Did laugh this morning listening to Rachel Burden on 5Live (07:53) interviewing David Cameron.
Cameron was reeling off statistics about how Tory councils save you money and suggested any expert would back his figures up.
Rachel Burden, presumably unequiped with the necessary facts to contest his claims, thought fast and resorted to the slipperiest of get outs I’ve heard in a long time:
‘You can ask two separate experts the same question and get two very different answers can’t you? I think we’ll have to agree on that!’
So now you know….don’t like what’s being said then just claim the other person is making it up…which is essentially what Burden was saying to the PM….and all without having to back your own argument up with those inconvenient ‘facts’.
She ruined all her good work a few minutes later by saying:
‘Well you asked for experts..this is what the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said…’
I don’t need to say anymore to that…I can imagine the eyes rolling already.
[A reposting from open thread but appropriate to this post]
Rachel Burden on BBC 5 Live gives Tory PM David Cameron a feisty old time this morning over the question of the level of council tax in Tory led councils and boroughs.
Burden comes up with some *average* figures that seem to show the Tories charge just as much or more than Labour.
Cameron points that she has forgotten that in the South where the Tories have their councils more houses are in the higher tax bands. He insists that if she compares like for like Burden is wrong.
She won’t let it go. She follows up ignoring his argument and pushes her own statistic again.
Quite reasonably the PM says ‘Don’t take my word for it – get in an expert…’.
Odd that our Rachel should have forgotten the fact that house prices are higher in the south and therfore liable to higher rates of council tax…..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-2005814/North-turn-BBCs-MediaCity-Radio-5s-Rachel-Burden-makes-move.html
Rachel on the great BBC migration to Salford…
‘We won’t sell our house,’ says Rachel, 35, referring to her four-bedroom Edwardian home in Ealing, valued at £650,000.’
‘London prices are likely to rise faster than other parts of the country so we want to hold on to it and let it out.’
Oh and another thing – although a regular member of Nicky Campbell’s Lefty panto troope – our Rachel appears not to be on the BBC payroll for PAYE…
‘As a freelance, Rachel will not benefit from the generous BBC staff relocation packages’
Rachel Burden : tax expert except when in an interview with the Tory PM
If only Scott were here to put it in to context for us.
‘I think we’ll have to agree on that!’
As I head to Weatherspoons, for a well earned few units for the BBC to produce ‘experts’ to persuade me I should be at home sipping a water and watching EastEnders, might I ask if our Rach added a ‘Dear Boy’ at the end of her fact-free Facts rant to the PM?
“So, Prime Minister. How many seats are you expecting to lose next week?”
Way to open an interview, Rachel. Why not just kick him in the gonads and have done with it?
To be fair puerile questions from arrogant halfwit journalists (the Jeremy Paxman approach you could call it) is the in house BBC style these days. It is what they think a journalist does – or more likely they cannot help themselves.
Nobody reveres journalists as a source of wisdom, but the BBC have taken it upon themselves to engage in a “Mission to Explain” i.e. sharing their ignorance and kneejerk Leftism with us in order to educate us and shout down anybody who dares to challenge their intellectually and morally bankrupt self-serving group think.
A BBC College of Journalism? Statist spin merchants living off rents extracted from the working class in return for political instruction (the conclusion is always the same – more power to middle class Leftists) they make those frightfully common muck raking red top journalists look like conscientious truth seekers exposing the greed and arrogance and corruption (not to say lust and folly) of the elite.
So unlike the BBC.
Strange that Hacked Off want the Press regulated (and controlled) but it was the BBC who ran the McAlpine smear.
I wonder why the Left are so content (and supportive) of the BBC?
If a media group became too dominant (especially if they were pushing a political line) the BBC would oppose it, on the grounds that they believe in media plurality, or does that only apply to their rivals?
Stalinist bastards.
(the Jeremy Paxman approach you could call it)
particularly inappropriate coming from Rob Bonnet as sports reporting attack dog on “Today”. I suppose he feels compelled to compete with Humphrys etc. This morning he seemed to want to support doping horses with steroids. Last week a well-meaning woman cricketer promoting a worthy community initiative was surprised to find herself subjected to the 3rd degree.
Watched some of the Formula 1 race last week and do not know if it was typical of the BBC’s post race analysis of the Grand Prix’s. 2 bimbos with microphones…their constant questions to the drivers were on the following lines “how do you feel the race went?”; “are you pleased with the result?”;”did you like….”. All the questions were about feelings, likes, dislikes. Could they not ask about tactics, engine design, etc.
Can’t wait for them to ask SAS troopers if they ever get stressed out at work, and if so, how do they cope with it.
Another? agent provocateur.
Your default tatic opens a window into your mind.No judgement, just saying.
I am a racist and proud of it.
I think that’s probably truer than you like to admit.
All socialists are racists.
You’ll find “Girlie” Cameron playing the same game, tells us how he feels about events. Makes him “feel sick” to see … feels ashamed for Jallianwala Bagh massacre but… said he feels exasperated by radical Muslim cleric Abu Qatada winning an ….really fed up about whatever.
FFS he’s paid to do something about it, not to emote.
Police are the same whenever they fail to stop a terrible crime happening.
How much longer do we have to endure the arrant stupidity of Gabbler Burden ?
Her recent stand-in Clare McDonald did a helluva good job.
That you can misuse data and statistics in order to mislead does not invalidate the proper use of data and statistics to properly inform judgement. Rachel Burden is a typical arts graduate frightened of numbers, data and statistics, can’t handle them, is lazy, so dismisses everything so she doesn’t get shown up. Pathetic. How did she get her job? “The daughter of former BBC journalist Paul Burden” Nepotism.
What subject did she graduate in from Trinity Dublin? Wiki omits to mention. You can bet it wasn’t rocket science.
BBC presenters think there are the equals of those they interview. That we are to be treated to what they think as much as what the person interviewed thinks. Its why I avoid watching what I am forced to pay for.
Yes, you had to feel just a teeny bit sorry for Rachel. She fancied she was (for once) properly briefed having, as she did, crib notes prepared for her by the Labour Party. Unfortunately the Labour Party showed its usual level of competence and she was in fact terribly briefed.
Then, once Cameron went off the subject she was completely lost – she has no interest in politics and current affairs and it shows. Luckily for her she then found herself in her comfort zone when Cameron started talking about his children – the hopeless hapless Rachel’s specialist subject. In fact, apart from ‘my husband’, her only subject.
Lefty thinking is quite simple –
If it’s an inconvenient fact it must be irrelevant.
If the fact helps prove a point (no matter how remote) it must be VERY important.
There is NO middle way.
Perhaps the BBC will bring a real investigative journalist in to help provide the facts, stats and a powerpoint presentation showing the figures in graphs depicted by a series of swatches showing different coloured ties representing percentiles of opinions from various surveys they did outside Mosques in the London Area… Expect a new second series of `Stacey Dooley Investigates` in which she will look at people and frown a lot…. After 39 minutes of Soundbite type video clips showing Stacey attempting to draw her own conclusions which will usually include phrases such as “It`s a shame, what a pity, would you like a beachtowel for your eyes or a cuddle?? And the her famous catchphrase…. Well… I don`t know what is going on” which knocked the previous best Five second clip of a facile Cunt interviewing another facile cunt award and it also came third in the lifetime achievement category even though critics say that her selling a tie and plastic cufflinks set in an airport shop has nothing to do with journalism they were overuled when judges said her selling ties has as much to do with journalism as her work on BBC3 …Previous winners include “Are you awake yet Peaches?? A five second clip of Fearne asking the crew what a pulse after one of them telling her to check to see if she dead…. Staceys Acceptance Speech surprised everyone as it was the first time that no words were spoken by Dooley… She just cocked her head to one side, pulled a stupid frown face and looked annoying in that way only she can do… and then returned to her seat in the kiosk selling ties and other products promoting the `Annual Journalists Of The Future Awards Event` (sponsored by Hai Karate(TM) and Tie Rack PLC) To demonstrate her versatility and eagerness to switch departments should the BBC recieve too many complaints about inept cunts being given airtime on BBC3… A situation that has become a major problem across the entire BBC media in the last five years…
Give it a month or so and thats when they will wheel out the intellectual heavywieghts like Stacey,Fearne and Bacon who could shake the very foundations of democracy with thier uncanny abilties to really `connect` with todays yoof and the public using nothing but facial expressions and a box of tissues as her tools to compliment her `New urbane and edgy interview style which always end up with someone getting upset which leads to lots of hand wringing and frowning… All finished off with `Thier views on the investigation, a statement about the lovely people they met and a conclusion that is more inconclusive than the BBCs`Jimmy Saville report…
People who politely offer another viewpoint are not ‘trolls’ For credibilities sake, all posters would do well to remember that. Unless of course you want this blog to be an ‘echo chamber’ and a mutual back slapping exercise.
No but people who use ‘smart arse’ pseudonyms generally are
Touché. My handle is admittedly a little troll-esque I conceived it to engage in a bit of verbal jousting with Guest Who. My actual name is Finn. Pleased to meet you Stewart.
My pleasure Finn
And while were still on speaking terms,I understand the reason for the monika,but continued use just makes you sound like another self righteous bourgeois prig.To far up the moral high ground to engage in debate with all the knuckle draggers down below.
But then maybe I’m being a bit chippy
off to work now, hopefully we can try again later.
No sweat, Stewart. I find Guest Who to be an affable fella in the main. I guess my name on here reflects badly on me but it is done now. I really don’t fancy re-registering. Your point is taken on board. Work on Sunday? Rather you than me, amigo 🙂
Your very gracious
In fact I’m moved to concede that Mr.Who’s prose style can be a bit arcane,at times.
But then working through them improves my comprehension skills
Remember as with physical exercise
‘if it ain’t hurting, it ain’t working’
🙂 Coffee time, so a small indulgence feels appropriate.
Were that I had the ability some have to change names daily, as I would swap to ‘Arcane Mutiny’ in a heartbeat.
But thank you stewart for the gracious faint damning… if topped by a truly humbling reaction to how you treat (some of) my postings.
I owe a small explanation.
In part it’s simply down to resource allocation. As Mark Twain is reputed to have said, ‘I don’t have the time to write a short letter’.
But I do confess to a certain deliberate aspect to the odd cryptic phrasing too, and ironically it owes its origins to when the BBC had interactive blogs, and they were not rendered totally brain dead by character limits (of course not imposed subsequently on the BBC authors writing screeds and then sitting poised to invoke a House Rule the minute they looked like getting held to account).
So one could indulge a bit on the full post, which they often didn’t like if it was to take issue.
And the mods, referrers those Rules and the supporter clubs could still clang down very easily when one was raising concerns.
Hence I found to keep the authors and their internal gatekeeping defenders sweet, or sailing past oblivious, it was often worth being less direct than one could be to get something past them uncensored.
The happy consequence was that those fellow posters I respected and had time for usually ‘got it’, and the remedial kindergarden brigade didn’t. And frankly I was not writing for them, so no great loss. Win-win. Hence a habit I have got into on all forums, even those not modded to a draconian degree, and never got, or felt the need to get away from.
Best of all, the variety that were lurking more in provoking heat than seeking light usually seemed unable to constrain their frustration and, in venting it, got themselves banned by the BBC using the BBC’s rules, which had a certain poetic irony at times.
Win-win… win.
But I don’t seek to be obscure unnecessarily, so if a point is worthy of rephrasing, I am happy to invest to retrying… if asked nicely… by nice people.
No criticism intended old man.
The fault (if any) is entirely mine,entirely mine
Old!!!!!!!?
Joking:)
Oh, and none taken, highlighting the work I need to do if you thought I had. Affable, me.
Sometimes there is no fault at all, with anyone.
Mind you, that would ruin most news media daily schedules.
‘I conceived it to engage in a bit of verbal jousting with Guest Who’
Oo, my ears should have been burning earlier.
Now we’re all BFF’s, I am glad to learn what was going on before was ‘verbal jousting’, as that rather suggests a bit of to & fro, which in turn must surely involve comprehension on all sides?
Which is odd, because from the outset the ‘troll-esque’ handle (and inspiration… but, now we’re totes buds, ‘none taken’) and focus on how things get written or who a person is, vs. what they are discussing could, to the casual observer, have appeared more ‘full-on-troll’, less the ‘esque. Provocative, even.
My bad.
Thanks to Michelle’s recent kind observation and the numbers who did/do not have problems and offered silent support, maybe you have come to appreciate the strategy of trying to play the person (or their style) was looking a bit too much like something from Men Who Stare at Goats psych ops, as are the silly, obvious divide and rule attempts on Alan’s contributions that go beyond any facts he may have missed on.
I for one am encouraged and looking forward to seeing a kinder, gentler, less dogmatic or presumptuous Gibberish Buster in future, but for now there is that name, and an oddly familiar attitude embodied by creeping use still of such charming advice as ‘all posters would do well to remember that’.
If not a rebranded return, at the very least the Hall Monitor and Credibility Assessor for the site has been re-established.
It’s just a pity folk who want to be here being told how to behave by folk here more for heat over light, seldom ends well.
And as the notional cause, I feel I may have uttered ‘Candyman’ once too often.
We shall just have to see.
Yours, affably, and in no way patronisingly, as ever…
😉
I tend to measure people on t’interweb by the yardstick “would I want to have a pint with them” Despite your sarcasm I would happily sup with you GW and quite a few others here. However you remain very quick to jump on anyone who is off message. I would really like to see the more venomous commenters pulled up with the same relish. We are all grown ups so let’s not pretend they don’t exist.. I don’t have to quote examples. By saying nothing, one becomes implicit.
Those are my own boundaries and judgements I suppose. But I think they are ‘totes’ sound.
I meant complicit of course. Hoisted by my own petard, totes 😉
Oo… a No. 38 thread, where all arrive in bunches. Saves dotting about to answer I guess.
Despite your sarcasm I would happily sup with you GW and quite a few others here.
At risk of coming over all Stockholm Syndrome, such conciliatory language is tempting, so I will permit myself a small seduction to the snark side.
But that name will always be ‘our little reminder’ of what brought you here originally.
If being happily supped with now, I am guessing you are now not one of those who are going to try and preface every post with ‘I’ll pretend I don’t know what you are on about but I’ll spend the next few paragraphs dissing you and your style rather than any other, actual, point’?
Now that’s out of the way…
‘However you remain very quick to jump on anyone who is off message.
If I may borrow the curious conceit of many here who conflate what is with what they want, and what they think with what should be… am not.
I accept that you, and maybe others may believe that, but I am less persuaded by belief than certainly BBC CECUTT staff are happy to cope with, but you have your opinion and are welcome to it.
The definition of ‘off message’, which you don’t clarify, also makes that a generic claim poorly supported in (lack of, self-evidently) detail.
Don’t know about quick, but I find irony in folk reserving the right to attack authors and others way beyond debating courtesy and factual correction… and then screaming to the non-existent mods if they are tackled back on equal terms or worse.
It’s silly, and cowardly.
‘I would really like to see the more venomous commenters pulled up with the same relish.’
By me? Sorry, you are trying to drag me into the same daft area of ‘group atonement’ some have tried before.
There are venomous posters here, yes. It is a free (very lightly) modded blog with a vast spread of free-thinking individuals, and in the Wild West of the blogosphere robust kinda comes with the territory. Along with easily manipulated site-constraining or even closing efforts such as false flags. Beyond the ‘one hit & run’ burners I remain cautious as some ‘names’ have claimed they were being mirrored, which takes trust in who is saying what to a whole lower level.
However, my loyalties, such as they are, lie with those who have found and critique BBC bias, subjectivity, lack of integrity or professionalism.
Author or poster, if they post stuff outside my interest or boundaries I will either pass over, or glance and not like. Only rarely will I weigh in, as I have done if things are grotesque.. on either ‘side’.
This will manifest more in lack of support for victims of venom, true. You appear to feel I should stand up get my head parapet-trimmed, but, as I say, I may simply have passed on.
If I chip in in support where you feel I am condoning excess by an author, well, sorry about that.
Usually I do so because of the rampant inherent hypocrisy, or ridiculous bars being held up.
I am pretty sure most BBC ‘defenders’ who have passed, pass and will pass though here to hold site owners, thread authors or other posters to account have never subjected themselves to the nightmare that is the BBC complaints process.
It is all… one way. And often (not always) one-liners bereft of anything of substance other than grief industry wailing, victimhood claims, cherry picking, ad homs, non sequiturs or straw men.
And appear almost to order, as if there is a circling team awaiting the opportunity to swoop.
Hence my ‘colourful’ turns of collective phrase that I humbly maintain are a step less venomous than what usually accompanies a logic-busting ‘you-lot’ diatribe.
Now, with that off my chest, back to work.
I’ll check for spelling and grammar, but have no time to edit to a level some require.
If that renders this incomprehensible to the ‘140 character or less’ mindset that’s a pity, but beyond my control.
You’ve asked politely; I have replied in kind.
Keep it at that and who knows what may yet rise from the ashes of conflict.
Oh, Lordy…the BBC now are too close to Tameside NOT to gleefully get their knitting out whilst the Universal Credit notion of IDS makes its weary way to the tumbrils.
I like IDS…but this is going to be a disaster, I`m sure.
The BBC, though will do all it can to make it so…and that really gets me annoyed.
The BBC are too well paid not to give a rats arse about “the poor and the cuts”, but I`m guessing all that drama going free at the BBC isn`t being wasted on their…er “political analysis”.
Hope, against hope that it does work out OK, and the BBC can squauk about their other buffet grumbles like Syria, Leveson, Duggan, Qatada instead.
Reheat Savile would be my riposte, but the stupid Tories/Sky seem to know better..fools.
No mention of removing the telly tax from the burden of the poor though-never is.
When will BBC/Capita get their Prius undercover eco-friendly tractors off the necks of the “poor, marginalised…and the vulnerable” I wonder?
People are saying…I`m told by reliable sources that nobody talks of anything other than this…
Maybe Labour say it too…now THAT would make it an issue!