I thought this was a rather good point sent my way by Rodney Atkinson;

I am must say I have always been incensed by the presumed right of the comic and BBC classes to insult everyone else and deny the insulted the right of equal – or indeed any – reply. I note that the new PRESS Royal Charter allows this, by making prominent or front page apologies (depending on the prominence of the original insult or error) but the BBC which reaches many millions of viewers and listeners is not required by its Royal Charter to make apologies of equal prominence.  Perhaps MPs should consider such a change – before this “two thirds of both houses” nonsense comes in.

Good idea?

Hi folks. This is the official Friday thread. We have this new sticky thread thing which keeps the Open Thread top of the page but I’m not sure it works that well? Thoughts on a postcard?

We know that it was the ‘rightwing Press’ that was opposed to press regulation by politicians…we know because we are bombarded with such messages from the likes of Alistair Campbell and ‘Hacked Off’  voicing off on the BBC…..the BBC doesn’t attempt to discourage that view.

As far as I know only the Independent has come out in favour of the new regulations to date.

The Guardian seems to be fence sitting at present but was reported to be also opposed.

What we can say for sure is that the very left wing New Statesman is opposed:

‘The New Statesman, which has an ever-growing website and digital presence, currently does not see its interests served by regulation designed to suit politicians, nor by a revanche regime cooked up for the comfort of newspaper barons. Until a better plan is put forward we reserve our right to continue publishing “news-related material” in print and online without deference to either of those parties.’

We can also see that in the lefty Mirror, as noted in the last post, Brian Reade expressed his disgust:

‘The midnight oil was ­being burned in the ­Labour leader’s office.

Why?

So the party’s top brass could collude with Hugh Grant’s chums in finding a way to further protect the privacy of the famous and powerful by shackling a Press which already works under some of the most stringent laws in the free world.

A Press so heavily monitored, a pregnant woman journalist has just been frog-marched out of her bed at dawn to help police with their inquiries into an allegation which dates back almost a decade.

All in all comrades, I don’t ever recall feeling so proud of your brave efforts to ensure freedom and equality, as I do right now.

Take a bow.’

Time for the BBC to reflect such evident truth more openly…there is one more surprisng admission, again from the New Statesman in the form of Mehdi Hasan who reveals something that must be of great discomfort to the BBC...Muslims can be racist, it’s not just ‘The Whites’ or the Israelis….again perhaps time for the BBC to reflect such truths…that people with brown skin or different culture can be equally disposed towards racist attitudes as any BNP member…….

‘It pains me to have to admit this but anti-Semitism isn’t just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it’s routine and commonplace. Any Muslims reading this article – if they are honest with themselves – will know instantly what I am referring to. It’s our dirty little secret. You could call it the banality of Muslim anti-Semitism.

In 2011 Baroness Warsi, the then Conservative Party chairman, said that Islamophobia has “passed the dinner-table test” in polite British society. I agree with her, but what she omitted to mention, and what we Muslims must now admit, is that anti-Semitism passed the dinner-table test in polite British Muslim society long ago.

“It is sheer hypocrisy for Muslims to complain of Islamophobia in every nook and cranny of British public life, to denounce the newspapers for running Muslim-baiting headlines, and yet ignore the rampant anti-Semitism in our own backyard. We cannot credibly fight Islamophobia while making excuses for Judaeophobia.”‘

Labour have escaped the scale of vilification they deserve for destroying the economy.  The Public know full well who was to blame and yet many still have that nostaligia for Labour that as time goes on Miliband and Co hope to tap into when memories have faded.  Miliband and Balls are treated with respect and their pronouncements given the status of prophecy from on high….Flanders in particular, faithfully parroting their policies.

This is aided immeasurably by the veil drawn over the Labour  years by the BBC which is still the dominant news broadcaster…the king maker in many respects of the political scene.

However today in the robustly leftwing Mirror newspaper the equally leftwing Brian Reade makes a surprising and highly damaging revelation….one that the BBC should start to acknowledge far more readily in its reports…the Labour Party has hidden behind Aunty’s skirts for long enough….time to cut the apron strings and let the Labour Party stand on its own two left feet……

Sad to say but I blame Labour for Iraq war disgrace and fatcat bankers filling their boots

[What is] the second most outrageous scam of the century?

An uncontrolled, ­avaricious ­mafia being allowed by ­governments to gamble with ­investors’ money, which earned them massive fortunes but put the world economy into intensive care.

And while the casino bankers went unpunished, ordinary people paid with a loss of jobs and homes.

And now the politicians, who gave those bankers their head back then, and who still allow them to pick up million-pound bonuses, try to stick their greasy mitts into people’s savings to bail themselves out.

The biggest embarrassment is that the amoral leeches in Britain were encouraged to fill their boots by a Labour government.

Not only did Gordon Brown and Co encourage the high-risk bets being played with our cash, they dished out knighthoods to the likes of Fred Goodwin.

Peter Mandelson even told us how Labour was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”. A route Lord ­Mandelson of Foy certainly pursued.

The only political party I have ever voted for was also the driving force behind the most outrageous scam of this century: the invasion of Iraq.

Meanwhile, back at home, while a Tory Chancellor was ­masterminding a Budget that would further attack the poorest to protect the interests of the richest, the midnight oil was ­being burned in the ­Labour leader’s office.

Why?

So the party’s top brass could collude with Hugh Grant’s chums in finding a way to further protect the privacy of the famous and powerful by shackling a Press which already works under some of the most stringent laws in the free world.

A Press so heavily monitored, a pregnant woman journalist has just been frog-marched out of her bed at dawn to help police with their inquiries into an allegation which dates back almost a decade.

All in all comrades, I don’t ever recall feeling so proud of your brave efforts to ensure freedom and equality, as I do right now.

Take a bow.’

‘They have helped to build a media culture in which feeding frenzies have become the norm, making life intolerable for innocents caught in the glare of  their spotlights.’  

That was a quote from The Guardian 2003 attacking its fellow newspapermen…or rather those on the ‘Right’.

It is of course very apt 10 years on in the wake of Leveson and the introduction of the Press regulatory Royal Charter…or the ‘Crooks and Creeps Charter’ if you prefer.

What is perhaps a paradox is that it is of course the ‘Rightwing Press’ that is the target of this legislation….promoted as it was by a cabal of very wealthy left wingers along with some even more wealthy donors in cahoots with the Labour Party…in effect carrying on its ‘war against Murdoch.’

The News Of The World was vilified for phone hacking and its stories on celebrities and members of the Public….and yes some of that was highly dubious….but in the scale of things perhaps not as serious as the actions of some other media organisations…particularly those on the left whose active promotion of, and careless incitement of, anti-Semitism must surely rank higher than the dignity of a public figure photographed in a compromising position.

The Guardian for instance…. So well known for the anti-Semitic tracts inside its pages that it has had to publish a disclaimer of sorts….. both accepting anti-Semitism whilst denying it:

The readers’ editor on… averting accusations of antisemitism

‘Guardian reporters, writers and editors must be more vigilant about the language they use when writing about Jews or Israel

As a newspaper the Guardian has been critical of all sides, but it is seen as being especially critical of the Israeli government and its actions. And that has led to complaints that the Guardian, in print or online, is carrying material that either lapses into language resonant of antisemitism or is, by its nature, antisemitic.

For antisemitism can be subtle as well as obvious. Three times in the last nine months I have upheld complaints against language within articles that I agreed could be read as antisemitic.

I have been careful to say that these examples may be read as antisemitic because I don’t believe their appearance in the Guardian was the result of deliberate acts of antisemitism: they were inadvertent. But that does not lessen the injury to some readers or to our reputation.…reporters, writers and editors must be more vigilant to ensure our voice in the debate is not diminished because our reputation has been tarnished.’

The BBC is guilty of something similar….its Middle East coverage whilst probably not intending to be anti-Semitic has the same effect when the journalists deliberately demonise Israeli actions whilst covering up or ignoring Palestinian violence and war crimes.

The BBC’s coverage has the effect of inciting and encouraging anti-Semitism around the world leading to attacks on, and possibly even deaths of, Jews wholly unconnected with the conflict other than for the fact that they are Jewish….never mind the BBC’s cruel use and sacrifice of David Kelly so that it could get its ‘scoop’ in its fight against the Iraq War.

To my mind such reckless, or even deliberate shaping of a story which leads to such serious, harmful, and dangerously lethal effects must be considered far more damaging than any embarrassment from a story about sordid politicians or even the hacking of a missing girl’s phone.

Nicky Campbell was on the case earlier this week on 5Live ‘Your Call’ in which he was discussing the Press regulations.

The first caller was ‘Geoff from Oldham’ who launched straight into a tirade against the Rightwing Press and the millionaires backing Cameron. Well I think I’ve already noted the hypocrisy of that.  Geoff apparently is a frequent caller.

We were then met with a familiar figure…Labour’s Alistair Campbell who preceded to cover the same ground as Geoff, making the same claims.

Campbell, the BBC’s new friend, was allowed a long and uninterrupted say.

Brought in to oppose his view was ex News Of The World Journo Neil Wallis.

Wallis hardly got a word in being constantly interrupted by A. Campbell and rubbished.

Wallis then had to leave and Campbell remained.

This is the same Campbell that Max Hastings in the Mail today describes thus:

‘Campbell, meanwhile, has become the darling of the BBC, forever a guest on its chat shows and invited to air his views on news programmes as if he was an elder statesman rather than spinmaster of the most mendacious government of modern times.

Campbell’s off-camera behaviour, as a foul-mouthed bully, was brilliantly captured in the political satire The Thick Of It. But the man himself is nowadays welcomed into studios as if he was a national treasure.’

Campbell of course worked hand in glove with Murdoch all during Blair’s reign….to now attack the ‘rightwing press’ has to be some of the most dishonest and hypocritical opportunism we have seen….especially as Labour’s new spin meister is none other than Tom Baldwin….ex-Times journalist and the man who channelled Campbell’s ‘stories’ into prominence in the Times paper.

As the New Statesman reveals: Baldwin saw it as his job as a journalist to: ‘keep Labour in power as long as I can.”

The Daily Mail also has some revelations:

‘Alistair Campbell was known to liaise with Baldwin in endless attempts to ­discredit the Labour government’s enemies, the results of which regularly ended up prominently in The Times — a paper once admired for its thundering independence.

Like Campbell, Baldwin, 44, has a ferocious, emotional hatred of Tories….one fellow political journalist puts it: ‘His judgment was completely blinded by his hatred for the Tories and his fixation with Alastair Campbell, who used Tom as a stool pigeon to find out what other journalists were up to and as a cipher for stories he wanted to place….allowing himself to be turned into a blatant propagandist.’

The BBC using a man whose sole aim in life was to gag the Press or to get a favourable story planted in it for his political masters is perhaps one of the greatest ironies of this saga…especially so as Campbell is probably most famous for his ‘war with the BBC’ over the Kelly affair.　

The rest of the programme went in a similar vein mostly taken up with attacks on the ‘Rightwing Press’ and Tory millionaires.

A couple of Nicky Campbell’s own contributions were his attempt to make excuses for regular BBC contributor and Labour politician, John O’Farrell, whose comments that he was disappointed that Mrs Thatcher didn’t die in the Brighton bombing were brought to light in the Eastleigh by-election….a gross injustice according to Nicky Campbell.

Another was the case of Louis Walsh when the Sun printed unfounded allegations and had to pay him £500,000 in damages…..this, apparently,  was a damning example of Press irresponsibility and intrusion ruining people’s lives….Campbell reckoned £500,000 was nowhere near enough for over a year’s battle with the Sun.

Trouble is Campbell made no mention of the BBC’s own recent attempt to ruin someone’s life…that of Lord McAlpine, by making completely false allegations against him….having never even contacted him for his reaction to the claims….the BBC only paying about £180,000 to McAlpine for the extremely serious allegations.

The whole programme was in essence just an excuse to lay into the Sun and Murdoch and when they could, the Daily Mail and its owner Paul Dacre.

Janet Daley sums it all up:

The ‘BBC Left’ is using hacking to get revenge

Left-wing politicians and broadcasters do not want to debate ideas but they do want to remove their opponents.

And if that’s the case perhaps it’s time for serious thought about the BBC’s privileged existence and the journalists who pump out so much damaging leftwing propaganda on the license payer’s shilling.

Time perhaps for wondering if it should be allowed to continue abusing its unique position and whether the harm it does by far outweighs any good.

Read this and slowly digest…it’s from the Guardian in 2003.……it’s about ‘The Press’ and the dark arts they apply to the News as they spin it to weave a web to catch unwary readers.

Relevant to the tenth anniversary of the Iraq War and in the wake of Leveson.

Read it though and something else springs to mind..… ‘masters of spin……using all the arts.…distortion by headline, bias in their selection and omission of material, partiality in presentation.’

You’re ahead of me already I’m guessing……swap out ‘The Press’ for  ‘The BBC’ and you don’t really have to change anything else….　

‘It was fascinating, if disheartening, to watch the masters of spin – national newspaper editors – exhibiting their skills in the reportage of the Hutton inquiry. All the arts were on display: distortion by headline, bias in the selection and omission of material, partiality in the presentation. The aim, of course, was to ensure that the angle of every report, quite apart from the editorials and commentaries, should reinforce the papers’ political agendas. Editors didn’t have to think twice about what they were doing, because partisanship comes naturally.

Lord Hutton can collect all the evidence he wants, just so long as it fits in with the press’s prejudices. So, inevitably, we were treated to a sort of merry-go-round of accusations rather than an impartial presentation of what Hutton’s inquiry was being told. In the place of sober analysis and interpretation came knee-jerk insults. Papers happily indulged in their favourite game – trial by media – and enjoyed their twin roles of judge and jury.

Though several papers want this to be a tribunal which finds either the government or the BBC guilty of causing Kelly’s death, editors should reflect on their own part in the tragedy. They have helped to build a media culture in which feeding frenzies have become the norm, making life intolerable for innocents caught in the glare of their spotlights. Though the press spinners are not on trial in Court 73, there are plenty who think they should be.’

That last line really catches the eye…‘They have helped to build a media culture in which feeding frenzies have become the norm, making life intolerable for innocents caught in the glare of their spotlights.’

It was the BBC’s reporting and subsequent actions that led to the ‘media frenzy’ and ultimate death of the ‘innocent’ David Kelly caught in the BBC mincing machine and used as a disposable pawn in its attack on Blair…it was the BBC that made the shocking claim that the Prime Minister had lied to the Public in order to start a war…….a claim that was a lie in itself and one that had enormous and damaging effect upon the course and conduct of the war.

So who is it that should be in court?

Well, it may have been budget day for you running jackals of the capitalist oppressors of the workers BUT back in the Narnia of the BBC, we were treated to an programme called “Lenin in Letchworth” …

In 1907 Lenin attended a congress of exiled communists in London that helped plan the overthrow of the Russian tsar a decade later. It was during this momentous event that the Soviet Union’s future leader is said to have visited the English garden city of Letchworth.

I listened to most of this programme and it may have had some tenuous historical merit BUT it was quite remarkable to hear the endless positive spin afforded socialism!

Hi folks! Been away for a short while but am b-b-back! Now then, I know today was Budget Day and wondered what you reckoned to BBC coverage. Personally, I found it hard to distinguish between the line taken by Ed Miliband and that retailed by Stephanie Flanders! I feel sorry for Osborne – the ONLY way the BBC was going to give him good coverage was it it started adopting the fiscal recklessness of Brown and Balls!

Oh and the BBC non biased headline? “Osborne – stick with us despite the gloom!”

It seems the BBC really are entirely unaccountable…even when caught red handed they scheme to rewrite the history books and portray themselves as the wronged innocents.

The BBC has taken the opportunity of the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq to settle old scores.

Con Coughlin in the Telegraph spells out the BBC’s problem with the truth:

The BBC just cannot accept that Iraq is a better place without Saddam Hussein

As is the case with the BBC’s institutional support for the global warming lobby, don’t expect it to provide anything approaching balanced coverage of the Iraq issue.

The organisation simply cannot accept the inconvenient truths about the real causes of the Iraq war.

The BBC lied about the 45 minute claim in the Iraq Dossier and was caught out and paid the price.

Ever since it has worked relentlessly to discredit as much as possible the intelligence that led to the war and the politicians who made the decisions.

This latest effort by Peter Taylor, the man who would like to negotiate with the Taliban, is more of the same…self serving ancient history rehashed and served up overheated and over excited:

Panorama: The Spies Who Fooled The World

Taylor says the Panorama team carried out a six month forensic investigation into the intelligence…..well there’s nothing new…..most was known by 2004 if not before.

The language Taylor uses is carefully chosen to ‘interpret’ the information in a way that is designed to portray events in a particulary bad light.

Look at this little gem:

Six months before the invasion, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair warned the country about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

“The programme is not shut down,” he said. “It is up and running now.” Mr Blair used the intelligence on WMD to justify the war.

 Taylor tells us that intelligence was all based on lies and fabrications by Iraqi defectors…however he is quite happy to accept the word of two of Saddam’s closest henchmen:

But not all the intelligence was wrong. Information from two highly-placed sources close to Saddam Hussein was correct.….oth said Iraq did not have any active WMD.

A BBC report liberally sprinkled with wishful thinking dust…what a surprise.

The premise for the war was always that Saddam had small stocks of WMD of some kind…and that given the chance he would definitely try to obtain more…and it was highly likely he would carry on as before attacking his own people or invading neighbouring countries….this is what the intelligence said and what the experts believed…and what they told the politicians.

The BBC can’t accept that firstly the intelligence community were actually right and that Saddam would be a major threat given a free hand.

The war was never about large scale stocks of WMD parked under a tarpaulin in the Iraqi desert somewhere…it was about future intentions, active programmes of research and development, and regime change.

This article from the Guardian in 2004 illustrates why Taylor and Co have wasted 6 months and a large amount of license fee money in a self indulgent attempt to blacken everyone else’s name and proclaim the BBC innocent:

 ‘….the government and intelligence services had essentially the same mindset on Iraq. That mindset was exemplified by Dr David Kelly himself, as the former UN inspector Scott Ritter wrote in these pages yesterday. Dr Kelly was a veteran, and indeed a hero, of the intelligence war against Saddam, and his view seems to have been the same as that of most such veterans: that Saddam almost certainly had some limited stocks of chemical and biological weapons, some capacity to restart production, some very limited means of delivery, and some hidden but very scaled down research programmes. The importance of these supposed stocks and programmes was not that they were that dangerous in themselves but that they were evidence of Saddam’s long term intentions. What most worried Dr Kelly was what Saddam might develop in the future.

This is the critical point: the intelligence assessment of Iraq was fundamentally on an assessment of Saddam’s character. In a sense he himself was the weapon of mass destruction, so obdurate was his will to possess such weapons assumed to be.

Much that Saddam did could have been expressly designed to produce the impression that he wished to preserve his programmes so that he could restart them on a full-scale basis as soon as he had the resources to do so.

We knew then and we know now that they believed he had some minor WMD holdings and expected to find them, or encounter them in battle. They were not lying when they said this, yet it was not the reason they went to war. If that reason was principally to do with weapons, it was to do with weapons not yet made, whose connection with the present was established only on the basis of an assumption about what was in Saddam’s mind.’

John Cleese: ‘The BBC management have never written and never directed programmes’

Monty Python star John Cleese complains that BBC execs are out of touch with the creative process.

The truth is the BBC management are out of touch with just about every aspect of British life….not reflecting the real thoughts and opinions of the majority of people.

The BBC are only interested in themselves and their own opinions…or rather think that it is only their opinions that are actually of any value.