether to lift an official ban until May.”) was illustrated not by a discussion of the issues but an interview with a pro-gay Boy Scout family.
No explanation is given as to why the event (“Today at the Boy Scouts of America’s annual meeting in Texas the organisation delayed a vote on whether to lift an official ban until May.”) was delayed.
So why was the event (Today at the Boy Scouts of America’s annual meeting in Texas the organisation delayed a vote on whether to lift an official ban until May”) was the vote delayed. We shall never know from this report.
My own view – to preempt Dez, Scott and the other trolls – is that I can see no reason for not having openly gay Boy Scout members. However, I would subject Boy Scout leaders to background checks as is normal with all teachers and community leaders in sensitive positions.
But that is not the point. The current report on the BBC’s webpage only contains the pro-gay point of view and is therefore not worthy of a publically funded non biased corporation.
If I had been involved in commissioning or reporting this item I would have insisted (for professional pride) to have included the opposing point of view. If the BBC is to be taken seriously it cannot be allowed to become a platform for any group to make claims without question or balance.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21327656
“The current report on the BBC’s webpage only contains the pro-gay point of view”
Well, unless you look further round the BBC News website. I realise that doing so sometimes taxes the brains of Biased BBC’s readers.
Almost textbook example of how the BBC manipulates information on any subject with which it has an agenda.
1) Forces reader to look for text rather than provide links.
2) Leads with the images most supporting (to their agenda). Who couldn’t feel sympathy for such a appealing family?
3) Leads with video (always more powerful than the written word) that only presents one side of the story. In debating terms they show the YES case.
4) Place the quote Scott M finds so damning so far down the page that most readers won’t reach. Perry’s remark is 12 sentences (also paragraphs) down.
5) When it finally does present opposing opinions it leads with the one they agree with. In this case double agree because Obama expressed it.
6) Illogical/ out of chronology sentence order further confusing the issue. Why does the sentence In 2000, the organisation went to the US Supreme Court, saying its policy of “morally straight” conduct fell within its right to freedom of expression. follow In July, the Boy Scouts concluded that maintaining its long-standing policy against allowing gay members was “the best policy for the organisation”. and not lead if not to obscure the court’s ruling?
FYI Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000), that held that the constitutional right to freedom of association allows a private organization like the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to exclude a person from membership when “the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.
For the record. I am in favour of removing restrictions based on sexual preference from the Boy Scouts. This is in full knowledge that many parents will withdraw their sons and that some troops will close possibly leading to a rival organisation.
What I am opposed to is the BBC manipulating their reports to slant in favour or against it.
In my time as a Boy Scout the associated female organisation, the Girl Guides, changed their motto to Never trust a Boy Scout. They are always prepared! 😉
Each report should be balanced within itself. That was I was taught – at the BBC. I guess now its different. Sorry, Scott. It appears I am sad, confused and out of touch.
“BBC announces plans for more Expert Women events”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2013/expert-women-events.html?
Next month: more disabled, immigrant, women experts?
Do they have ‘dumber than a box of rocks’ women days too?
You know, for equality purposes.
Regarding the recent story of an 18 year-old Mohammedan lad getting let off with no jail time for fiddling a 13 year-old girl, with the judge believing that sending him to jail would do more harm than good to the otherwise innocent lamb, even US law experts have taken notice.
I’d like to see one of the intrepid, highly-paid Salford commuters discuss the following two points on their show:
Finally, when the claim is “I didn’t know because I was raised in an insular community,” there is reason for punishment precisely to send a message to members of insular communities (and leaders of those communities) that they need to work harder to learn the important commands of the legal system. Conversely, cutting slack to people who don’t know the law because they grew up in an insular community — or to people who claim not to know the law for this reason — reinforces the tendency of many in insular communities to focus more on following the norms of their community than trying to learn and abide by the norms of society.
If that’s not a point of view worthy of BBC focus, I don’t know what is. And from the comments:
Sir Charles Napier’s quote, perhaps apocryphal, “Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral
pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we
hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall
therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is
consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.”
I know which one I’d like to hear more about.
Now that it’s publicly a big deal, and even some in the dedicated Leftoid US media have started to question the bloomin’ obvious about The Obamessiah’s kill list and policy of drone attacks and taking war into numerous countries, somebody at the BBC has at last mentioned His Nobel Peace Prize with a hint of scorn. After ages and ages of His ramping it up to eleven (how long have I been banging on about this here? Two years?), the BBC has finally addressed it, if only for a moment. And it’s the sanctimonious, I’m-above-you-all, Jonny Dymond, no les. Here he is discussing John Brennan and the coming Senate hearings about his nomination for CIA boss. Dymond has even admitted the irony of praising Brennan for ending the use of so-called torture while approving of the drone wars:
But his time with Mr Tenet, and the CIA’s involvement in what the administration called “enhanced interrogation” but what much of the rest of world saw as torture, put an end to that.
Instead he has laboured in the shadows in the White House, hugely influential, as a president who picked up a Nobel Peace Prize on pretty much his first day in office has expanded the programme of drone-killing with an aggression that has surprised friends and enemies alike.
It hasn’t surprised me at all. Where do I fit in on the friend – enemy scale, Jonny? Oh, I see you meant people who weren’t paying attention.
The hearing comes as the use of unmanned aerial combat vehicles to winnow the ranks of America’s enemies is attracting unprecedented domestic attention.
Yep, as usual with stories they don’t want you to know about, the BBC refused to address this topic for years until the equally authoritarian and partisan US media made it such a big story that they’re now forced to acknowledge it. I’ve been talking about this here for years, and I’m glad to see that at least two people at the BBC (Dymond and his boss) have deigned to touch on it.
The BBC knows they and their fellow travelers have ignored this important issue for far too long, so they hired a US voice to write one of those “Viewpoint” pieces about how the media has been negligent. Naturally, it’s a Left-wing journalist. She’s part of the problem, so pardon me if I don’t take this phony nostra culpa too seriously. She more or less says that, while the media didn’t do their job properly on this one, it’s no big deal because we in the US have been “rooting for the drones”, and it really wasn’t really a big deal until now. Events, dear boy, events, have now made it newsworthy. Isn’t that comforting?
What’s that you say? You’re surprised Dymond and the BBC have dared to heap so much criticism upon Him? Don’t worry, they’re still trying to play down the whole affair in the end:
The New America Foundation estimates that between 1,953 and 3,279 have been killed by drone attacks in Pakistan alone, of whom roughly one in 10 were civilians.
“Only” one in ten. So not such a big deal, then? And how many children, BBC? Don’t you care about the chiiiiiiiiiildren? As usual, the BBC values human lives according to kills them. Their beloved Obamessiah killed them, so it’s not such a big deal.
In any case, Dymond and his boss realize they may as well inform you about this stuff now since it’s going to come out during Brennan’s confirmation hearings. But they still don’t want you to know that the President just walked away from reporters trying to ask Him about the kill list and how He judges who dies. This issue is all over the HuffingtonPost, so the Beeboids know about it.
Last week’s Private Eye had a classic satirical article, unfortunately not available on their website so I have to type it all:
President calls for ban on ‘military-style weapons’
The President of the United States, Mr Barack Obama, today indicated his determination to make a renewed stand against the availability of advanced weapons, which he said “in the wrong hands, can lead to the death of innocents”.
He was referring in particular to a weapon known as “the drone”, which can fly over remote areas and then drop suddenly out of the sky on villages, schools, and wedding parties. “It is time we stood up to the weapons lobby and refused to buy any more of their drones, which have been freely available to trigger-happy Americans for far too long.”
He continued, “Hang on, what am I saying? Er… can I reconcile these two seemingly contradictory positions? Yes I can!”
Funny, but it’s a shame that Hislop can’t/won’t make a joke about the President on Have I Got News For You.
Taking the bbc dollar can restrict you?
…always love the wedding parties meme.
Cause the bad guys never ever ever get married do they.
“The New America Foundation estimates that between 1,953 and 3,279 have been killed by drone attacks in Pakistan alone.”
Only one in 10, hmm, so you could have a BBC headline saying …estimates are that between 195 and 238 innocent civilians have been killed in officially sanctioned drone strikes…
but it doesn’t sound very glib though
Anyway, these are ‘estimates’ worthy of Spock, isn’t it a teeny bit odd that they have a such a spurious precision and yet also have the huge 67% range of 1326 which indicates that they are in “F**k knows” category of made up numbers handed out to keep people quiet
It’s also curious how the BBC totally goes in for separating civilians from militants – never mind censoring news about the children – in these figures, but almost never do that for Palestinian casualties of evil Israel aggression. When discussing Palestinian deaths in conflicts with Israel, it’s nearly always one lump sum of “Palestinians” killed, even though the vast majority of them were not innocent civilians.
One standard for people the BBC likes, and one for those they don’t.
“The New America Foundation estimates that between 1,953 and 3,279 have been killed by drone attacks in Pakistan alone.”
That’s far less that our much loved NHS
“Only” one in ten. So not such a big deal, then?
You added the “only” – you even included the correct quote, then couldn’t help twisting it. It’s no use chastising the BBC for something that’s come out of your own head.
Even for someone as brazen as you, that’s dumb.
the sanctimonious, I’m-above-you-all Jonny Dymond
Self-awareness not your strong suit, is it?
‘You added the “only” – you even included the correct quote, then couldn’t help twisting it’
—
Watching any comedy or satire, even or especially on the BBC, must be agony for you.
But maybe appreciation of tonality is another deafness you are afflicted by.
Then raising the notion of dumbness on top… brave.
See, playing the person is an equal opportunity sport for all!
But your selective factual obsession has blinded to you to the utter idiocy of a ‘lies, damn lies, and BBC-sourced reports’ that gets a wild guess spread down to the nearest sky-plucked numbers they get given being passed on without a second thought.
Watts or Shuckman of even Cox (Prof, not peroxide sink) better look out; grasping like that is the basis for a glittering career in BBC Science & Environment.
I think Stephanie & Paul are OK on the number-crunching beats though. Their sinecures go back to a different time.
You’re absolutely right, Scott! My brain did combine the “ly” from roughly with the “on” from one. I apologize for that. I was too fixated on the omission of children, and the fact that I’ve been whining about the BBC’s silence on this for a very long time, I guess. You can call me sanctimonious but no way do I have the air of superiority that Dymond exudes all the time.
Will Self/Radio4, 28-Gate, BBC staff tweets, and the Jews of Malmö still await your scrutiny.
Well, you’re the one who has a fit of the screaming abdabs about people “putting words in your mouth” when they paraphrase your supercilious mewlings.
Still, I keep forgetting – everybody else must keep to a standard of your choosing, but you can’t be expected to. It wouldn’t be David Preiser if it wasn’t inherently hypocritical.
The Screaming Abdabs? I have a concert recording of theirs. 🙂
Relax, Scott. I was just giving you an opening to continue your personal attack on me so you can avoid admitting there’s evidence elsewhere of bias at the BBC.
The only other thing I can say is that, as always, I’m very flattered that a media professional like yourself holds a nobody like me to a higher standard than you do the BBC.
The Screaming Abdabs? Didn’t they do ‘Dark Side of the Crescent Moon?’
Yep. That was a few years before ‘The Wall of the Evil Jews’.
but after:
Ummah Gumma! 😉
For God’s sake Scott, don’t you EVER have the good grace to accept someone’s admission of having made a factual mistake in a post? You just don’t let it go – you goon about the same error ad nauseam. Are you that perfect you never make mistakes?
Even when someone has acknowledged being mistaken, you then use that acknowledgement as a weapon against them – always taking an unnecessary parting shot.
You come across as a sour, agenda driven activist who sees it as his mission to destroy and denigrate his ideological opponents.
He seems to be the sort who drones on and on and on after he’s downed a few.
For an organisation obsessed with Palestine the BBC know very little about it.
Hamas and Fatah in unity talks, says Khaled Meshaa
It’s not so much the basic story but the so-called background I object to.
The split between the militant group and Mr Abbas’s Fatah party has led to Palestinian elections being postponed for several years. Actually, both sides blame Israel for this. (Big surprise). I suppose it was too much to explain the delay because Abbas (leader of a non-militant group?) realised he would be beaten? I don’t think I have heard Abbas say even once that the split is the cause.
Hamas controls Gaza while Fatah remains dominant in the West Bank. An alternate opinion is that the only thing that stops Hamas repeating the Gaza experinece is Israel’s presence and presumed reaction. Most informed opinion is that Hamas would win a fair election, again.
In 2006 Hamas won Palestinian parliamentary elections, sparking a bitter conflict with Fatah. Hamas and Fatah are not two Mafia families competing for turf (although it is an attractive simile). They have conflicting worldviews that we can expect to be resolved by violence when the time is right, although we would never realise how deep, basic and serious these differences are if we rely on the BBC. Here would be a good place for a side box explaining how the modern, even socialist, nationalism of Fatah is incompatible with an Islamist group which regards Arab nations as a passing phase leading back to the 7th century and the Caliphate.
Hamas is designated a terrorist group by Israel, the US and EU due to its long record of attacks and its refusal to renounce violence. Actually this is better than their normal implication that it is only Israel’s opinion. However doesn’t the BBC think we should know what Britain thinks? The Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades have been listed as a terrorist organization under the Terrorism Act since 2001. As a consequence of listing by the EU on 12 September 2003, the UK Government listed Hamas as a whole as a terrorist organization on 22 September 2003.
But its supporters say it is a legitimate resistance movement and a democratically elected government. A democratically elected government? BTW President Mahmoud Abbas (also democratically elected and still legally in power by Palestinian law dismissed Hamas PM Haniyeh from office on 14 June 2007 at the height of the Fatah–Hamas conflict, but Haniyeh did not acknowledge the decree. A more accurate conclusion is that the opinion of Hamas supporters that they are government is disputed in Palestine not simply a reflection of outsiders’ opinion of them as terrorists.
However doesn’t the BBC think we should know what Britain thinks?
They mentioned the EU position, didn’t they? To the BBC that’s all that matters. When they say “EU”, they’re thinking the UK is included. National sovereignty is so yesterday.
The truth on Islam by Qaradawi, for INBBC to censor.
(inc video clip):-
‘Jihadwatch’:-
Qaradawi: “If they had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment Islam wouldn’t exist today”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/02/qaradawi-if-they-had-gotten-rid-of-the-apostasy-punishment-islam-wouldnt-exist-today.html
I’m sure most Brits don’t know that sharia has the death penalty for people who leave islam for another religion (all four main schools of jurisprudence, except that one of them says women can be punished with house arrest). It’s the sort of startling fact the Beeb would realise that the public would be grateful for being told.
Notice how a lengthy article about Christians being refused identity cards in Egypt some pretext that they are really Muslims, mentions it in the fourth sentence from the bottom of a very long article (and even then muddies things somewhat – some interpretations, my eye!).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8424599.stm
Almost any BBC mention of the subject, either muddies the waters or mendaciously understates the legal position.
Disgusting left-wing bias on the BBC ‘News’ regarding Ed Gove’s decision not to pursue the changes to the GCSE. What’s really happened is that, like immigration’s devastating effect on our communities due to the socialist scum’s undermining of our cultural bindings, the education system in our country is now saturated by left-wing activists and militant feminists who are ideologically opposed to anything remotely conservative or rigorous. The BBC, predictably, had a Drama and Arts director on saying we need more arts. Of course we do…
I noticed the distinct air of triumphalism when listening to the news .
What do they care. Well heeled to a man the liberal left leaders of opinion can afford private education or a carefully selected catchment area.
Just listen to Clegg preparing us to be told that the state is not good enough for his children.
It is education that is the liberal left’s weak point. They have forgotten about all those hungry up and coming nations who educate their children- the best with the best taught by the best – to take what we think we have a right to for ever. Our markets, our businesses and industrial power, eventually the lot.
We will still have the “world class” BBC. The problem is the nation will be too poor to pay for it.
They have forgotten about all those hungry up and coming nations who educate their children
Oh no they haven’t!
They know damn well what an educated working class would be capable of. That’s why they don’t want state schools to succeed – they don’t want the competition for their kids.
What I found particularly disturbing was the way in which the BBC used a number 14/15ish year olds to go on camera and rubbish the proposals and in particular Gove. One teenager actually suggested that Gove was some sort of throwback, who wanted to take education back to the 50’s. She was very much ‘on-message’ and served the BBC / Activist purpose offering a view no doubt designed to influence.
Funny though! In these news reports and in their analysis, there was no reference whatsoever to Britain’s alarming tumble down the international comparisons of educational attainment.
Perhaps a dose of 1950’s educational standards might serve the smug young lady somewhat better.
TUNISIA: assassination and strike in birthplace of ‘Arab Spring.’
‘Voice of America’ uses language like-
… “the country is divided between Muslims and non-Muslims, elections have been delayed, and nothing is certain.”
http://www.voanews.com/content/unrest-rocks-tunisia-following-assassination-of-opposition-politician/1599097.html?
In contrast, INBBC’s Ms Sihem Hassaini of BBC Afrique uses labels such as ‘ultra-conservative Salafists’, ‘Islamists’ and ‘anti-Islamists’.
“Tunisia political crisis deepens after assassination”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21366235