Here you go, better late than never! BBC bothering you, what’s the detail on it? Please spill the beans! I was on BBC5 LIVE this morning with Fi Glover and to be fair she gave me first and last word on the topic under discussion.
OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
bBC Mews24 horsemeat edition, no mention of our chums in the EU all day – wtf are we paying for?
oh, I forgot – the creation of a european superstate
Well, at least we don’t have to worry about the hordes of Romanians coming over here as we’ve just eaten their mode of transport!
I like to have horseradish with my er……
Well spotted that man!
The BBC have said absolutely nothing about the Eu and its willingness to let any old crap into our market, whilst being vindictive and punitive towards any small butcher or farmer from the UK.
The EU was only too quick to threaten the UK with all manner of things after BSE etc-yet this mis-selling of “beef products” seems not to stand in the way of our refusing to let their meat into this country “until it`s safe”.
Isn`t that the “precautionary principle” that they always trot out to forbid the use of second-hand jam jars in farmers markets/church sales in the Cotswolds or wherever?
The EU seems awful good at scaring little old ladies out of feeding us…but happy enough to eat Romanian donkey danglers as long as they get a “kickback” or a few votes from Transylvania next election.
That EU referendum….where is it?
Do you hear the sound of the gently rolling pampas grass as the BBC say NOTHING about how the EU is making Frankenstein food for us “on the hoof”?
Wonder if Jeremy Hardy will be saying anything on the News Quiz…neigh, lad neigh!
“the EU is making Frankenstein food for us “on the hoof”
One of the directive’s sponsors was David Sainsbury, one-time Labour “science” minister.
(GM, that is.)
Newsnight (15/02/13) was ‘following the trail (of horsemeat) from farms to suppliers via regulators and retailers to the consumers.’
Europe was mentioned twice (in the intro and the report), Lancashire twice (North London, Hull, Wales and N Yorkshire were mentioned once) and Poland, France, Romania, The Netherlands and Ireland were mentioned once. Not a single mention of the EU though.
Is the correct answer
http://newsthump.com/2013/02/11/pope-placed-on-gardening-leave-after-accepting-lucrative-offer-to-join-islam/?
Can’t imagine what inspired it.
For Christmas I was given a copy of the Great British Bake Off cook book (published by BBC books). Every recipe which requires eggs requires free-range. Other than to suit the BBC agenda there is no reason to use free-range rather than cheapest.
I must admit I only eat free range
but having your own chickens does help a bit!
http://www.theweek.co.uk/europe/51523/miliband-and-balls-caught-out-over-10p-tax-revival
For balance.
Mind you….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/correspondents/nickrobinson/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/correspondents/stephanieflanders/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/correspondents/paulmason/
…currently seem none the wiser, or their loyal readers.
And given school hols kick in in 45mins I’d say for 2 weeks or so no one will know any different until it’s too late.
OT but it’s Friday and I do love a bit of polite, straight questioning flooring the semantic brigade in full glare…
http://www.upworthy.com/elizabeth-warren-asks-the-most-obvious-question-ever-and-stumps-a-bunch-of-bank
Elizabeth Warren, thirty years a law professor? President Obama asked her to set up the new agency to hold Wall Street banks and other financial institutions accountable…”
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Sounds too close to “Occupy”
A fraud asking other lawyers about why they don’t take fraudsters to trial more often. Up the banks! Yawn. The Occupiers want show trials for emotional reasons, not actual solutions that will help fix the system.
Has Fauxcahontas, or anyone else in the current administration, asked why nobody has been made to take the fall for throwing hundreds of millions of tax-payer dollars at failed ‘green initiatives’ whose backers also just happened to be Obama donors?
zzzzzzzzzz
Some are more accountable than others, at least in a public show-trail kind of way.
trial 👿
The BBC appointment of James Purnell is yet another display of their overweaning arrogance. How can they even pretend to be unbiased when they appoint an ex Labour Minister to such an important position with no visible selection process.
Of course the answer is that don’t even pretend to be unbiased any longer and they think that they are an elite who don’t need to worry about what ordinary people think, as long as keep on paying for them.
Surely even the supine , timid Tories must do something about this! But I don’t expect that they will. Instead they will just accept this latest bit of BBC bias as they have been doing for years. Why do they let the BBC get away with this? What happened to the charter? Surely the Tories should support a rebellion of License Fee payers as the BBC are not delivering the service they are supposed to under the charter. The License Fee payers who want to stop paying for this awful service should be given a helping hand by the Tories because we wouldn’t be afraid of the over mighty BBC unlike them.
‘with no visible selection process.’
And I thought it was meant to be at least advertised, even if the actual choices are foregone conclusions.
But like Lord Hall Hall, after slipping a bung to Patten’s headhunters for George ‘No refunds’ Entwistle being found down the corridor, all that silly transparency lark can be kicked into touch now that even Savile and Pollard left them untouched.
Beware a BBC Fleet St.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2013/02/by-paul-goodman-everyone-agrees-that-politicians-shouldnt-control-the-press-even-politicians-in-public-at-least-so-it-is.html
Frankly, on current evidence, a BBC anything is a pretty scary prospect for free speech, democratic process, etc.
They are now so powerful, and have so easily seen off any holding to account, they appear to think they can do what they like.
And they may be right.
If good men and women let them.
I, for one, am not so inclined.
“don’t even pretend to be unbiased any longer”
I watched 10 minutes of BBC News at Ten last night and was amazed just how bad it has become. The section I watched was so obviously scripted by Labour Party supporting journalists (it was essentially a Party Political Broadcast) it would be laughable if it were not such an arrogant abuse of power.
I turned over to ITN and they way they covered the same stories bore no resemblance to the BBC version.
The impression given was that BBC journalists are so obsessed with promoting the Labour Party, they have completely abandoned news and simply offer us “Thought for the Day” spin.
What a profoundly corrupt and arrogant organisation – it is time somebody cut them down to size.
That presupposes Cameron is opposed to the BBC leftist mindset.
Very doubtful.
Cameron is opposed to some of it, sure. But he will not get past the “national treasure” aspect. There’s no way to separate the biased news and editorial directives to drama and childrens’ shows from the documentaries and dramas and occasional useful investigative report.
Time this particular national treasure was put on the Liverpool Care Pathway.
Looking up info on James Purnell it appears that he was a member of Labour’s Friends of Israel group though.
That is why he gets a grilling on CIF and the Islamic hate sites.
Maybe it’s gigantic oversight by Al Beeb or maybe, just maybe, they’ve decided that the continual misleading of licence fee payers might not be in their best interests.
I’ll believe that when I no longer see BBC reports explaining everything in terms of 1967 being Year Zero, the obligatory inclusion of what’s in the Hamas Charter the way they currently always add the line about Israeli settlements being illegal according to international law, and they always make a clear demarcation between militant and civilian Palestinian casualties, rather than lumping them all into once innocent victim whole.
Sounds good on paper but I don’t recall him criticising the BBC for their anti-Israel bias when he was culture minister.
Since now he’s been given the position of chief of strategy, I’d be very surprised if he’ll be making any pro-Israel suggestions or comments since that would alienate all the Muslim nations that the BBC wants to appease. ‘Not strategic’ from the BBC point of view.
I’d love to be surprised though, but I’m not holding my breath.
No-one should be surprised by the hiring of Purnell.
BBC’s normal modus operandi.
1. Decide how much to pay (usually a lot)
2. Decide who to pay it to (always a ‘friend’)
3. Invent a job.
Corrupt is what it is.
Some thoughts from close, if not within:
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/theres-still-time.html?
A waste of 3 minutes of your life mailroom boy.
He’s gone, but guess where he’s ended up?
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/head-shaking.html?
Questions… so many questions… being asked.
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/extending-choice.html?
Extending choice… except of course, to the public in having to swallow, and uniquely fund this circus.
Not sure it’s very good value.
On any count.
In the same way that those scientific experts (Head of Children’s TV, Drama, Comedy etc) met to agree how, in everything they served up to the viewer / listener, the ‘warming’ message would be there, this tried and trust template is in evidence again.
This week BBC activists have been hard at work planting seeds and reinforcing Labour’s class warfare message and, with perfect timing, supporting Miliband’s mantra about how we are all worse off.
‘The Railway’ screened earlier this week and repeated last night took a ‘fly on the wall’ look at life at Kings Cross Station.
‘In no particular order’, in Episode 1, we get a glimpse at a rather stern David Cameron, reading the ‘Telegraph’, surprised it seems, that he is being filmed in his carriage from the platform. Heaven forbid, it’s a FIRST CLASS carriage we find out as the sequence briefly and pointedly cuts to a ‘1’ on the window as the train pulls away… all juxtaposed with a beggar, a poor homeless lass brought to London on a promise of work and let down.
On a roll, the BBC really go for it; a carriage cleaner up next, keen to tell us what a mess the first class carriage is left in. ‘What must the homes of those first class passengers look like’, is the message. There’s more: the first class passengers read porno books, hiding them in their newspapers and leave them behind on the train, would you believe…she’s even found knickers, left behind…in the first class carriage (of course)!!! Perhaps in future Guards should be required to remind passengers to take all of their personal belongings with them when leaving the train…including their underwear!
And of course, right on message, echoing the plight of Miliband’s ‘squeezed middle’ there has to be a reference to train fares. ‘In recent years, train fares have risen dramatically’ (the BBC always forget to mention that it was Labour who introduced the rail fares escalator – but of course 1997-2010 is erased from our memory) and to prove it there is the plight of the open-mouthed bloke (apparently a Friday night commuter) who wants to get to Newcastle and back the following day. £301 is demanded – take it or leave it. Now then, there is something not quite right here; either the ticket clerk is not doing his job properly, or there is some clever editing on the BBC’s part, designed to obscure the fact that the traveller could have been offered a ‘walk-on’ fare a third of that price, but hey, don’t let the facts get in the way of the BBC mission – OK, it’s a bit of dishonesty, but it’s for the greater good.
It’s a shame. The BBC has allowed an interesting programme, featuring some extremely likable railway staff, to be tainted by their left wing socialist mind-set. They just can’t help themselves.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01qqzb6/The_Railway_Keeping_Britain_on_Track_Kings_Cross/
You have got to laugh at that “David Brent ” character, they were really taking the p***s out of him and the moron had no idea, and you have got to cry at those pathetic interview techniques from the scouse female she was tandermount to abusing the poor dear’s. If ever two people were out of touch with reality it was these two. They could only exist in a monopoly. Bit like A.W.Benn when he (ran) the G.P.O.
He`s a star isn`t it?
As is the scouse numpty hoping to become famous.
And not a bit of irony in it?
Sounds kind of like the Claridge’s documentary. The director/presenter couldn’t stop with the class war sh!t-stirring. It failed miserably because the employees were all so great, and not enough wealthy guests acted ashamed. Not for lack of effort on her part, though.
I came away inspired enough that, if I ever have that kind of money to burn, I’ll stay at Claridge’s just to spite the bolshies at the BBC.
Talking of class war shit stirring, I was watching a documentary the other night about the hundred years war.
Although in general the content was ok there were little digs here and there about the nasty English (but French speaking!) aristocratic knights. Picking on the poor peasants oh dear!
As if that wasn’t exactly how every war was waged in those days. The big moon-faced woman presenting it didn’t do a bad job, but you just can’t get away from the snarky bits of agitprop in all Beeb shows.
on class war issue on “Pinaar’s Polotics” he actually did an interview with the director of Les Mis for no other reason than to draw parallells with the film and the struggles of the poor under the Tory cutz!
you couldn’t make it freaking up (but al-beeb can)
This BBC report about the Republicans blocking the vote on Chuck Hagel’s nomination for Defense Sec. displays typical BBC bias. Actually, the problem is what it doesn’t display, namely what’s actually happening.
The report mentions – in between White House talking points in support and a little bit about the concerns over Hagel’s anti-Israel and anti-homosexual remarks, etc. – that Sen. Graham is holding up the nomination in an attempt to force the White House to stop stonewalling and start telling the truth about what happened in Benghazi. Never mind how the piece is weighted in favor of Hagel’s bona fides. At no time does the BBC mention what’s actually been going on in that regard – the lies, the shifting of blame, the “What difference, at this point, does it make?” from Hillary, or the big questions still outstanding. BBC audiences wouldn’t even really be aware that it was that much of a real scandal. They’ve mostly been told that it’s a partisan Republican attack line, not anything to take too seriously.
If all that wasn’t enough, the BBC also took care to remind you that Hagel wasn’t even in government at the time of the attack. So what? It undermines – in supporters’ view – the use of this issue against Hagel, reinforcing the Narrative that this is merely a partisan attack. Anything to block His very move, regardless, right BBC?
I don’t know why the BBC decided not to mention that Sen. Rand Paul took this stance first. Maybe because he’s not a senior figure? One would have thought reporting two different Senators took this position would make it appear more serious and that Carney’s claim – dutifully reported by the BBC – that the White House has a “clear majority” (which they helpfully don’t remind you isn’t actually the same thing as having enough) of votes for Hagel, and….ah, I see I’ve answered my own question.
But what’s really, blatantly missing here is that it worked: the White House has now admitted that the President did nothing on the evening of the attack. Nothing. He angrily claimed responsibility for what happened during that game-changing debate where a media apparatchik lied and stopped Romney’s line of attack on the incident, and Hillary Clinton also made noises which sounded like taking responsibility. So what the hell happened?
This opens up all kinds of questions about the Administration’s competence on defense and foreign policy matters. Yet the BBC is incurious. Why did He do nothing? Have we been lied to about the chain of events regarding how much He knew and when? Did He simply vote “present”? Or do they all know after Libya how utterly useless He is and just didn’t bother asking?
The White House admission of having His thumb up His ass is big, and it’s a direct result of Paul’s and Graham’s vote blocking. And the BBC won’t tell you.
Bonus censorship bias: Spot the Missing Political Party in the “Presidential nominees” inset. The BBC knows that their Leftoid media brethren have been caught lying that this is the first time anyone has blocked a nomination like this, and then had to admit that it has happened before. So, in the interests of being slightly honest, they include some background history. Except when it comes to mentioning the most recent instance regarding John Tower’s nomination in 1989, they censored which Political Party was against him, but did include the allegations against him of misconduct. They also mention that their beloved Obamessiah had to withdraw His nomination of Tom Daschle, which is completely irrelevant because it has nothing to do with blocking a vote or party-line voting. But it does add to the perception that the Republicans are simply out to get Him, no matter what. Job done.
Have you heard Mardell’s report from Thursday’s FOOC? Remarkable bias even by BBC US standards. Hagel’s dire performance at the confirmation hearing was not due to his own inadequacies, oh no. Mardell only sees “pompous” Republican “chickenhawks” who dare to question Obama’s brilliant choice for defence sec. It’s a perfect example of pro-Obama, anti-Republican attack-dog “journalism”.
Figures. I’ll check it out this weekend after my blood pressure returns to normal. Does Mardell actually use the word “chickehawks”?
Yup. Republicans at the confirmation hearing = “a petty vicious display… chickenhawks who still flap around Washington, those ever eager for their nation to go to war, who ducked and dodged every opportunity to test their own mettle under fire, not even armchair generals but politicians cowering behind the sofa yelling war-cries.” Goes on to say how awesome Obama is for choosing “decorated war heroes” like Hagel. Nothing about why there are questions over Hagel’s suitability.
So he’s using partisan language. It’s an op-ed piece, not journalism. Same with all BBC titled “editors”.
Even the departed Jim Dandy admitted as much.
The piece could’ve been written by the White House except for the fact that the language is far more aggressive in its anti-GOP stance than a WH spin doctor would use.
Also, can anyone recall a BBC journalist playing the absolute moral authority card on behalf of a r-wing ex-services politician?
The Hagel hearings gave me one of the biggest belly laughs I’ve had in recent years. He told the committee “I support the president’s strong position on containment.” (of Iran). Then an aide slipped him a piece of paper. He glanced at it and said: “I’ve just been handed a note that I misspoke and said I supported the president’s position on containment. If I said that, it meant to say that obviously — on his position on containment — we don’t have a position on containment.”
That, of course, made it worse. So the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, tried to rescue Mr. Hagel. “Just to make sure your correction is clear, we do have a position on containment: which is we do not favor containment.’’
“We do have a position on containment which is we do not favor containment” is one of the great Alice in Wonderland political comments, second only to Nancy Pelosi’s “We have to pass the bill to see what’s in it”. Priceless stuff. It makes Peter Seller’s quote from his “political speech” sketch: “I do not believe existing circumstances likely.” – no wait, isn’t that Obama’s line?
The BBC’s US President editor knew full well at the time that Hagel was a train-wreck in front of the panel. He called him “unimpressive”, and a sub-editor added “Bumbling blandness”. But Mardell saw it all as a bunch of blowhards too in love with the sound of their own voices to ask proper questions, and it was all really an attack on his beloved Obamessiah anyway. Mardell has never written so rudely about Democrats.
Everything is seen through the prism of Him and political games. As always, there can be no legitimate opposition to anything the President does or says. This is why I always say that the title “North America editor” is a serious misnomer.
DB, you mean like John McCain or Alan West? LOL.
BBC US editorial guidelines: “Appeal to Authority is ONLY acceptable when spinning on behalf of Obama or other Democrats. NEVER play the Absolute Moral Authority card in defence of Republicans.”
Corollary: Instead of addressing the issues, attack the character of the messenger. Mardell’s given us a textbook example.
Oh, wait, sorry, that’s not the BBC guidelines: it’s Alinsky rules.
We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
1 John IV:6
Amazing how quick the Beeb dropped the Stafford hospital story.
This article: “Soul Dead NHS” shows how the elites reaction to the scandal means the NHS is finished. At:
http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/
More bad news for Hampstead Harrabin:-
“A Canadian company has discovered an oil field near Hull”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21473620
Probably the patch Mr Prescott tipped out the remnants of his kebab ventures
This is worth a read, courtesy Guido
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2013/02/bbc-chief-mark-thompson-jimmy-savile-scandal?mbid=social_twitter
““What everyone’s done is get away with it,” a BBC reporter told me, echoing widespread skepticism in the building.”
-sums it up.
Indeed.
I just went all the way through the 180+pp of the Pollard Report.
It is gob-smacking stuff on near every page, and every standard of power account holding the BBC claims to be able to impose on everyone and anything outside their bubble, they break within as they savage each other like rats in a sack.
I may do a summary.
Just one, from near the end…
‘I have tried to find the guidance suggested by these words [in Editorial Guidelines] and it does not seem to exist”
By no means the worst, but as BBC CECUTT tramples over any who try and raise concerns on the BBC’s accuracy or integrity, it is worth recalling that any default defence/dismissal and/or banning is predicated on their internal beliefs in this internally-created document, and here it is held up as a piece of flawed, patchy rubbish even they cannot grasp.
And the ludicrous Pollard believes Mark Thompson, doesn’t seem to really care that Rippon has no idea why he changed his mind about the Savile story, and merely shrugs his metaphorical shoulders at Mitchell not knowing why the story was taken off the danger list. Pollard knows that at least some of them have lied to him, but doesn’t attribute malice to any of it.
If I call it a whitewash, is that racist?
David, reading such a document is an undertaking, but worth it. I am amazed that so few have. It is actually worth the investment in time.
Could Pollard just be a filter to get non-marxist celebs framed for sex offences?
Takes our minds off “Asian” groomers too.
Nobody at the BBC has that kind of vision. Their former Director of Vision was a disaster as DG. If they’re super-geniuses, they’re of the Wile E. Coyote variety.
Surely no one can be surprised that its a whitewash. The only way we would have got anywhere near the truth was to appoint a non lefty , non BBC connected, judge ( if there are any ) to hold a full blown review. Cameron had the chance and didn’t take it. The BBC , like the NHS , thinks itself above criticism from ordinary people because it is an essential part of the Liberal Left Elite who are now the British Establishment
Says a BBC reporter who will happily climb the greasy pole anyway, do the exact same thing when he/she becomes top brass, and then claim that any criticism of the BBC is really down to political motives or industry jealousy.
As Pollard pointed out, they’re all BBC lifers, so there’s no reason to expect that this so-called skeptical reporter is any better than Thompson/Boaden/Entwistle/Mitchell.
Mangement restructure does not fix flawed individuals, especially when you have thousands of them.
That other stalinist monolith, the NHS, employs thousands of “flawed individuals” too.
Pouring more money into to is supposed to fix that, naturally.
Sick-making, and all pretty much exactly as predicted here. And this from a Left-leaning bien pensant rag.
They all look at this as no big deal, and mostly something that only enemies of the BBC who want to destroy it for political or (as Paxman claims) industry competition reasons are interested in.
Superb summary of the Savile sickness at top levels at the BBC – plus knee-jerk anti-Tory vitriol
Grrrrrrrr the ‘Now Show’ Less than 5 minutes in and they’re saying the things I predicted a few days ago, that this only affects poor people so the rich aren’t bothered. If the raisins in organic museli turned out to be non organic the government would have to ake it more seriously etc etc.
Makes me sick
Baled out after 20 minutes. Really the worst kind of unfunny tripe…not a peep against the E.U re the horsemeat.
Just not funny-so why is it classified as comedy, and who decrees it so?
Dire!
Exposing the hatred the bBC has for the nation’s military
Submariners punished for drunken misconduct
How serious is the problem of drunkenness and indiscipline within the Royal Navy’s submarine service? Figures obtained by the BBC show that there have been more than 300 disciplinary incidents in the past three years on the navy’s 13 submarines, including 42 cases of misconduct or unfitness through alcohol or drugs. The list of disciplinary offences, provided following a freedom of information request, itemises 13 instances of misconduct or unfitness due to alcohol or drugs on the four Trident submarines, which carry nuclear weapons as the nation’s nuclear deterrent.
So the bBC, quite rightly exposes how the Senior service has a drunken problem with its Submariners, specifically those found on Nuclear missile ships. But as in usual bBC articles, they only allow you to see half the story. Here is what they don’t tell you:
Each Royal Navy sub has a crew of over 100, 150 for the hunter killer of which only 98 go to sea and for the Missile ships they have a crew of around 130.
But there’s more
Each submarine has two crews: Port and Starboard and while one crew is at sea the other is back on shore training. Here’s the official Royal Website which says exactly that:
Each V-boat has two captains and two crews, port and starboard, which means the duty crew are out keeping the UK safe while their opposite numbers, back at the boat’s base at Faslane in Scotland, train or take leave.
So lets see 13 subs around 250-300 crew a boar and times by 13 and we have..3250 men (I’ve used the lower figure of 250) over 3 years that adds up to 10,000 men and so 311 disciplinary incidents from such a figure isn’t that bad. (still high for the military) but lets look at what kind of offences.
157 of them was for people going AWOL. Hang on how the hell do you go AWOL 1 mile underwater. So my money is on those being carried by the crew on shore.
33 of those remaining charges was for being drunk. I’ll put my money on the table and say the vast majority was for people who slept in and were late for duty. But 33 cases of being under the influence for 3250 men over 3 years isn’t actually that bad. A lot less than civy street. As for those drunken bums on Nuclear missile ships, 13 incidents over 3 years . 13 incidents from 750 men over 3 years , now add the fact that ships at sea have a dry policy and I bet each and every one of those 13 charges transpired on land as for drug use. The military has a strict no drugs policy, anybody caught doing drugs is kicked out, not one of the 42 cases saw anybody kicked out.
I wonder why the bBC don’t mention any of the above.
The bBC, the traitors within our midst
I think perhaps you should read this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-20893271
Or this:
http://www.itv.com/news/granada/2013-01-14/killing-of-naval-officer-in-submarine-was-unlawful/
Police investigating the murder were so concerned about binge drinking by the crew while ashore, that the senior officer wrote to his chief constable to highlight the issue and it was passed to military authorities.
The Royal Navy has since tightened its rules on alcohol consumption before duty.
Sometimes there are genuine concerns
For fucks sake, that was one incident and it transpired while layed up alongside a dock. The ship wasn’t at sea and the twat who shot the officer has paid the price of 25 years, which just isn’t replicated in civy street. Submariners are allowed more lee-way when it comes to drink when on return to shore simply becasue they have spent so long inside a tin can. As you point out that attitude has now changed. However using the very facts the bBC provide, what they claim as a drink problem just doesn’t exist. try to prove me wrong, the excel spread sheet is there on the bbC web site
Laid and not layed.
OH just for the record read the comments on that bbC article. Something tells me it will soon be closed.
You may be right.
63. snarlygronkit
As a matter of interest, do we have any “freedom of information statistics” regarding the number of possible paedophiles at the BBC? You see, I find that a bit worrying too
I’m glad the Royal Navy is happy to disclose this information – it’s not as if it’s something really important that should be kept secret like the names of the judges on the BBC’s Folk Awards.
DB, that exchange between Emma Hartley and the BBC apparatchik was pretty amazing. Having spent many years in the music industry, I can understand on one level how the fear of lobbying and influence can be a valid reason to keep judging anonymous. But Hartley also had a very good point that the big labels already do well, and I can tell you that, via the routine schmoozing that goes in in any corner of the music industry (and probably all other arts and specialist areas), any Beeboid in the judging pool will already be well known by anyone at nearly any label. I can say from personal experience that there just aren’t that many of them and it’s the easiest thing in the world to find out who they are. And the ones I’ve known personally wouldn’t allow their vote to be bought like that anyway. Same goes for promoters and producers and other people with album credits who are most likely the kind to be on the list, just like with other kinds of music awards.
The real issue, then, is what I believe Hartley was actually getting at, albeit wrapped up in an unsophisticated class war, David vs. Goliath fashion.: cronyism. I could name a certain prestigious Classical Music funding organization which is typical of the breed. Oh, we know him/her, we’ll give them the five grand they asked for. The recipient will generally be known, successful figure, which means the grant will be rationalized as having gone to a worthy product. I can name other awards which are little more than popularity contests or flavor-of-the-month clubs. Another obvious example is the first ever Grammy Award for a Heavy Metal album went to Jethro Tull.
Another angle to the obsolescence of the current system Hartley pointed out is the flattening of the music consumption world by the internet and social media. This is not meant specifically as a criticism or indictment of any Beeboid who happens to be on the judging panel, by the way. It simply is reality that no small group of people, no matter how clued in they are otherwise, can be able to judge properly when the actual choices are so limited.
The judging hasn’t reflected the real world for years.
Does that sound familiar? It should. And it’s the reason the BBC dodged and weaseled on this. They have control, they and their friends, and they don’t want to give it up. They can’t even imagine a valid reason for doing so, but it’s based on emotion, not reason, so you get the pathetic dance on display in those emails.
It’s very much the same thing we see all over the BBC.
As a CECUTT veteran, had to love, this:
‘Hartley’s response is a gem. It prompted Rachel Hallett, who works in the BBC’s FoI department, to adopt a classic bureaucratic stance.
In essence, it says that you have won the argument but I’m not changing my mind so go and appeal to the information commissioner’s office.
Better yet, the near immediate BBC PR troll response in comments.
Pity they closed so quickly.
Ps: on music BBC… Payola. But then, it was a different time.
As it must have been a decade ago when I was told we’d need a plugger to get close to any BBC radio producer to pitch on merit, and even then what motivates their choices are always ‘interesting’.
So the BBC discovers that sailors drink – wow, that’s new!
No mention of cocaine parties at the BBC though.
I’ve heard it said that soldiers use strong language from time to time. Hope the BBC doesn’t find out.
Join the navy & feel a man – never mentioned that either!
Or the perhaps apocryphal tale of a US army general when told by Clinton about a new gay policy replied ” gays in the army? what the hell does he think we have a Navy for?”
Serious faces on North West Tosh*te. Some non story about a South African who is going to get two of his children sent back to South Africa. you would have thought BBc would think this is good as St. Mandela lives in the Narnia like paradise. Anyway new Government rules mean he isn’t earning enough money to keep them. Did he have other kids is Mr taxpayer handing out tax credits to subsidise his “bar” work I don’t know I was falling asleep. I so don’t care. Sob sob . Interview with local Lib Dem M.P. who of ourse wants the law to be changed. No one of course suggests if it’s such a big issue for him he could possibly go back to South Africa. I really so don’t care.
Red nose day why? Why? Why Are we paying for this crap?
Don’t get me started – normally stupid people get even MORE stupid for Red Nose Day. Watching the Great British Menu programme (which is bad enough anyway) was made even worse by silly, unfunny “comedy” menus.
I’m sure “helping the children” is a noble cause (as far as it goes), but this annual drivel is SO bloody awful.
Not to mention the use to which some ‘Children in need’ money was once put:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2586236/BBCs-Children-in-Need-funded-77-terrorist-propaganda-says-Newsnight.html
Expect to see this play / film on the BBC soon, it’s just up their street.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/whats-on/theatre/remarkable-life-black-footballer-walter-1322618
Even though the writer is on an agenda, distorting the truth to suit his own ends. The guy wasn’t even black he was mixed race !
This story keeps on bobbing up like a turd that won’t flush. guess what I won’t be watching I already watched the “story” on teachers TV. Wasn’t interested then, not interested in it now won’t be interested when Hell freezes over.
BBC / Guardian have been there and bought the t-shirt….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/walter-tull-footballer-and-army-officer/3649.html
The inspirational story and autobiographical details about Walter Tull, a black professional footballer in the early 1900s who went on to fight in the First World War
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2008/oct/01/television.race
Filming is under way on Walter’s War, a new BBC TV drama about Walter Tull, who was the first black officer to lead British troops in the first world war
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2008/02/20/walter_tull_feature.shtml
The extraordinary life of Walter Tull. The life of a man who was one of the country’s first black footballers
And been there and bought the t-shirt and bought the t-shirt and bought the t-shirt….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2008/09_september/22/walter.shtml
OT Fagbenle (Consuming Passion, Doctor Who, Breaking And Entering) stars as Walter Tull in Walter’s War, BBC Four’s fictional drama inspired by events in the life of Walter Tull, the first black officer to lead British troops during the First World War.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2013/jan/13/walter-tull-black-war-hero
Spotlight on Walter Tull, hero who fought prejudice on the pitch and in the trenches
http://www.bbchelp.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-21013524
Play celebrates life of ground-breaking footballer
A picture of Walter Tull Walter Tull played for Northampton Town FC before he went to war
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
Black WWI officer ‘should get MC’
Morpurgo on A Medal for Leroy
The extraordinary life of Walter Tull
A theatre has commissioned a play about Walter Tull, one of England’s first black footballers and the first black officer in the British Army.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/london/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8077000/8077684.stm
The life of a man who was one of the country’s first black footballers and who then became the first black officer in the British Army is being honoured some 90 years after his death.
[Somewhat condescending, don’t you think?]
These stories, few in number, are brought up whenever anyone questions the insertion of black people into historical dramas.
It’s a very slippery way of distorting history from Septimius Severus onwards. Look at old B&W photographs of the period to get the true picture (yes, I know that Roman photographs are hard to come by).
Horse meat taking up most of the headlines but an interview with a director from the Co-op you could immediately tell the difference between the private sector & the public because he didn’t start off with the obligatory lie that they ‘take this very seriously’ !
Cabinet minister: Gay couples cannot provide safe environment for children – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21472004
Where do we begin with this one?
Firstly, the guy spoke about a ‘safe and warm environment’, not a ‘safe environment’. The implication of the headline is that’s he’s a nutjob who thinks that children are unsafe under the care of gay people, when in fact all he’s saying is that a traditional heterosexual marriage is needed to provide a ‘safe and warm environment’.
Secondly, the only person defending David Jones in the article is David Jones. In the other corner, we have a Labour Party spokesperson, the shadow Welsh secretary and the director of Stonewall Cwmru. One versus three! That’s not balance in my book…
Jeff
when in fact all he’s saying is that a traditional heterosexual marriage is needed to provide a ‘safe and warm environment’.
Oh well, that’s completely different, isn’t it? Not at all a fact-free assertion based on one’s own prejudice…
It is different. BTW, I am not agreeing with the MP – the point of my post was to the bias inherent in the BBC article.
Jeff
Word to the wise: Scott M is a well meaning sort of chap but if you get him onto the subject of the gays you’ll be here all day.
Tell me about it it’s the only thing that matters to him !
I wonder why…
… because he’s a screaming bender with no more right to live on God’s clean Earth than a weasel.
Bless. Whatever name you choose to post under, Doyle, you can’t hide your repugnancy, can you?
Oh dear, you fell for that one didn’t you … lines written by lefty heroes Ben Elton and Richard Curtis in Blackadder II. Look it up, watch it and enjoy yourself you miserable sod.
Can’t agree with that, Doyle, even in jest, and even if he does come across as a foot-stamping spoilt child.
He’s a po-faced, holier than thou twat and I knew he’d react to that Blackadder line which is kinda ironic as it’s been on the BBC many times over the years.
Overdoing it a little -but that goggled gargoyle of an icon/avater (whatever it’s called) peering at you like some sort of gaystapo interrogator gives me the creeps.
“if you get him onto the subject of the gays you’ll be here all day.”
I think AsISeeIt’s still smarting from having his prediction that same-sex marriage will bring about the downfall of civilisation challenged for the load of ignorant cobblers that it really was…
If you can’t see how ridiculous a man marrying a man is then I pity you.
I’ll survive your pity if it means living in the real world, amongst adults who are far more mature than you ever could be…
A man marrying another man is an ontological impossibility, no matter what you or anyone says.
You may as well assert that you can fly to the shops on a magic carpet, buy your groceries with fairy dust and ride back sidesaddle on a unicorn.
It’s just not possible. And never will be.
“A man marrying another man is an ontological impossibility, no matter what you or anyone says.”
Bless. It’s really quite endearing that you’re daft enough to think that’s in any way a decent argument, let alone that it has any truth to it.
Same-sex marriage already exists as a reality in other countries. It will soon be available in Britain. A silly old man shouting otherwise on the internet won’t change that – so whether you choose to waste your energy denying reality is up to you.
‘A silly old man shouting otherwise on the internet won’t change that.’
A flicker of the intellectual capacity required to understand the argument. If my shouting on the Internet won’t change reality, then governments and law-making institutions doing the same in their respective chambers also cannot. QED.
RCE,
There is a difference between a legislative chamber empowered to make laws, and a pathetic soul who scrabbles around on the net thinking that putting “QED” after a sentence can cover up the fact that it’s utter cobblers.
Anyone who has to resort to insults has lost the argument.
RCE’s pronouncements aren’t an argument so there’s really nothing to lose or win. But bless you, johnnythefish, for thinking your interjection has value.
You are spending a lot of time flailing around but not actually making any substantive counterpoints with someone who has no argument.
Go carry your banner on an Islamist website, Scott. I have a feeling they’ll show you even less generosity of spirit than you show the Catholic adoption agencies.
Ah, the Biased BBC fallback: “At least we’re not as bad as the Islamists!”
Ah, the Scott/Dez fallback: I’m going to pretend that all the people who post on here have collective responsibility because it’s easier for my brain to process if I pretend that you are all one person.
RCE,
Congratulations on achieving SO many levels of unintended irony in such a short space of time. Guest Who and David Preiser normally take pages and pages to be so hypocritical, so I admire your brevity.
QED!
Oops! There I go again!
😉
Oh dear, Scott still has not got his head around the concept behind the word prediction.
I say I predict…
He says, prove your prediction…
I say wait and see….
He says, no I want proof now.
You really are too dense to understand “your prediction has no basis, and existing situations in other countries already disprove it,” aren’t you?
Still, if all you can offer to back up your hypothesis is your own opinion, it stops being a prediction and becomes just a sad old man’s prejudice projected into the future tense…
‘..You really are too dense to understand…’
But acute enough to know that BBC left-wingers are more than happy to ‘predict’ when it comes to fears about some scary anti-gay backlash….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15894536
‘Spain gay rights and abortion activists fear backlash
By Sarah Rainsford BBC News, Madrid [Nov 2011]’
I leave it to you to let Sarah know that she is being ‘too dense to understand’.
Oh dear god.
That article describes people worried about a possible outcome.
You said that same-sex marriage would definitely lead to other events happening, including polygamy and bestiality.
One is a legitimate concern. The other is a ridiculous “prediction” made by a fool.
‘people worried about a possible outcome’
I’m worried about possible outcomes. I never mentioned ‘polygamy and bestiality’ as such but I do predict further demands from certain quarters.
Seems you think these other peoples concerns might be ‘legitimate’ whilst mine are obviously ‘ridiculous’
And that difference or bias is at the very heart of my complaints about the BBC. For which I pay my Licence fee in order to buy balance.
My bad. You weren’t explicit in your doom-mongering. Instead, you said ” ‘Gay Marriage’ will be just a stepping stone to the next in whole series of oddball pick and mix sexuality preference demands”.
Thinking that your argument has no reason to be taken seriously is not bias. It just means that the deluded opinion you have of yourself isn’t held by others.
Whoaaaa! Inadvertently clicked a ‘like’ on Scott there.
Funny, Scott, when anybody holds an opinion that doesn’t fit with your gay world view it’s ‘prejudice’. But then, when you look at the actions of the gay zealots who hound Christian B and B owners and Catholic adoption agencies, it’s not difficult to see who the real intolerants are.
Militant gay activists are not only attempting to stifle debate in their pursuit of more and more ‘rights’ (it’s difficult to see when they are going to call a halt), they are also tainting moderate gays who just want to get on with their lives in what has become a very tolerant environment for them in this country.
People have different opinions, Scott, and always will. As long as they are not breaking the law, for f***’s sake chill out and show some respect for an open and democratic society and free speech.
“Militant gay activists”
The more times you repeat that phrase, the fact that Biased BBC people actually believe it just gets funnier.
“As long as they are not breaking the law, for f***’s sake chill out”
The whole point of the actions against the bed and breakfast couple was that they WERE breaking the law.
There is a Militant gay Mafia in Islington and Hampstead.
If you upset them, they beat you to death with Kylie records.
What’s funny about it?
The point is the Christian couple could have been left alone, there are thousands of B and Bs to choose from, and no harm would have come to either side. But no, the new rights you have won have to be enforced in every nook and cranny of society, don’t they? These people have to be sought out and punished.
And the Catholic adoption agencies? Only a tiny minority of them and they dealt with the most difficult children, those hardest to place. Again, hundreds more to choose from but again they have to be hunted down and driven out. But hey, what do these children matter? I wish you could witness the consequences of the actions you are now defending.
Yours is not the tolerant English way of doing things, Scott, and I thought you might have learnt that coming from a once-oppressed minority. You sound and act like the Red Guard under Mao. Reflect on that.
“Only a tiny minority of them and they dealt with the most difficult children, those hardest to place. Again, hundreds more to choose from but again they have to be hunted down and driven out.”
Nobody was hunting agencies down. The law about who could be considered suitable as adoptive parents changed. Some Catholic agencies, who organised some adoptions on behalf of the state, disagreed and stamped their feet a lot.
Those agencies were a minority who wished to impose their will on everyone else. I guess you’d call them militant activists, too?
Imposing their will on everybody else? Just a little bit OTT there, Scott, and just a little bit heavy on the hypocrisy.
These are good people who weren’t doing anybody any harm, for years minding their own business and just getting on with helping damaged kids, the really tough cases, find a safe and loving home – kids who other agencies wouldn’t touch with a bargepole and whom you seem to think are worth sacrificing for your increasingly vicious version of gay rights, though you don’t seem to have the guts to come out and acknowledge it.
So, will you say ‘yes, they are a price worth paying’? Or are you going to back off and show a bit more generosity of spirit, and acknowledge these people are not a threat to you and let them carry on with their good work?
Over to you – no ambiguity, please.
There are gay couples who are prepared to adopt children, including those who need the most love and attention. Other agencies have successfully placed children with same-sex parents who have provided a safe and loving environment for those children.
One or two agencies have closed down, blaming others, because of the way they judge prospective parents. It’s not those prospective parents who are to blame.
Like I said, Scott, a little genrosity of spirit towards a minority group who have been doing great work for decades would have done your cause a lot of good.
The oppressed have become the oppressors.
You know full well the Catholic Church had no choice but to avoid a damaging conflict between Church and state. . The Church measures time in centuries and knows that all things pass. .
It will wait for the wheel to turn .
The long view is something all of us, and in particular our liberal friends, are just not used to considering.
Stop feeding the goblin. You sometimes hear the phrase ‘gay plague’: he’s a one-man plague of gays.
Careful, wally: johnnythefish is on an anti-insult crusade. And of course he won’t be so silly as to ignore yours while criticising others’, will he? After all, that would just suggest that he’s a witless hypocrite, and we wouldn’t want that…
Scott – not being well up on these things, and seeing as you’re always keen to push for equality in everything, is there such a thing as a gay time-of-the-month?
You’re showing all the symptoms, mate.
cackpipe cosmonauts
bum chums
surfers of the chocolate freeway
arse bandits
shirt lifters
call them what you wil
arrogant twats like scotty slackrectum make me want to projectile vomit
Bless. With a command of the English language like that, you must be *such* a babe magnet.
What were the odds..?
–
Billy Bragg (@billybragg)
15/02/2013 13:02
I’ll be performing a couple of songs from my new album on Saturday Live tomorrow morning 9am on BBC Radio 4
bbc.co.uk/programmes
–
Guessing Mitch Benn still in the studio. Can’t wait.
Guess what Billy Bragg will not be getting played on my community radio show.
I just heard BB state that “with markets you end up with horse meat in your food”
No-one replied saying “with the state you get 3,000 people murdered in their hospital beds”
Today had a good egg called Stephen Poole dealing with the palaver over horsemeat(Today, 16.2.13 ;8.10a.m).
His mocking tones about guilt ridden Beeboids and organic yummy mummies that faced him in the studio was pretty funny…Sarah must have turned all eggy on him, because poor bloke got shut down and silenced as he mentioned a cow called Colin who made dasiychains and played the bassoon!
Have a listen-I myself only am eating privately educated cows at the minute!
Remember those two posh blokes celebrating their civil partnership in front of the press against the backdrop of the shrubberies at 10 Downing Street. Did that make you feel a little queazy back in 2010?
Well uou ain’t seen nothing yet.
Can’t you already in your mind’s eye picture Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and the BBC signing up to their full blown equal marriage in 2015?
Because, let’s face it, since the fall of Gordon Brown, despite some isolated protesting voices, the country has moved FASTER and DEEPER to the Left.
Don’t believe me? Perhaps you haven’t watched the BBC.
Radio 4’s The Archers has a new target audience – urban black yoof.
The composition of the BBC Folk Awards has been deemed a State Secret.
Nicky Campbell has burnt his bra live on air in protest over the 2011 all-male Sports Personality of the Year short list.
Oh yes, socially and culturally we are already living the Leftist dream and it is only costing us £146 a year.
Just imagine what delights the future holds – think about what wonders might be achieved with go for growth economy stimulating above inflation rises to the Licence Fee….
Black yoof eh?
And who better to tell us all about this that Annie Nightingale.
For it was this urban cuttin `edge in yer face hipster that told Sarah Montague all about some crazy new dance that she saw Tabitha doing by the Montessori chillzone.
Oh and from Harlem too..how street Annie?
Typical patronising bluestocking horsemeat from Monty and dear, dear Annie…same care home as Gambacchini is it loves?
And not even a word about Dappys acquital, and his tear stained letters to those he had sent to prison?
Not a bit of it…Dappy is the future of the BBC!…talented as Bragg, confused as Tom Robinson,
He`s the face of anti-bullying policy you know!…or was.
Radio 4′s The Archers has a new target audience – urban black yoof.
…by having in its large regular cast list a grand total of three non-white characters?
‘….three non-white characters…’
Really? I had no idea. One of the beauties of radio is that it is colourblind.
I take it you agree with the rest of my light hearted critique of the BBC-Guardian-Labour alliance?
I take it you agree with the rest of my light hearted critique of the BBC-Guardian-Labour alliance?
Honestly, do you believe that anyone who doesn’t fisk your comments line-by-line agrees with you?
Are you so desperate for some sense of self-worth that you have to imagine that people not debating every single sentence you utter must somehow think you’re right?
Surely what little experience you have of the real world would have taught you to recognise when people don’t think you’re worth the bother?
Scott M : master of the late non sequitur.
And I would thank you to please lay off the speculative and rather personal insults. I might ask what’s in it for you? I suspect you seek some sweary over reaction? Hand on heart – do you really believe the BBC is not biased in favour of your kind of views? Nit pick here, provoke there – someone gets abusive back at you and your world view is confirmed. You don’t seem to actually debate any of the issues raised.
You don’t seem to actually debate any of the issues raised.
I have done on this and other threads.
But not everything you type out is worth debating. Most of it’s just rather pathetic clichéd bigotry tarted up as commentary that wishes it could be intelligently stated.
Empty rhetoric from a pompous prat.
Give us your views on 28gate, Scott, why don’t you.
Or Balen.
Or Purnell.
How about that 10ton rock from the sky eh?My betting is the BBC will truck someone out to blame it on global warming, thinning of the ozone layer, blah, what do you reckon people?
Well, where CNN leads the BBC often follows:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2277529/CNN-anchor-suggests-meteor-hurtling-Earth-result-global-warming.html
Beyond parody. If the Python team were still around to make a sketch about global warming, this would be it.
Not strictly BBC bias related, but I just posted the following on Facebook, and I wonder if anyone here agrees?
I wish I were a liberal. It must be great to believe that you are siding with the marginalized against powerful oppressors (even though the people running the country and much of the media are fellow liberals!). It must also be great to be able to express your views and come across as caring. For example, no-one is ever going to call you names for saying terror suspects shouldn’t be tortured, but you might get called names if you argue that it’s a necessary evil some of the time. Sadly, however, try as I will, I find myself unable to accept the core liberal assumptions about the world and whole cultural Marxist value system…
Jeff
From James Delingpole’s ‘How To Be Right”…
Left Wing
Left-wingers are: devil-may-care; good in bed; raffishly tousled; cool; sexy. They: sympathise with the underdog; hate injustice; respect the working class and people of all races and creeds, regardless of looks, physical ability or gender; nurture the environment; have great taste in music; oppose violence; loathe inequality; are kind to children and small furry animals with lovely bright eyes and darling floppy ears and expressions on their sweet pink little mouths you could almost mistake for a human smile.
All of which goes to prove how incredibly principled right-wing people are. If they wanted to, the could choose the political affiliation which miraculously confers on them all these wondrous things. But they don’t, because for right-wingers truth is more important than social convenience.
“Whitewash fears as BBC is accused of cutting criticism from Savile report.””
“Corporation chiefs are planning to release thousands of pages of evidence given to the Pollard review into why a Newsnight investigation was shelved.
“But a source said redactions meant it no longer gave ‘an honest picture’.”
By PAUL REVOIR.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2279487/Whitewash-fears-BBC-accused-cutting-criticism-Savile-report.html
Will BBC now request that ‘Daily Mail’ redact the above report?
Is the Daily Mail reading our comments now? 🙂 We’ve only been saying this for days. Still, regarding this whole defamation business, Meirion Jones was clearly defamed by Helen Boaden in the published version of the Review itself. How bad is the rest of this, then? Why was that allowed through and not Paxman’s bitching about his editor? And weren’t we told it was only going to be about ten percent of the total? Seems like they’re expecting much more now.
‘When did you last hear a reference to the BNP on the BBC without the epithet ‘far Right’? The terminology is deliberately tendentious. It doesn’t make anyone think any less of the BNP; but it does make them think less of the mainstream Right, because it implies that the BNP manifesto is somehow a more intense form of conservatism.’ – From http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100203076/so-total-is-the-lefts-cultural-ascendancy-that-we-dare-not-mention-the-socialist-roots-of-fascism/
BNP are far left, not right, as far as I can see from reading their manifesto…they are national socialists.
EDL are far right, but not in the body politics, however I think “Britain First” are the political arm of the EDL. (not 100% sure on that btw)
They are. David Dimbleby got Andrew Brons MEP to admit that they were Socialists on the eve of his election victory, and then got him to admit they were nationalists (or maybe it was the latter before the former). Dimbleby then tried to goad him into saying they were “National Socialists”, in the manner of an adult trying to get a child to learn a new compound word. Brons was just clever enough to realize it and avoided the trap, barely. It was really something to behold.
Brons IS a National Socialist, plenty of evidence all dressed up in his brownshirt.
As opposed to The Left, who are Anti-British Socialists.
I’m not saying he isn’t. I’m just describing what the allegedly impartial lion of BBC election coverage and Question Time maven did.
Trouble brewing for the bBC after an Email was found regarding the Harpurhey series ‘people like us’. It seem the beeb has managed to upset everyone with this including Labour councillor Pat Karney who claims the BBC “have used public money to assassinate the area.”
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/harpurhey-stars-people-like-us-1322868
The BBC… stitch up even their bread & butter audience base?
Say it ain’t so!
Again?
http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/broadcasters/bbc-apologises-after-single-mother-newsnight-claims/5042980.article
It’s almost like they’d roast their own granny for the sake of a rating.
Duty Flokkers… look out… when there’s nothing but rubble between the tanks and the bunker, they are their most dangerous when they’re behind you!
Still, at least the cuts appear to mean they are only using public money now to assassinate the UK on an area by area basis, vs. the usual national attempts.
Unique indeed.
‘Councillor Karney said: “They have misled and stitched up community leaders in the area. I don’t think that any of us knew that they were going to pick on extreme stories in the area. It is certainly not a celebration of the community like the e-mail says.”‘
That is so funny. Karney is a grade 1 socialist, so seeing him at handbags with the BBC who obviously preferred reality over a publicity stunt is entertainment indeed.
It’s started.
Mrs jtf reports from the kitchen that the News Quiz ‘team’ are taking the p*** out of Andrew Neill.
So predictable after Neill’s skewering of Blinky Balls on The Politics Show.
How long before he gets ‘Bellamied’, do you think?
‘How long before he gets ‘Bellamied’, do you think?’
I once would have chuckled along with that.
Now, especially having read the Pollard Report on internal loyalties that would make a shark sniffing a cousin’s blood in the water seem filial, I am not so sure.
He has of late roasted one too many at the other end of the fax line for comfort.
I must get round to reading the Pollard Report. So much sh** to wade through, and so little time!
Worth it. Clear that many BBC staff have not, and may regret it, if only for self-preservation.
Don’t read it without strong drink at hand.
They don’t usually insult their own on BBC shows, do they?
In the Lefty hierarchy of causes, he’s fair game – just as Clarkson is.
Singapore’s government being not high on the BBC’s list of top political systems, how they handle this one as it unfolds will be popcornworthy on the narrative dilemmaometer…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21485729#FBM197858
It is always obvious where the BBC stands on world events.
‘Shock’ is expressed at a shooting in Sri Lanka.
[The BBC were sad to see the Tamil Tigers defeated. Expect to hear much much more on this story]
Meanwhile dozens are killed in a ‘sectarian’ attack in Pakistan.
[Green on green violence which will be forgotten by the BBC within hours]
Odd story, this one, for the BBC partly because it involves criticism of their beloved NHS and partly because they try to impose their own informal gagging orders (well, of sorts) when dealing with complaints. There was also that BBC executive in accounts of the Savile affair, who was mistrusted because he had a reputation as a ‘leaker’. They even let Jeremy Hunt dome out of it in a good light. But wait – I notice that the black box you click on to listen to the Today excerpt has : “Gary Walker: Mr Hunt should have said he would investigate the chain of command.” emblazoned on it: clearly. An idly skimming reader could get the impression the Conservatives were implicated as guilty parties in all those hospital deaths.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21483103
BBC Let’s Dance for Comic Relief
It crosses my mind that hetrosexual men dragging up for the purposes of entertainment might be considered by the GLBT Community as offensive in just the same way as we are told the Black & White Minstrels offend the Black Community.
Over to an experts, I guess…?
If not, do please explain.
Either way it doesn’t cramp my style.
But five minutes of Let’s Dance for Comic Relief and franky I’d welcome a BBC ban on drag.
Is it my imagination or has this Comic Relief thing started early this time?
Atoning for some negative headlines last year perhaps?
So Delboy Trotter would have called £25 a Pony and £500 – if he were lucky enough to ever see it – was a Monkey.
Of course the BBC deal in somewhat larger numbers….
Obviously an Entwistle is £450k – or you could call it an ex-DG
But £450k is also a Tony Hall
And £450 is a David Dimbleby!
A Former-DG was £800k
Come on BBC you’re confusing us….
A Lord Patten is £110k
A Peter Rippon is £150k
A Gary (Lineker) is £2m which equals four Alans (Hanson is on £500k)
Of course £500k is also a Brucie (less than it used to because £1.1m was the Voice (judges).
A Stephen (Fry) we are told is 6 figures – although we don’t know for sure. I’m guessing 7.
A Wrossi used to be £6m and a Russell Brand was a mere £200k (Hari Krishna!)
£340k is a Boaden
Tim Davie was £335k (call it a Temp-DG)
Van Klaveren is £187k (that’s not very catchy and what an odd number)
But the BBC do seem to be simplifying things for us – £300k (less a bit of change) is now a Purnell
Well look at this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9873325/David-Camerons-lonely-ministers-have-been-abandoned-by-Downing-St.html
‘You will have heard a lot about horse meat recently. Yet you almost certainly will not have heard of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002. But the regulation discloses the key fact about this scandal. Supported by Tony Blair’s government, Regulation 178 transferred responsibility for food safety from each member state to the EU. It set up the European Food Safety Agency. So the British Government is no longer responsible for the safety of the food that Britons eat.
We in the media(*) do not really want to focus on this fact, because it is more fun to hunt down and blame a British minister, but fact it is. No 10 Downing Street does not want to focus on it either, because it might make people even more Eurosceptic’
(*)For ‘media’ I say read BBC.
I think that one of Cameron’s problems is that Labour’s skilled, organised and well connected spinners (Maguire) remain largely in place. The Tories have no one of the same calibre.
The Tories did have. Which was why the BBC and left had to pull out all of the stops to get rid of Andy Coulson – an operator who could take Labour’s machine head-on.
Something that goes hand in hand with Gay partnerships is their legal right to adopt children of either sex.
For many years we have been seeing the disintegration of the need for the core family dynamics needed for a stable society. From what I can see it began first with womens lib demanding equal opportunity in the workplace, and politicians giving in to it. Hitherto it was up to the employer to select whoever he/she wanted based on what they saw as best serving themselves.
Exactly how it should be.
For a society to be healthy it needs a stable loving family unit. Ideally with both parents having made a married commitment that they intend to fulfil, for the security of their children. Once they have children then during their early formative one of the parents should be rearing them until school age.
But with the movement for equal job opportunity and equal pay we then saw both parents prepared to put their children into day care or nurseries while they could both increase their earning power. So here we see the willingness of society to sacrifice the core family values for the illusion of wealth.
I say illusion because any wealth accumulated would be short term. As people earned more, so the price of properties, as just one example but the most costly, sky rocketed, way beyond real value. To keep up with the status quo, even families that would have preferred to have a stay at home parent for their young children were forced to give that up and both work.
The result to society was children growing up without the necessary time to spend with parents for their own education. Instead of developing valuable relationships with both parents they were bought ‘things’ to replace personal time. Any wonder that real and important values have been lost, and we can see the result today in a variety of ways.
Now we come to another dynamic leading on from this. The independence that women found now they were legally entitled to an equal job opportunity and pay, showed also in their choice of partner to raise children. It wasn’t so important anymore on who one selected as it was very easy to get rid of them and make it on ones own. Furthermore there were plenty of women who wanted children they’d had within the relationship to be entirely under their own domain – their property. As if to prove in their own minds, that not only were they equal to men, but better.
This element further eroded our society. Instead of family relationships seen as the core need of our society to be healthy, division and distance, with few good role models became the norm. Was it going to be any mystery that our society would suffer a host of malaises, seen in so many areas of our culture?
Now we add another erosion.
Is there any question that the best for any child is to be raised by both their natural and biological mother and father, with the proviso that both are fairly balanced, responsible and loving parents. The depth of this relationship for the child is immense. It is nurtured within a positive loving framework and experiences first hand the differences between men and women and the virtues and values of each.
They are not the same, and both are important to make a solid and positive core, the foundation of our society.
Any man or woman who believes they can replace the value of both within themselves are a fool, and likely to be a negative force to their offspring. I differentiate those who HAVE to fulfil the role of both parents through no choice of their own. they are more likely to recognise the need of their child for the presence of the other sex to help balance them. So they will involve family members or good friends to try and ‘fill that gap’.
Even further off the mark is now, convincing society that same sex couples are an equal choice for the raising of children as not only heterosexual couples, but the natural parents. This is to become the norm!
I despair for the future of our society.
The BBC though has an agenda to bring this nightmare to reality.
Consider this example:
A Welsh Conservative MP made rather a stupid statement.
He said gay couples “clearly” cannot provide a “warm and safe environment” in which to raise children.
It is such an asinine statement I have to wonder if he said it purposefully to achieve the opposite of what he’s supposed to be standing for, which frankly is unclear to me. He also stated:
“I regard marriage as an institution that has developed over many centuries, essentially for the provision of a warm and safe environment for the upbringing of children, which is clearly something that two same-sex partners can’t do.
“Which is not to say that I’m in any sense opposed to stable and committed same-sex partnerships.”
He said he believed his constituents were “overwhelmingly” opposed to the government’s plan to allow same-sex couples to marry or convert their civil partnerships to marriages.
In a statement after the interview, Mr Jones added: “I made the point of stressing that I was fully supportive of committed same-sex relationships. I also strongly approve of civil partnerships.
“I did not say in the interview that same-sex partners should not adopt children and that is not my view.
“I simply sought to point out that, since same-sex partners could not biologically procreate children, the institution of marriage was one that, in my opinion, should be reserved to opposite sex partners.”
When I read the statements of this idiot I am reminded of a line from Good Morning Vietnam when the General declares ‘Lieutenant, you don’t know whether you’re shot, fucked, powder-burned, or snakebit’.
There is no question that this MP should be ridiculed for his statements as they make no sense, much less ring true. The BBC manage to interview a number of people willing to say how they disagree with him, and only those who disagree, in their article headlined
Cabinet minister: Gay couples cannot provide safe environment for children
But now we come to the real reason for this particular post, and what the BBC are doing with this story.
One of the topics on their weekly Radio4 show Any Questions apparently was about the statement by this MP. I didn’t listen to the programme but I just happened to catch the follow up programme to this one – Any Answers.
Here’s where listeners can phone in with their comments on the subjects covered in Any Questions. I just happened to turn on the radio just as this segment started and they had 3 callers on the subject.
(About 17:50mins in)
The first was a man who was gay and naturally extolled the virtues of gay adoption, with ‘no evidence that it wasn’t equal to heterosexual’.
The second was a 17 year old girl who was raised by a gay couple and felt she had received as much or more of what was necessary for her as a child as her friends who had been raised by her natural parents. Clearly it didn’t make her very logical as an objective thought would be to realise that she simply doesn’t know, and she’s not able to judge ‘what might have been different’. The BBC though are happy not to make that point.
Their final caller was of all people a parish priest extolling the virtues of gay adoption. No traditional values for this priest, and what a find for the BBC.
Did I mention the caller that actually raised any concerns about gay adoption?
That’s because there wasn’t one. At least not one that the BBC wanted to air.
Balance BBC style 🙄
The first was a man who was gay and naturally extolled the virtues of gay adoption, with ‘no evidence that it wasn’t equal to heterosexual’.
He didn’t say he was gay, so I don’t know where you got that from. However, he did say:
That’s a polar opposite of how you presented him.
The second was a 17 year old girl who was raised by a gay couple and felt she had received as much or more of what was necessary for her as a child as her friends who had been raised by her natural parents. Clearly it didn’t make her very logical as an objective thought would be to realise that she simply doesn’t know, and she’s not able to judge ‘what might have been different’.
How DARE someone with practical experience give her viewpoint! What is the POINT of a phone-in show if someone is going to phone in and talk about an issue based on practical knowledge? Doesn’t she know that she’s using up valuable airtime that could go to someone with no practical knowledge or experience on the issue? The youth of today!
I stand corrected on stating he was gay. I had inferred that from his saying ‘do two gay people provide the optimal environment for raising children? And the answer to that is, we have no idea’
Really? We have no idea?
Can any intelligent and objective mind possibly think that it could be OPTIMAL to have two parents of the same sex rather than their natural parents?
Since his opinion seemed to be so ‘politically correct’ rather than asserting basic facts of life known to most, I did assume his agenda was to promote it rather than criticise it.
As for the girl, she can have any opinion she likes. This doesn’t make her objective or knowledgeable on the subject as to what the differences would have been for her to judge. Which was the point I made if you read my post properly. Even when the first guy made this point to her, she tried to dismiss it.
Now for this you moron: EVERYBODY in the world has an opinion on this issue – because EVERYBODY has had parents of one sort or other. If you were lucky you had your natural ones that loved and nurtured you and provided good role models for you to judge others of both sexes in the world.
If you still don’t get it I will assume that you came out of a horses arse.
Any criticism of the Gay Community and Gay lifestyles, however legitimate that criticism may be, is guaranteed to get Scott setting up his soap box for the duration. It’s the only subject he feels he has to defend to the end.
While reading Teddy Bear’s post I just knew Scott would be first to reply. He’s becoming so predictable.
Before Scott accuses me of being homophobic, I couldn’t give a tinker’s tit what same sex couples get up to behind closed doors. Each to their own I say, but don’t be so bloody triumphalist about it. It’s that attitude which gets on most peoples’ threepenny bits, not the deed itself.
Gay, straight, pro- or anti-, there can be no argument with the caller’s statement ‘The crucial issue, surely, is do two gay people provide the optimal environment for raising children? And the answer to that is, we have no idea because this is a new social experiment that our liberal leaders have decided we’re all going to take part in whether we like it or not…..’
It’s an experiment, and only time will tell how it will all work out.
Meanwhile the numbers of children being adopted will decline because minority religious adoption agencies who do not agree with the experiment are being afforded no protection under the law. Fact.
We have no idea?
We certainly do have AN IDEA!
Let’s just look at nature in regard to human beings.
The only natural relationships wherein sex leads to the birth of a new being are heterosexual. Ideally, for the benefit of mankind. it takes place between two balanced, loving, secure and committed beings who fulfil their responsibility to raise that child within an environment that enables them to realise their full potential.
The child will develop the best relationships that best enrich society by having a good depth of understanding of both loving parents – MALE AND FEMALE.
If there is only one kind of role model, whether male or female, there is going to be a vacuum of experience that must affect the future relationships of that child.
Is that idea enough?
Your point re role models is a good one.
Thanks Johnny 🙂
I loved having gay men at my rear.
Just been listening to bits of Edward Stourtons show on the “legacy” of Pope Benedict…for Ed said that it might surprise me in the trailer.
Not really Ed…gays, women, abortion and -of course-condoms!
Usual twaddle about his “being ham fisted and stubborn” about his Regensburg talk of Sept 2006…and of being able to make people emotional when he came to Britain in 2010.
As for his theology, his clear-headed dissection of the European culture being trashed by secularism, relativism amd Marxism…his books and brilliant, brilliant scholarship over Jesus?..well hardly Blair now is it?
Still-only emoting and crass-not venal and Satanic.
For which I suppose I`m to be grateful then…my BBC…pfft!
Please, can we have a Jeff Jarvis to take apart the political reporting of the BBC in a similar fashion.
“This is irresponsible journalism. This is crap.”
“BS. This is crap, and you know it”.
(video in link)
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2734/video_tech_author_slams_bbc_for_irresponsible_crap
Event 17 Feb 2013 – Teenager shot dead in East London
BBC “News”:
Police have made no arrests and have yet to establish a motive for the attack.
A spokesman said: “At this very early stage we must retain an open mind regarding the circumstances of the incident and any motive.
“Detectives from Trident are leading the inquiry and an incident room will open in the morning.”
Police are appealing for witnesses to come forward.
Local Radio Station KL FM (private)
“One is black, police said, while the second is light-skinned, possibly of Asian or Turkish appearance.”
Half the News for £145.50 a year
The Americans still use the legal term ‘suppressio veri’ and it’s closely related to that other contract-voiding activity, ‘suggestio falsi.’
No mention of this on the bBC website, nor do I think there’s going to be
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2279703/Death-threats-UKs-Muslim-MP-voted-gay-marriage.html
Perhaps Scott’s efforts might be better deployed elsewhere…..
Let us know how you get on, Scotty.
BBC Horrible Modern Histories are now proud to bring you episode four…..The Terrible Tories
We will learn how the young civil rights campaigner Mark ‘Luther King’ Duggan was gunned down by Police.
On that fateful day he had volunteered to do social work in the community and had been travelling around Tottenham in a meals on wheels van bringing comfort to the old and infirm.
This incident was followed by decades of peaceful protests and silent vigils in the road outside the local Police Station. As year followed year his friends and family still could not shame the Police into a full admission of their guilt.
If only someone had come outside to expalin what had happened with a full compensation cheque.
Meanwhile after yet another decade of Terrible Tory Cuts all young men in London went barefoot and thirsty – causing them to take to the streets in a desperate search for sports footware and bottled water.
Are you sure the BBC didn’t just cut and paste this from their ‘History of the 80s’ then make a few name changes?
Prayers of the Radio 4 church service this morning including prayers for immigrants and social exclusion (as I type the latter I presume they meant ‘people who suffer from…’ but predictably we have to have a weekly dose of politics served with our weekly service.
The BBC are happy to tolerate religion – so as long as it promotes Leftist causes.
My own bugbear is ‘most vulnerable in society’. I would be fascinated to know who first coined this catch-all meaningless yet politically loaded phrase which has weedled its way into every debate.
‘The BBC are happy to tolerate religion – so as long as it promotes Leftist causes.’
That’s all I ever hear whenever the BBC brings a rev in to give us Thought for the Day. Global warming always gets a mention. Maybe they’ve been Attenboroughed.
I can’t help but harbour a certain admiration for the sterling efforts of BBC supporter Scott M.
Authoritively he strides up and down the hall somewhat in the guise of a chess grandmaster at a multi-board event. Smiling to himself here, tutting knowingly there. We poor ignorant amateurs ponder our games in silence hunched over our boards.
Suddenly Scott spies a match where the position piques his interest. An opening for his trademark move – the gay gambit? Perhaps a quick switch of metaphore to a poker tournament and Scott can play his race card?
As he’s being particularly prickly this weekend I asked him above whether there’s such a thing as gay time-of-the-month, them wanting equality in everything an’ all.
This morning on BBC Radio Grievance presenter Adrian Goldberg is channelling upset and anger on behalf of ‘British Residents’. You see these hard working individuals so vital to our economy who – as Adrian is at pains to emphasise – are often ‘higher rate tax payers’ seem to be be finding it hard to renew their Visas.
Well I can easily believe that the UK Border Agency has crap systems.
If only it were easier to stay in the UK.
Problems appear to be at their worst in Croydon – that well known heart of our vibrant Aussie and Kiwi community of those very rocket scientists and brain surgeons we find so lacking in the UK.
Next week BBC commentators discuss the latest unemployment statistics and blame the Government.
Had to ‘love’ this cute post on their Facebook page, for the deployment of every trick in the book, from the use of ‘quotes’ to add tonality where they think it’s needed in guise of selecting a word to quote to justify it, to inviting views they can then… again… ‘select’ to share.
Tinkers.
BBC News
Most young people “love” the government’s back-to-work schemes, but some “think they’re too good” for stacking supermarket shelves, Iain Duncan Smith says: http://bbc.in/Z7uYo1
Is he right?
Don’t you just love the headline ‘Duncan Smith: Shelf-stacking more important than geology’.
BBC – banking on a Labour win in 2015.
Any news from the BBC about Sadiq Khan(Labour Muslim MP…nice suit, well paid) getting death threats from the ROP…in the form of Bradford mullahs and the usual nutjobs on Twitter etc…since when was that halal by the way?…anybody asked Khameini for a ruling or what?
The umma(PBUT) aren`t happy because he voted for gay marriage….aaah…bisto!…join the dots, follow the logic and then…oh, dear…anyone for tumbleweed?
Yet Idiot Bunglawalla( no relation to Bungle of Rainbow , so I am led to understand) says that Sadiq done good…and should not be getting set up as an apostate…for we all know where that ends up now, don`t we boys and girls?
Ah-Sadiq voted for gay marriage, and some of his more dedicated fellow Muslims cite Surah 63 at him…and they are correct!
Oops…let the BBC explain it for us….er, Owen…Tariq…Polly…for Allahs sake,….ANYBODY!
Back to the Lords Day of Rest and Observation, now! Jobs done!
AND ….. bbcs The Big Questions …
is it too late to to renew islam and its genocidal world view to all non muslims?
and does islam, need to stop its commandments murder for apostasy, and homosexuals, and infidels, and jews, and christians. and anyone else non muslim?
shucks! bbcs head of religion doesn t like that, so no not really .. but we do have 😀
Is it too late to renew the Catholic Church?
And do we need ten new commandments?
Beeboids’ cryptic reference to ex-Beeboid, the present Labour Party candidate in Eastleigh byelection:-
…”comments in a 1998 book by Labour candidate John O’Farrell have surfaced, in which he said he was ‘disappointed’ terrorists did not kill the ex-PM in the Brighton IRA attack.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21492430
More fully, given the importance of the Labour Party candidate’s death-wish on the British Prime Minister of the time, Mrs Thatcher, ‘The Mail on Sunday’ has:-
“Fury over ‘moral reprobate’ Labour candidate who wrote of disappointment that Mrs Thatcher didn’t die in the Brighton bomb.
“Writer John O’Farrell made comments in his book about his Labour support.
“Former Tory chairman Lord Tebbit called on Ed Miliband to disown him.
“Five people died in the assassination attempt in 1984 at the Grand Hotel.”
By SIMON WALTERS
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2279886/My-disappointment-Mrs-Thatcher-didnt-die-Brighton-bomb–Labours-Eastleigh-candidate.html
Just about sums up socialists it would appear.
Life is full of.. disappointments.
One imagines about now Lord Hall Hall, James, Hugs, Alan Rushbridger, Mehdi and Ed, Edd, and Noddy are huddled together in a Greggs muttering, darkly, but just loud enough for a BBC editor to overhear and tweet to their followers… ‘Who will rid us of these troublesome holders to account?’ as their latest scheme gets scuppered by those darn kids and their sniffer dog.
The company some keep, eh?
Must be a real pain having folk ask questions when one is born destined only to lead.
Oh dear, the Beeboid who put together the website report will be upset to find he absentmindedly forgot to mention O’Farrell wanted us to lose the Falklands War as well.
Yes; Beeboids do not see themselves as party of the ‘us’ in ‘us’.
‘A Labour Party spokesman said: ‘John made these comments many years ago and of course does not condone or wish harm on anyone.’
Um, when exactly did his views change?
Not sure the ‘it was a different time’ excuse isn’t wearing a bit thin in certain bubbly strewn corridors.
Things Can Only Get Better
And if not, there’s always FoI exclusions and redactions to make it look like they are.
The BBC will undoubtedly ask him on for interview.
No?
Not even a ‘Mr O’ Farrell was asked to come on the programme but declined’?
Oh, well….
‘Two candidates in the Eastleigh by-election have become embroiled in controversy over comments on state schools and Margaret Thatcher.
Tory hopeful Maria Hutchings provoked a backlash after suggesting her son would need private schooling to be a surgeon.
Meanwhile, comments in a 1998 book by Labour candidate John O’Farrell have surfaced, in which he said he was “disappointed” terrorists did not kill the ex-PM in the Brighton IRA attack.
So one seems a fan of disappointing extra-judicial murder, yet this gets tacked on after another is held up for backlash for having an opinion on state education shared in deed if not word by a large chunk of the Hypocrisy Party Shadow cabinet?
Interesting moral equivalence there, BBC.
As I am sure all cherry vultures will… mysteriously be absent to comment.
bbcs The Big Questions …
is it too late to to renew islam and its genocidal world view to all non muslims?
does islam, need to stop its commandments murder for apostasy, and homosexuals, and infidels, and jews, and christians. and anyone else non muslim?
shucks! bbcs head of religion does NOT like that,
so no not really .. but we do have
TA RA!
Is it too late to renew the Catholic Church?
And do we need ten new commandments?