Open Thread Monday By Alan | April 28, 2013 - 11:42 pm |May 1, 2013 Uncategorized New week, new open thread, and hopefully some new weather…. Bookmark the permalink.
do you know what is really annoying me just lately comrades,,,well just one thing,,,william hague,,yes him…is this guy stupid or thick or just plain dumb…ok here is the problem,,,,william haugue has just said we must work very hard with the american and russian security services to combat the threat from al qaeda and other terrorist groups in wake of the boston muslim terrorist attack …ok,,, here is the problem comrades,,,,,is this the same man who wants to arm the al qaeda terrorists fighting president assads secular goverment who are trying to impose a sharia law state on those poor people in syria,,,yes oh yes its him,,,what is wrong with william hague,,,what the hell is wrong with this man…
Seems like Assad is using ”gas” on his population, or is that another false flag operation ? The West better get involved and help the islamic jihadists, sorry freedom loving rebels.
Where did Assad get the gas from? Iraq?
Iran, more likely. War with Syria would be a proxy war with Iran.
“Where did Assad get the gas from? Iraq?”
He build the plants himself, after numerous defeats at the hands of the Israeli, Syria realised the hard way that symmetrical warfare against the Jew just doesn’t work. (Did you know that during the Yom Kippur war, Syria used more tanks against the Israeli northern front than Hitler did when he attacked Russia)
After getting its arse kicked in 1982 yet again Syria changed tack and decided to use missiles in future against Israel becasue:
1) It is safer for them
2) If the Jews retaliate , the then likes of the bBC will ensure they write up the jew as the aggressor.
In 2007 an accident at a missile factory in Syria resulted in the release of sarin nerve agent killing hundreds of people. Funny enough most were Hezb-allah and Iranians. While people look towards Iran, the vast majority of missile technology has come from North Korea.
Yes Pedro, it really is the same William Vague. He really can’t make a connection in his brain between AQ and those cuddly freedom fighters in Syria. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
If you believe in fairy tales, one of these days – for the first time since before WW1 – the Foreign Office might promote (or even consider) Britain’s interests before those of the “world-wide community”. In Syria this might mean that, shit that he is, Assad winning (or just surviving) could benefit the UK more than his defeat and expulsion.
Even the BBC has let on that Assad’s opponents has links to or is inspired by Al Qaeda – you know those democrats responsible for 9/11 and a fair number of other atrocities. You would have thought that the developing consequences of the Arab “Spring” in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia might give the FO and Hague some cause for thought about the tenuous link between Islam, freedom and democracy. Who, for instance, would be a Christian in newly freed Egypt or a Syria without Assad?
There is a point here. Assad for all his faults (and they are many) did allow other religions to practice freely. His own sect the alawites are regarded as heretical, and therefore other Muslims have a duty to kill them. Some of the rebels don’t just want to stop there and there’s pretty good evidence the whole country will be religiously ‘cleansed’ of all but the correct sect.
Advice for the week ahead – ignore it, take it with a pinch of salt, or check it with the other channels, blogs, or your mates. Never give the bastards the benefit of the doubt.
I was listening to Michael Savage the other day, a white liberal asked him ” How was your day ? He replied ” What with all the muslim terrorism going around, I’m barely holding up.” The white liberal face dropped ” muslim terrorism, you cant say that.”
And, dripping in sarcasm ” I’m talking about the destruction of Western Civilisation, very light listening, very very light listening !”
Last weeks Sunday Politics was the last appearance of nominal right-winger Isabelle Oakeshott before she moves to the sticks (presumably to get away from the smoke’s enrichment). Replacing her on the political panel is Helen Lewis, deputy editor of lefty rag The New Statesman who … you guessed it … previously worked for The Guardian. The Political Panel now consists of Lewis, Guardian journalist Nick Watt and FT political columnist Janan Ganesh. A political panel, all of whom are from the left; yet another example of ‘balance’ from the beeb.
I agree about Isabel Oakeshott – she was actually a sane voice on the show. Sunday Times is one of the few papers with (mostly) reliable editorials these days.
Is Ganesh from the left? His comments often seem too sensible for that.
Ganesh is typically FT – a liberal economically and socially.
Assad vs. Jihadists. As Kissinger said about Iran Iraq war……. “It’s too bad they both can’t lose”
better the devil we know,i am on president assads side against the jihadists in syria,no arming the islamist murderers in are name mr hague.
“Horrific – but sending troops to Syria would be a catastrophe”
By MICHAEL BURLEIGH.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2315462/Horrific–sending-troops-Syria-catastrophe.html#ixzz2Rpv8vzdy
I see an EU led drive for jigsaw policies in Syria – partition, with Tommy Atkins in the middle winning hearts and minds from both sides. Then the BBC could highlight any alleged war crimes by UK soldiers
Does anyone know if N Farage has a policy on the BBC?
It’s probably something like: “I’m never off it. I make good copy, and take votes away from the Conservatives, so I’ll get on air whenever I want.”
OTish, but having just watched the Sky political editor’s ‘report’ on the new benefits changes, it would appear the MSM has resolved the problem of being called out on using #prasnews direct from political ‘sources’: honesty.
The ‘so called ‘ bedroom tax’ (so-called by whom originally?) was brought in again, but after what appears a certain reaction on accuracy and impartiality from IDS to BBC Northern Editors, the solution is to describe it now as ‘What Labour calls the Bedroom Tax’.
Quite why it cannot be described in terms not referring to Labour sound bites still remains a question, but at least the context is clear(er). Interesting how the MSM can create less than accurate misapprehensions with the public, but then claim that what they have seeded has now become public perception to justify running with.
BBC 5 Live lead an all out attack on the pilot launch of Universal Credit this morning. Nicky Campbell and Rachel Burden want to convince me that it is all a terrible idea.
Funny thing is…. I can’t really recall these attacks on any New Labour tweaks to the Welfare system.
One of ‘society’s most vulnerable’ a young guy called Luke with drink and drug problems promises that he will spend the whole month payment on ‘drugs, beer, partying’.
He will fail to pay his landlord and he assures us that ‘crime will go sky high’.
BBC : Stop the Tories – or else!
So as he says in advance he fully intends to spend his benefit on partying he is clearly far from being “vulnerable” but deliberately sponging, hopefully his benefit will be stopped!
He also admits he is irresponsible (fail to pay Landlord) and as good as says he will steal to make up for it. Hope the police noted his name.
That pathetic loser on 5 live this morning needs to spend some time in the real world and see what it takes to actually earn the cash to support his lifestyle instead of scamming it off the benefit system.
This whole item was so typically BBC – carefully constructed to present the coalition’s position as being harmful to vulnerable individuals.
Burden’s faux concern almost had me gagging.
No mention of the fact that this parasite is in the position he currently occupies purely out of his own choice, amply encouraged by a benefit system which is long past time for a comprehensive reappraisal.
I caught the tail end of this – didn’t the commentator describe the execrable young man as ‘homeless’? Which made his comments about (not) paying the landlord a bit incomprehensible
The universal credit is a terrible idea! A Triumph of government optimism over civil service incompetence!
This benefit requires a claimant to claim on line and then the whole thing is dealt with by computer. If this is ever rolled out then it will require the transfer of 12 million claims onto a new computer system. (starting to worry anyone yet?)
The problem is that the civil service and politicians can’t make a decision and stick to it for longer than 30 minutes, so it’s absolutely impossible to design a computer system which can be continually changed, which is one of the reasons government computer projects fail.
The only solution is to take the work away from the public sector and give it to the private sector with the condition that changes can only be made once a month. That way it might have a ghost of a chance of working.
Most government departments run rudimentary computer systems with hard copy back up in tandem. They are incapable of dealing with the most modern systems which do what they required an hour ago (& probably do again in 3 hours!).
Hmm well my experience of the changes has been actually very good so far, the on-line bit is easy and you still get a face to face interview! then all my job search efforts are logged on the system and are easy for the staff who only now have to look at my page to see what I have done! all my signings now take minutes to do as the rest I can do from home and new search site is also good giving me access to whole areas instead of a 37 mile round trip to stand in the job centre for 2 hours with the old job points that don’t show anything or don’t work !
And I must add I have been offered new help funding any training or equipment I need !the old system was hell compared to what I have to deal with now !
I bet personal experiences like yours somehow don’t find their way onto BBC mainstream news programmes…
Ok. I do have personal knowledge of when benefits last changed in the late 1980s. First Civil servants don’t come up with these ideas Governments do. We were told that moving to income support would simplify the system (sound familiar) and to be fair it was a simplified system for about five minutes , then they then began to add bits on here and take bits off their in the interests of politics and pressure groups. In fact some of the time the computer system couldn’t even do the maths that used to be done by hand and more accurately under the old system. This left the civil services in a system where the rules were changing on a regular basis and left trying to get the payments out accurately and on time to the right people. For example when payments of mortgage interest was changed and made directly to the lender to the best of my knowledge the Government was told the systems could not deal with that change, but they went ahead with it anyway.
As for the civil service not being as efficient as the private sector, well I’ve worked in both and to be honest the private companies I’ve worked for (and that includes well know high street names) wouldn’t last 5 minutes doing a job in what was DHSS, but I’m sure the bosses of such a project would require astronomical wages for the responsibility whilst taking on part time minimum wage workers-to make it more cost effective.
I noticed that Campbell’s first guests were introduced as someone from Policy Exchange – which he described as a ‘Conservative’ think tank. And someone from the Fabians. He could have gone on to describe them as a ‘socialist’ think tank.
I can’t think for the life of me why he failed to do so.
“BBC executive given £800,000 golden goodbye just weeks after new Director General imposes £150,000 cap.
“New BBC chief executive Lord Hall put a cap on payoffs at £150,000.
“But former head of BBC Worldwide to walk away with a year’s notice of £477,000 and profit-related pay of up to £386,000.
“MP says ‘many will feel that the level of payout is unjustified.'”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2316278/800-000-goodbye-BBC-executive-Former-head-world-service-massive-pay-weeks-150-000-cap-place.html#ixzz2RpucaMKx
If you have a contractual arrangement then you are entitled to see that contract performed. You have however missed the point in this article, it is not what you seem to think it to be.
The years notice of £477,000 is what it says – a years notice – he leaves the BBC and is paid to sit at home, and the contract does not allow him to work for anyone else. The thinking behind this is that he cannot take confidential management decisions & strategies to a competitor. It is not some kind of severance pay or redundancy.
The question is whether the BBC needs to write these kinds of contracts for its management? The corporation will always get its income via the TV tax, so what does it have to gain by these arrangements. The answer is most likely that it employs a firm of expensive lawyers who take the usual belt & braces approach and the BBC management blindly follow their advice without challenge or even thinking about it.
This is a years salary not a payoff.
But he’s not “sitting at home”. According to this in the Telegraph ” he joined Burberry as chief operating officer last month” having been on the board of Burberry as a non-executive director (not free of charge I guess) since 2009. I’m all in favour of keeping contractual commitments but, it seems to me – and, no, I haven’t read his employment contract at BBC Worldwide or Burberry – that he’s being given rather more than his contractual entitlement.
This isn’t a practice restricted to the BBC nor to the public sector. Payoffs in the private sector can be just as egregious. But, as commenters on this site have mentioned time without number, the “private sector” is generally just that and I am not taxed – as I am with Smith – to finance a completely undeserved “career”, free of the consequences, for instance, of masterminding the purchase of Lonely Planet for £150 million and selling it for £51.5 million.
The contract restricts where he can work, so another media supplier would be banned. Of course the contract is illegal & I can’t find the case law but it goes back to a studio who contracted a star actress but then refused to give her any work and also to allow her to work elsewhere.
Makes you wonder what they point of writing clauses which cannot be enforced, but this has led other employers to offer ‘buyouts’ of the amount an employee loses as a result of breaking the terms.
The actress was Bette Davis (Warner Brothers -v- Nelson) and she lost. Accordingly, unless there’s been a change in the law, such a restrictive covenant is legal.
Each restrictive covenant can be challenged on its own merits and the court will decide whether it is enforceable or not. Contracts that are too broad in locality or time period will be annulled. e.g. You might say that someone who worked in an insurance brokerage can’t work for another insurance intermediary within 5 miles of the office for a period of 12 months and this might be acceptable, but if you just said that the person can’t work for another insurance intermediary then that clause would be thrown out
You are correct about Bette Davis, but Olivia De Havilland later took the same studio- Warner Bros – to court and won her case. Her contract (like Davis’) stipulated that if she was suspended for refusing a film part, she could not work for another studio or make films with an independent company, during that suspension, and the length of the suspension would be added on to the end of her contract. This, in theory, could make the normal seven year contract into one of indefinite length.
The U.S. court decided that the suspension clause in the contract amounted to usury and was therefore illegal.
That court decision marked the end of the studio system , although it did continue until its then current form until the 1950s. It also allowed film actors and studio stars to work freelance unencumbered by studio contracts.
I would question whether it was actually a matter of contract, or merely the BBC execs again awarding each other vast amounts of public money. The recent “device” is that the BBC claims to have made a position redundant, so the executive gets a year redundancy, plus a years salary. Caroline Thompson and Mark Byford are two recent examples, £670k and £970k pay-offs, plus pensions of the type that the average license fee payer can only dream of.
In reality the role has not been abolished, there has been no redundancy, merely a change of job title and perhaps responsibilities rearranged slightly to different departments. It is a con perpetrated on the license payer in an attempt to cover up greed bordering on theft. And as always with the BBC they get away with it because they are answerable to nobody.
I have been reading and contributing to this site for sometime and I would like to thank all those who organise it for the valuable service that they provide. Before I found the site I thought that I was virtually alone in finding the BBC output outrageously biased in favour of the liberal left and flagrantly ignoring the Charter under which it was set up. But I felt totally impotent and consequently angry because there was nothing that I could do, the BBC took my money and served up stuff I totally disagreed with. So I was mightily relieved to find that quite a few other people thought so to.
It is good to be able to read what others think and see the all engulfing bias of the BBC. This constant bias in favour of one side of the political argument is undermining democracy in Britain and this is my main issue with the BBC.
However, the site has not been able to rid me of the feeling of impotence in the face of the overwhelming might of the BBC. Even if they know about the site I am sure they treat it with disdain, no matter how much and how justly we rail against them, they can just ignore us.
I think the site needs to increase it scope to include promoting a campaign of Refusal to Pay the License Fee as this is the only way to force the BBC to confront its own prejudice. Of course the campaign would need to make it plain that its aim was to force the BBC to adhere to its Charter and not merely trying to dodge paying the License Fee.
If several hundred thousand people were to join such a campaign then the BBC would realise it had a problem and the Tories would realise that dealing with the BBC was something large sections of the public wanted and that they shouldn’t be scared of it.
Of course I have no idea how to start such a campaign but if anyone does know then I am willing to help.
Why would the BBC take a blog with such a tiny audience at all seriously? Go to Alexa.com for a reality check.
The reason the site doesn’t organise petitions is that the owner knows only to well that his impotence will be revealed.
I wonder why you waste your contempt then,surely such a valuable commodity good be better employed elsewhere?
Aww that nice clodfritz has read up a new word ‘impotence’ bless now every thing he hates will be a sign of ‘impotence’ ! lol
As David Vance often quotes: ‘”All it takes for evil to succeed is for a few good men to do nothing…”
I also feel a smug sense of superioritymaking this Blog look stupid.
“Herr Flick says:
April 29, 2013 at 10:04 pm
Self-righteous is fair. I do feel a sense of smug superiority because my beliefs are of greater virtue than yours
I do hold contempt for you, the difference between me and the bigots here is that its not based on your race etc.
Ha, I win again! ”
Your not posting using more than one
germanic name are you?
you naughty boy
Wasn’t Hitler an impotent German too?
No ! He was an Austrian ! Ha ! Ha ! Epic fail ! I win again & this is further proof of my grateness and this blogs lame-o-ness ! Hurrah for the BBC !
Ein Reich ! Ein volk ! Ein licence fee to slay the eeeevil Ocker Nasty Murdoch !
Tomorrow we march on Poland (to encourage them to have a state broadcaster expensively funded on money and menaces) and then : Die Welt !
Actually, it kind of works as that.
Fun though this all is, I am sensing more than a whiff of false flag in the Farce.
Such grotesque trolling surely serves the BBC cause not a jot.
Then again, idle Hans & all…
“Your not posting using more than one
germanic name are you?”
‘The Boys from Brazil – the Sequel’
In which a struggling BBC PR division, down to its last 147 kapos to ‘cover’ the blogosphere, hit on a wheeze having being taken to Star Wars 3 on a morale-boosting outing.
What you need to see is what we see – a jerk who makes snotty comments that don’t address the points being made in any meaningful way, and in his hit and run mode believes this makes him superior.
Like a mosquito!
By the way, referring to Burke’s quote shows you realise the evil is truly the BBC, and feeling proud of expressing it the way you do says more about you and your mindset.
Knock yourself out with your ‘smugness’ – it’s all you got.
It’s so dishonest posting in numerous Teutonic names, just like other Beeboid trolls who flock to this site using a multitude of different incarnations. It proves they don’t have any serious arguments when engaging with us. They just come here to disrupt and misdirect.
Perhaps David could devise some sort of marker to be used as an indicator of a Beeboid troll. I would suggest something like a red skull icon next to their latest username . That way we wouldn’t waste time reading their insulting and abusive crap.
‘Epic fail’ was a favourite mantra of Nicked Emus.
Oh criminy cripes. 🙁
‘Twas me having a little fun at the expense of our hunnishly-monikered trollerati. Not as if I made it difficult to work it out by hiding behind a fiendishly complex pseudonym tbh.
Nuts and double nuts. Bother, too.
Hohenzollern, shurely? Musht be shome short of mishtake!
Treble nuts and double bother.
Not a petition but a refusal to pay
What’s this about? The bBBC is championing the cause of three ‘British’ men who carried on taking drugs in Dubai just like they were at home in the East End of London, but have now been jailed for it. The mother of one of the criminals is being allowed saturation coverage on the bBBC TV ‘news’ to tell us that they were innocent, of course.
It’s that Beeboid double-dipping again: when these governments are criticising the West, they’re exemplars of Moderate Islam being alientated by Western Imperialism.
Meanwhile, when it comes to a drug bust, suddenly these countries are fascist hellholes, full of mustache-twirling sadists electrocuting all and sundry totally for no reason at all.
Which is it BBC?
Having been an ex-pat in the UAE for eight years, I know the rules for drugs and alcohol are simple and should be followed by ex-pats and tourists, otherwise keep out of the UAE. Simples!
I was listening and was compelled to send Victoria an e mail expressing my distaste with both this and the recent airtime she gave to that woman Romany Blythe. I suggested that it is maybe time for her to step down and allow somebody else, more in tune with the the majority thinking, to take over her slot.
I wouldn’t go anywhere near her slot
Jemima Khan and the Part-Time Wife
Jemima Khan investigates the practice of polygamy in the UK today.
Absolutely disgraceful biased program in favour of the UK allowing polygamous marriage with absolutely no voice from the other side allowed.
No point in complaining because it’s obviously Wayycism or Islam O realism.
So there are interviews with the Leyton Shariah ‘council’ (not court that’s illegal) but it turns out that there are two mosques registered to carry out marriages. I wonder if the same requirements to carry out same sex marriages / civil partnerships has been made of these mosques, that has been viciously enforced elsewhere.
” that has been viciously enforced elsewhere.” You mean where the Government created legislation with a “triple lock” so churches can’t carry out a gay wedding even if they want to? That would seem to be the exact opposite of what you think happened.
You seem to be confusing a church with a mosque !
I don’t know of a church licenced to carry out civil ceremonies either.
Church of England churches are auhorised to solemnise a marriage certificate i.e. perform the civil, legally binding, act at the same time as the religious ceremony. A person ‘married’ in in the UK by a purely religious ceremony is not married in law without a marriage certificate which requires a registrar.
The CofE is the only church with this exemption and this has been the case since 1837
Not so. Churches of any domination can appoint an authorised person who has the authority to issue a marriage certificate after a wedding ceremony according to the “rites” of that denomination. (Subject to the approval ofo the local registrar) A certain form of words must be said in order for the marriage to be legal. This facility has now been been granted to secular organisations e.g. hotels, Castles etc.
That’s interesting – didn’t know that, but isn’t it the case that CoE ministers are automatically considered to be a registrar, they don’t have to appoint anyone as it’s part of their JD. As far as I know (willing to be corrected), no other religion/denomination has this privilege in England/wales. Cripes, I am sorry for splitting hairs – in effect there is no difference, isn’t this is just a legislative hangover from the time when the parish priest was in effect the official registrar; but it has proven useful for liberal/venal vicars who have indulged in a bit of bogus marriage trading on the side
The C of E doesn’t need a marriage license from the Registrar.
All religious outfits issue certificates.
BBC R4 . jemima and the part time wife – ?!*?!?
“For divorced Muslim women, finding a new spouse isn’t always easy. But would being a part-time wife be the solution?” … WHAT! ……. is this garbage ?
ahh bbc – you see, sharia has the answer?
no opposing view, nothing objective.
Polygamous marriages are recognised in the UK if they take place in countries where the practice is legal.
This of course means mainly Muslim countries. Currently, the husband and first wife can receive £111.45 per week and any additional wives receive £36.65 per week, in benefits, (the main reason along with continuing the retarded culture).
Under the new Universal Credit system coming into force polygamous marriages are not recognised but, additional spouses could still be eligible for almost £70 😀 a week … as extra wives will soon be able to claim full single person’s benefits despite being married
The government admits loophole will exist because of their reforms, and as they do not want to recognise polygamy in any way, so will treat extra wives as single?
“Tariq Ali, the 45-year-old co-founder of Project BME (Black Minority Ethnics), a charity based in Darwen, Lancashire, admits: ‘There are thousands and thousands of bigamous and polygamous marriages in the UK’s Pakistani community — the same community into which I was born. ‘Every single man of my age who I bump into seems to have a third, fourth or fifth wife.
‘The issue is going unreported but in the Asian communities this is becoming a way of life.
BBC R4 . jemima and the part time wife
“For divorced Muslim women, finding a new spouse isn’t always easy. But would being a part-time wife be the solution?” … ahh you see … sharia has the answer.
For Muslim Sheiks, in Saudi finding live in workers isn t always easy, but could aquiring a slave be the solution?
…. ahh you see, sharia has the answer
For Muslim women, proving you ve been brutally raped
isn t always easy, 4 witnesses eh! … ensure you sistas get gang raped ,,, ah you see … sharia has the answer
prevention is better than cure? … as one knows … as it goes without question, any muslim man is almost certain to brutally rape
a “sista” because shes not dressed ahem “modestly” :-D, i mean why not eh!
could a head to toe binbag … i mean niquab be the solution …
ah you see … sharia has the answer.
how far does dhimwitted Jemima want to go on the sharia train? … because useful idiots
as the bbc knows so well, are always welcome.
There are a number of wealthy Muslim Business Woman in this country, I wonder if they would be allowed to have multiple husbands?
Good point ! and one that should be shoved into the nearest BBC ear [not literally though ! this ain’t Shakespeare]
Errrr…not really, it would be viewed as adultery and punished by stoning to death. ( in the right country it would, maybe not here, not yet, but give it time.)
Yes, those blokes would have to find another wife after she was executed 😉
In this programme, Jemima Khan speaks to women who have chosen to become second wives as well as women who have had polygamy imposed upon them without their consent or, sometimes, even their knowledge.
We hear from a family barrister and a representative of the Sharia Council. Baroness Caroline Cox explains why she believes that practices such as polygamy bring suffering to women and must be prevented from happening; but Islamic law consultant, Khola Hasan, asserts that polygamy is a reality in Britain and must be recognised by British law
A week ago I said the Beeb would be pushing for polygamy on women’s rights grounds. I didn’t think it would happen that quickly.
C,mon you know that after gay marriage Polygamy was next on the progressives agenda. I worry what will be next. Just so you know where I stand, I am against all of it.
We do know what’s coming next. Three men and a dog followed by kids. Have a look at the early career of Harriet Harman if you want to see what direction these people are headed.
More ‘Britons’, imprisoned in Dubai.
Oh dear they have been punished for law breaking.
Or have they? Evidence obtained under torture was made illegal in the UK way back in the days of Elizabeth I because it is unreliable.
These men are claiming that their confessions were obtained by torture and the fact that the Dubai authorities will not allow proper medical examination of them would tend to support their claims.
The question is if they have been tortured and can show this, what will Britain do in their defence? Answer probably nothing!
“Claiming” being the operative word> It’s very much in their interests to claim to have been tortured, as few would have any sympathy for them otherwise.
Their claims have been very successful in winning support too – you should see the Facebookers calling for their release!!! 😮
Or have they? Evidence obtained under torture was made illegal in the UK way back in the days of Elizabeth I because it is unreliable.
These men are claiming that their confessions were obtained by torture and the fact that the Dubai authorities will not allow proper medical examination of them would tend to support their claims.
The question is if they have been tortured and can show this, what will Britain do in their defence? Answer probably nothing!
I’ve been away since Thursday so didn’t have chance to post this until today, but back to those GDP figures – a modest increase, but significantly better than expected or hoped for in BBC towers.
But I was struck by the controversial (see what I did there!) Norman Smith’s report on the lunchtime news, in particular the words that he used to describe the economy.
In truth, the consequences of Labour’s mishandling of the economy will be with us for a generation – and real growth will be a stranger to these shores for many years.
Smith could have positioned his report along those lines; he could legitimately have described the economy as sluggish or slow-moving, or to use Mervin King’s words – ‘bumping along the bottom’.
But, no! Our Norman stands there, outside Number 11, and describes the economy as, ‘FLATLINING’ – choosing to use Ed Balls’ trade mark description of the economy, one that Balls uses, alongside his infamous hand gestures, ad nauseam.
Smith will know that the Conservatives find unacceptable, the BBC’s continual use of Labour’s ‘labels’ in their reporting – the use by their journalists of ‘bedroom tax’ is the subject of a series of complaints. One can only assume, therefore, that Smith in his use of the phrase, is once again thumbing his nose at the government and stepping over the line.
But then again, perhaps that only has to be expected. Remembering Smith’s outrageous attempt to portray David Cameron as someone becoming enmeshed in phone hacking and Smith’s subsequent row with Craig Oliver, some people might say (!) that Norman Smith is one of the BBC most biased reporters.
He knows he can act with impunity, as the “Conservatives” will do diddly-squat to tackle bias in the BBC. And so deserve what they get.
Two idiotic subjects on the Jeremy Vine Show.
(1) Super rich NHS bed blockers. Should left-wing rich people such as Paul McCartney, who use the NHS because of socialist principals, be forced to use Private Hospitals.
There was no mention of NHS bed blockers being rich Nigerian heath tourists or suicidal right-wing rich people using the NHS as a British Dignitas.
(2) What makes us Human.
The morons with Arts qualification at the BBC, think it may be caused by something other than the science of genetics.
Is it true that McCartney runs along to his local NHS GP?
And sits there amongst the general population?
In spite of not being able to spend all of his money he insists on taking his chances with the National ‘ Elf Service?
Something does not compute here, more info needed.
Not sure if this has been mentioned:
What on Earth is this? The BBC were reveling in it last night…
To be fair… SKY were wallowing in it too this morning. A lot.
I appreciated the unprompted reactions of my racially and politically neutral wife and sons in reaction.
Let’s just say if they were being called in support, it wouldn’t have been a vote winner.
Interesting how the majority of the MSM seemed smitten again.
I was interested in Steve’s intro where he said ‘we don’t know who he is’.
There may be a reason for that, but I see what he did there.
Ah well, too late now.
Seems lack of comprehension within the BBC may be getting worse.
Now even the home team isn’t getting through.
Mind you, any politician, especially Ed, telling one of the BBC’s finest that is maybe not the best way to keep the glee club onside.
When being paid or giving a hoot I err on viewing a failure in understanding by the other side to be a fault in the communication that needs recognising and working with, rather than challenging face on.
Of course, and without knowing the context (as here), where one doesn’t care, or they really are that thick, then calling it as it is can be tempting.
Even for a pol with an eye to keeping friends closer still.
Martha won’t last at the bBC after this interview, quite good.
Some commenters over at the Telegraph were polite in acknowledging she was the host of his collapse, but hardly the agent. He seemed to manage that all on his own and would have gabbled into a froth if asked what time it was.
This was a neat summary…
‘Compared to the torrent of abuse IDS got on the Today prog, it was practically foreplay – he still fell apart.’
Now the thought of Dave, Nick, Vince, George or most else hardly fills me with warm fuzzies, but Mr. Miliband and those gathered around him are even less appealing, heaven help us.
About all the BBC has left if they really want to wangle this lot back in is to stop inviting them on. At which point the rest can respectfully decline, and then an awful lot of BBC ‘analysts’ and interviewers are going to be left contemplating their navels.
But I bet there will always be some dozy coalition sap who reckons their 3 minutes of ‘fame’ being blindsided is worth the risk.
Ed’ll be fine.
The country… not so much.
All of the above can all be summed up as the bbc mode of operation…….
Arabs good, Israel bad
English bad, immigration good,
Obama good (well, not good but God) any other republican person bad
European Union good, Independence bad
Euro good, British pound bad
and so it goes on and on and on and on and on. As above they can say all this with impunity and lack of any accountability as everyone is required to pay a licence fee.
I just wish someone would shut them down for good
All of the above text is my opinion…..Am I alone in these opinions?
There are literally TENS of people posting here every week! Some of whom actually live in the UK!
It’s a global village.
And for some, tens would probably be awesome simply as audiences.
Thanks for raising the matter.
Mardell and BBC-Democrats have their bellies tickled by Obamessiah.
“Obama tickles audience at Correspondents’ Association dinner”
“AP OMITS ‘MUSLIM’ FROM OBAMA WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENTS DINNER JOKE”
“Apparently the Associated Press thought that people might not get the joke. Joke, what joke? AP scrubbers and sanitizers must get time and half — they are always working overtime…
“Why? Did they think it had too much of a ring of truth?
“Why did some editors at AP or at the publications that picked up the AP story think it necessary to run interference for Obama on this point?
“By mocking the idea that he is a Muslim (and a Socialist), Obama is trying to render these things too ridiculous for serious public discussion. Fine. His personal beliefs are of no moment, except insofar as they influence his public stances. And the direction of his public policies is obvious. He has maintained a consistent foreign policy line that has enabled the establishment of several Islamic supremacist, pro-Sharia states in North Africa and the Middle East, and a domestic policy that has enabled the advance of the Islamic supremacist agenda to assert the primacy of Islamic law over American law and practice wherever they conflict. No amount of mockery will obscure that.”
Nice that al-beeb has the guilt-o-meter turned up to 11 over the unfortunate building collapse in Daakar.
How about bringing manufacturing back to Britain? – at least we got ‘elf ‘n safety out the ear holes.
-Can’t find it reported by INBBC:-
“Former London mayor blames U.S. for Boston jihad bombings.”
“Once again a Western leader displays the unconscious paternalism and ethnocentrism that mars so much of the West’s response to Islamic jihad: their assumption is that Muslims are passive, helpless people who can do nothing but react to what the West does or does not do. The idea that Muslims may have ideas of their own, and that some of them may hate us for reasons of their own that are derived from Islamic texts and teachings, and that that hatred cannot be dislodged by any amount of ‘respect’ from non-Muslims, never enters their minds.”
Anyone remember this atrocity -http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-22196409-
where a boy was raped in Debenham’s toilets after being abducted in Manchester’s Arndale Centre.
No mention that one of the perpetrators, a certain Abdelkaader El-Janabi, is an Iraqi asylum seeker.
They didn’t mention that El Janabi was Iraqi on North West Tonight either. Here’s a more comprehensive report and apparently El Janabi is a former Iraqi intelligence officer. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2316642/Debenhams-rape-Alex-Wilson-Fletcher-Abdelkader-El-Janabi-facing-lengthy-jail-sentences.html
Jeez, he’s only been here for a year.
then it will cost £100k a year to keep the r-sole in prison
And what about his white accomplice. What does that say about Englishmen with double barrel names?
Er nothing. Don’t you just love the closet racists!
Their O.K. but I much prefer mealy-mouthed bourgeois liberal apologists
Know were I can find one?
A poor argument, Colditz. I’m White British and I don’t regard Iraqi or Pakistani Muslims as being of a different race to me (in the way that someone from China obviously is). The difference is religious ideology. Race does not come into it, it’s about culture.
It’s not a poor argument at all. Doyle makes no mention of religious ideology, nor does the court, nor does The Daily Mail article. In fact, how do you know what his religious ideology is?
And what about the religious ideology of the other perp? It’s not relevant then?
Good to to see the BBC’s part in this though:
‘Wilson-Fletcher handed himself in after seeing his photo on a BBC ‘wanted’ website ‘
Oh there he is
This site is on the subject of BBC bias and the BBC report is biased because it fails to mention that EL JANABI in a former Iraqi intelligence officer and asylum seeker who only settled in the country in 2012. The BBC report also doesn’t mention that it was El JANABI who abducted the boy who said, ‘ the asian person grabbed my arm and said “come with us, you’re going to do anything we say and if you run away we will catch you.” The BBC report also doesn’t mention that ‘the two men then abused the boy before EL JANABI raped him as Wilson-Fletcher looked on.’
@ Colditz, I trust this explains why I focused on El Janabi. I’m guessing that the reason this story doesn’t seem to bother you is that it’s one of your fantasies.
The white accomplice must have been his left-wing social worker.
They vote Labour, think they are superior to Black people, but say that they are equal to Black people, but are in fact inferior to Black people in intelligence because they are white socialists, or in other words like Colditz.
‘What does that say about Englishmen ‘
Not much, but the Beeb don’y hide any facts about him, whereas they do with the Iraqi ex police guy – facts which many would find interesting but the BBC censors. And yes, they have. They have the info but bury it. Why is that?
Somebody needs to tell “Newsnight reporter” Greg Palast and Newsnight journalist Meirion Jones about the Democrats convicted in Indiana of serious voter fraud in a Presidential election.
Morgan was convicted on two counts of felony conspiracy to commit petition fraud and two counts of felony conspiracy to commit forgery, and Blythe was convicted on nine counts of felony forgery and one count of felony falsifying a petition.
Following the verdict, Superior Court Judge John Marnocha set a sentencing date of June 17. He also moved the sentencing date for co-defendants Pam Brunette and Bev Shelton from May 9 to that same date.
What was this about, you ask?
One of the state’s key witnesses, Burkett said he, Brunette and Shelton, all of whom worked in the office of Voter Registration at the time, walked over to Democratic Headquarters during lunch on that date at Morgan’s request.
Once there, he said, Morgan instructed them to copy names on petitions to place gubernatorial candidate Jim Schellinger on the state Democratic primary ballot onto petitions to place Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the ballot.
Just do an internet search for this story, and see how it’s being suppressed/ignored by the mainstream media. Which means the BBC doesn’t have to report it or correct the impression they’ve given you in the past.
‘Just do an internet search for this story, and see how it’s being suppressed/ignored by the mainstream media.’
That’s one way to look at it. Or maybe its just not a very big story.
Beeboid troll, it should be a big story. It shows that without that fraud, Obama would NEVER have had enough names to put him on the candidate list. Hillary Clinton had enough names without the need for fraud. It shows that Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidential race of 2008.Hows that for not being newsworthy? It also proves that the US MSM covers Obama’s back by suppressing negative stories about him.
The sycophants of the media showed themselves for the arse-lickers they are at the
White House Press dinner the other night.
“Or maybe it’s just not a very big story.”
Or… maybe… It’s a story those oddly variably astoundingly uncurious BBC market rate talents who pass in corridors like ships in the night, decided the BBC doesn’t need to go near whilst other massive bits of news need a full work up.
What gets the BBC treatment and what not can be interesting.
And your evidence for that amounts to absolutely zero.
It doesn’t stop you stating with certainly that the story isn’t on the BBC News website for that reason and that reason only. Even though you have zero evidence for that.
And that is always the problem with the argument that a story hasn’t been covered by the BBC (and that limits coverage to the website only and sometimes to the strength of the BBC search engine or a person’s ability to use it) because of what the story is about.
So if, say, David Cameron only became eligible for the leadership of the Conservative Party due to forged names on the candidate list and as a result became Prime Minister, the BBC wouldn’t dedicate the whole of their 24 hour rolling news channel publicising this?
It’s not a big story until the BBC says it is.
It’s not a big story until the BBC says it is.
Well, they certainly seem to have what’s coming out in the US overnight as simply HUGE.
Why is this not a big story, Jurgen? What’s the point of the BBC dedicating so many resources and so much energy and money to reporting US news if, apart from the “bespoke” video magazine human interest pieces, they can easily be replaced by a news aggregator, as they do no original or unique reporting on serious US issues?
More importantly, why do you excuse the BBC from correcting the false impression they’ve given?
“Boston bombers and ‘liberal’ cringe.
“Judging by some British reporting of the Boston terrorist attack, the British liberal media establishment seems to wish it could blame anyone but those involved.”
By Vincent Cooper, in ‘The Commentator’.
“On the BBC Radio 4 programme, The World This Weekend, the BBC actually surpassed itself in liberal bias in its reporting of the Boston bombings. Listening to that news programme, which in Britain should be an ideology-free experience, was like attending a political awareness course organised by the Guardian and the Islamic Human Rights Commission.
“Indeed, the programme gave a platform to the IHRC. But why would the BBC give voice to such an organisation? After all, the IHRC is highly controversial. The journalist Melanie Phillips stated in the Spectator that the IHRC was: ‘the most conspicuous promoter of Khomeine jihadism in the UK.’
“Similarly, journalist Douglas Murray also stated that the IHRC is a Khomeinist organisation that campaigns for imprisoned extremists such as the ‘Blind Sheikh’ Omar Abdel Rahman, currently serving a life sentence in the US for his part in the first blowing-up of the World Trade Centre in 1993.
“If the purpose of news reporting is to be objective, why would the BBC filter a report on the Boston jihadist bombing through the opinions of an organisation that some see as itself a promoter of jihad? (The Wikipedia site on the IHRC is worth a read.)
“Listening to the World This Weekend report on the Boston bombings, the overall impression one got was not that innocent people had been blown to bits by calculating terrorists, but that the perpetrators were unfortunate victims of indoctrination in a bad but perhaps understandable cause.
“The programme, it seemed, attempted to relativise and contextualise the Boston bombings by placing them in the wider context of the war on terror. What about the West’s use of drones to kill Muslims? Let’s talk about that, shall we?”
Well if Mad Nel & Douglas Murray say it, it must be true.
I’m sure some would describe tehm as ‘highly controversial’ too, they still get on the BBC though. So does David Vance for that matter.
I would think hearing from ‘an organisation that some see as itself a promoter of jihad’ would seem highly relevant myself.
Although I understand why some object to hearing from those they disagree with. Pity you cant ban them.
“Well if Mad Nel & Douglas Murray say it”-“Although I understand why some object to hearing from those they disagree with”
Matthew 7:5 old thing, Matthew 7:5
( By the way,have Rod Liddle and David Starkey been rehabilitated yet?
Mad Nel? Ad-Feminem GFYS “Mad Jurgen” troll-boy
complete car crash.. unable to answer a single question
it would be honey and roses under labour… but we dont know how or why…
only two news organisations seem to be ignoring Ed Miliband’s car crash of an interview on the BBC’s The World At One today, where he was creamed by Martha Kearney. One is the Guardian. Can you guess the other one? Hint – it rhymes with “me me see”
So far from ignoring it, they are carrying a sanitised version that bears no relation to the interview that I heard. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22341513
Nothing about his repeated failure to answer the questions on borrowing. No doubt drafted in Labour HQ.
“… A sanitised version that bears no relation to the interview”
Hey, what’s the point of having an edit suite if you can’t control it?
Still, when it comes to “quotes”, they know what they like:
“Miliband insists Labour can tackle UK’s ‘serious problems'”
Make a good poster, that.
Was Ed Miliband at the French smelling salts I wondered?
Sounded an awful lot like Alan Partridge, once Frances second-best racing driver had given him said salts( a French traditional gift, so he said).
Ed sounded like he was racing….or is Newcastle-under Lyme the new Spike Island?
And the beebyanka manages to provide yet another job for the worthless Martin Rees… , presenting the “University Challenge” trophy.
A must read! Mark Mardell’s vision of the USA: “Will the rise of the rest mean the decline of the US?”
“There can be no doubt the “rise of the rest” will make America shake on its pedestal, but whether it knocks it off is up to Americans themselves, and whether they can adapt to a new status, a somewhat lower place on the greasy pole of world power.
The colossus will no longer effortlessly bestride the world; that does not mean it will not stand tall.
They should not underestimate the importance of soft power. All over the world granddads and infants, jihadists and dictators, wear jeans, America’s off-duty dress of choice.
That may sound trite, but the fact the world increasingly looks like America is important. Rock and rap, the English language and Hollywood and still dominate popular culture.”
My God. How profound! History defined by clothing. After living and reporting on this country for years Mardell sees its legacy only as jeans and Hollywood. In films and fashion he looks for “soft power?” A war against the forces of darkness fought by a mighty armies of Levis and Miramax double features?
Mardell thinks the rest of the world now looks like the USA. Really, Mark? Seen any be-headings in the USA lately? (Apart from those of newly born babies in the abortion doctor case – sorry, you haven’t heard about that have you?)
And tell me, mark, is there any other country in the world where the population is asking, not for more government but less, asking its rulers to get out the way and allow people to be free and help themselves?
Can Mardell not see that beneath the superficiality of the Tina Brown dinner circuit, where this kind of stuff is common currency, are people thirsting for a voice, unable to find it in the mainstream media or the social elites?
In an article so bigoted, so shortsighted, so superior, he concludes: “By around 40 AD a canny Roman might have predicted the Empire’s decline. But it took another 400 years to fall, and it was more than another 1,000 years beyond that before another empire grew as mighty.”
So there you have it. Mark Mardell sees himself playing “the canny Roman” with a philosophy of togas and circuses – a man who comes to bury Caesar not to praise him. And then, off he goes, riding the BBC gravy train back to the UK for a promotion no doubt, leaving the US to sinking under the weight of his cynicism while he settles back into a Britain fashioned by Shirley Williams, Harriet Harmon, Tony Blair and his adviser John Birt; absorbed like a hand in a great rubber glove into the collective cotton wool reality of caring Radio 4. (And now the Archers…”)
In Mardell’s article there was not one voice arguing against what he sees as the inevitable demise of the US. Well, Mark, as a loyal Brit living in the USA – a country I love and who’s people I count as friends – let me say that you don’t speak for me. Not one sniveling little word.
Funny but I was just taking a look at the borrowings Obama has made on behalf of his country. By the end his term the US national debt is likely to exceed $22 trillion, more than twice the average median income of Americans. He has borrowed more than all the previous administrations put together. By the time he leaves office the only thing America will be capable of projecting will be soft power because it can’t afford to project the real thing!
Back in WWII America was a powerhouse because it was able to turn its manufacturing industry over to war production. It couldn’t do that now because American consumers & businesses have decided to send that capability to a communist country.
And that’s why Keynsian solutions like borrowing won’t work, because the money no longer stays in the system, it flows to China instead.
Yawn. The elitist European Left (and fellow travelers in the British Left, who like to consider themselves European anyway), have to revisit this old chestnut every now and again, like some dog who still thinks a bone is buried in a certain spot in the back yard. I guess it’s Mardell’s turn at the soap box.
But it doesn’t betray a hint of good old-fashioned anti-American sentiment. No, sir. There’s no looking down on us at all, with our naive enthusiasm, delusions of potential, quaint affection for Christian values, profligate popular culture, and “cynical” foreign policy (as opposed to the pure motives of other countries?).
I’ve heard the argument before that the widespread adoption of the superficial trappings of United Statesian culture – the blue jeans, Coca-Cola, rock music, and hip-hop – is symbolic of how important and influential the US still is. But I see it as just that: superficial.
The case has been made in the past that these things helped win the Cold War (substituting Madonna and ’80s pop for hip-hop), by giving oppressed Soviet citizens evidence that there was more for them out there than the bread lines, government-dictated consumer goods, and drab status quo. But none of that has anything to do with the nation’s values or founding principals. It certainly has nothing to do with democracy and liberty, and it’s been obvious that those values never seeped into most of the former Soviet republics, most especially Russia, in any meaningful or useful sense. So I think Mardell is misguided there.
Also, this bit from him disgusts me:
Is it a melting pot of immigrants from many lands, some unwilling, where Korean and black and Hispanic culture is celebrated every bit as an English or German heritage?
Or should newcomers, bring no more than a few folk songs from their old home, and squeeze into a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant definition of what it is to be American?
This is a false choice, and a profound misunderstanding of what’s going on. It seems to be written from the perspective that American values are racially-based. Or at least that white United Statesians believe that to be the case. That is to say, one cannot be a proper American if one also celebrates the culture of non-whites. That may be the view of the fringe white supremacists, but it’s not a fair assessment of the nation as a whole. Racists under the bed as usual. Somebody needs to tell Mardell that it’s not 1789 any more.
In reality – and I say this as a descendent of not-German, not-Enlgish, not-Christian immigrants with a rich heritage and very strong cultural manifestations – the idea is that we can all keep and cherish our myriad cultural heritages as long as we all realize that there is something bigger than all of us, and that the values of liberty exist above and outside any individual ethnic or geographic culture. My grandparents all spoke the language and enjoyed the trappings of their own culture at home, while speaking English and joining US society at large, and adhering to the values of the country in which they lived. It’s disgusting for Mardell to suggest that this isn’t the case, and that there’s a mainstream US notion that people with brown skin or an epicanthic fold wouldn’t be allowed to do the same.
Mardell should come to New York and see that the massive parades and celebrations for Puerto Rican Day and Caribbean Day are just as massive and supported as the ostensibly white St. Patrick’s Day parade (the only appreciable difference being the food on display, and the levels of violence and vomiting). Never mind the big series of Asian (as in Chinese and Japanese) cultural festivals that went on for the past week. It’s the same in many places.
Mardell’s colleague and predecessor as “North America editor”, Justin Webb, understood this. So did Margaret Thatcher, to a degree. The fact that Mardell has a different take shows that this is opinion, not reporting. That’s what this whole The Editors thing is about, I know. But what’s the point, other than to give these well-heeled titled editors a forum to express their viewpoints? Certainly nobody comes away from this with a better understanding of the country. Isn’t there enough viewpoint stuff on the BBC already?
Serena Davies at The Telegraph just received a personal invitation from Tony Hall to view a screening of an upcoming drama. She’s clearly so overwhelmed by this honour that she’s written this gushing article
What has Tony Hall got in mind?
Let’s see, he’s appointed former Labour Cabinet minister James Purnell to a £295,000 strategy role and Anne Bulford, his former colleague at the Royal Opera House, to a £395,000 finance post. Between them, the trio have been given three of the most senior positions at the BBC with a combined salary of £1.14 million without apparently having to go through the normal channels of applying for their jobs and being interviewed.
People who showed clear failures following the Savile debacle have simply been moved around with plenty of questions still unanswered and he has the gall to talk about transparency and trust being restored. As if saying it will convince the public, who like zombies, so used to accepting whatever the BBC tells them, it probably does.
He also doesn’t agree that the BBC is biased, despite his more long term predecessor admitting that there was a MASSIVE left-wing bias for over 30 years, and would be unable to show anything that was done about it. If anything, it’s worse since they know they can get away with it.
Seems pretty clear already about ‘what he has in mind’.
I don’t know, I got more of an impression that she was saying it in a “fingers crossed, let’s see if he can do it” kind of way. I got the sense that she was ever so slightly bemused at Lord Hall’s apparent comparison of himself with what she described as the healing figure of Henry VII, and the White Queen.
Although I think she’s talking about healing the BBC internally, and not the relationship between it and the public. Probably the wrong priority there, but I guess the latter won’t be possible without the former.
Does this speak well of Hall? I don’t think so, but we’ll see.
Henry VII a healing king? He was a far more homicidal monarch than the much maligned Richard III. If Hall behaves like Henry then there will be blood on the carpet at the BBC. Watch out those few independent thinker who may still work at Broadcasting House, the headsman’s axe awaits you!
Quite true, and the bloody work carried on with a will by his son, too. I’ve a table somewhere showing the extirpation of the Plantagenets (on just about any trumped up excuse you can think of) at the hands of these two charmers and it’s frankly incredible that they found time to rule the kingdom, such was the obsession with judicially murdering the members of the previous dynasty both young and old.
“Lord” John Reid on Newsnight.
Opining on cyber threats and cyber wars.
Obviously, he will say the war will be over without a shot being fired! Boom boom!
I guess Lord trumps Doctor!
I happened upon the discussion with John Reid on Newsnight, and I must say I was mightily impressed with him. If the Conservative Party has any sense, they will liaise with him and his group. And I speak as a life-long Conservative (but now UKIP waverer).
How can you be impressed by someone who thought the Afghan conflict would end without a shot being fired?
He didn’t say that!!
Well, you read it as you wish, and I will continue to believe that he said it.
This article shows the success of ITV with its various dramas, putting the BBC into the shade. Considering that the man responsible for this BBC output, Danny Cohen was recently promoted…
BBC One boss who claims ‘too many shows are about middle-classes’ wins one of the Corporation’s top jobs as director of television on a salary of £327,000
…It shows that the BBC rewards mediocrity, and as long as they don’t have to make it on their own in the real world, nothing is likely to change.
A real TV drama: After the success of Downton Abbey and hit show Broadchurch, CHRISTOPHER STEVENS explains how ITV is killing the BBC
Meanwhile, BBC’s apartheid radio station has:-
“BBC Asian Network celebrates The Top 100 Greatest Bollywood Songs”
Living here in Wales, on the DAB medium, I have a wonderful Asian broadcast service. Do I have bbc Radio Wales? Or Radio Cymru, the Welsh language service? Nahhhh…nothing, diddly squat, zilch.
My licence fee well used, great huh?
To those of you who find this hard to believe, I have an e-mail from a bbc exec producer, explaining just why that is.
What’s Welsh for ‘the BBC got it about… Oh, who cares; we don’t have to’?
Mae’r bbc wedi gwneud pethau’n iawn…o, does dim ots da ni, does dim rhaid i ni.
Ta very much:)
Or should I (try to) say… diolch yn fawr
Very well put Guest Who!
As we say:
There’s some news about DAB in Wales here:
I’m not sure how much you can hold the BBC responsible though:
BBC local radio services are broadcast on DAB by commercial operators, because the BBC only has the capacity to broadcast its national services. For advice about specific local radio reception problems, you should contact the local operator
Headline from the Biased Broadcasting Corporation’s website at 0.53hrs 30th AprIl 2013:
“Labour can sort out ‘economic mess”’
No, you morons. “Labour ‘can sort out economic mess'” is what you should have typed.
Always assuming you didn’t mean to give the game away.
Labour CAUSED economic mess..
Israeli settler killed in West Bank. Meanwhile, around the world, thousands are murdered every days and don’t get BBC coverage.
Will the deceased be allowed a name? Or will he remain a generic settler? Will the BBC take up the cause of his killer; interview his mother; give him a name? BBC guidelines probably won’t allow the completely accurate headline Arab kills Jew
Palestinians and Israeli troops have clashed recently in the West Bank, but attacks on settlers there are rare. Actually no. Attacks are common. Successful attacks are rare.
What the BBC focuses upon, or who, or not, and in what way, is less and less of a mystery.
Just finished my FaceBook feed surf, which has a few BBC inputs.
Overnight they seem pretty obsessed by a certain US sportsman’s big news.
Few of their audience appear quite as gripped.
Be interesting how the BBC mods navigate that little lot.
Amusingly by far the most popular comment – by quantity – appears to be…
‘This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules.’
‘by far the most popular comment’
One presumes these were ‘ism-based, or possibly simply less supportive of the only US-originated story there could ever be needing to pack the headlines, despite its actual rather journeyman nature. And only yesterday a Flokker suggested lack of coverage of US political corruption was probably down to the story not being too important when BBC Eds make their difficult choices.
Who can know on the reasons for extensive censorship (and a very swift closing).
But worth bearing in mind when next a Flokk member finds themselves on the norty step here and the rest move from high horses to even higher dudgeon.
It was a different time.. standard, you see.
Bloody gays. Bloddy Muslims. Bloody Germans.
Like I told you before,when you were posting as ‘Adolf’ stop projecting.
Not sure those who would seek to elevate the level of debate here will feel well served in association by such a diatribe being offered up in such a way.
Especially any hitched to the BBC wagon.
Henry VII a healing king? He was a far more homicidal monarch than the much maligned Richard III. If Hall behaves like Henry then there will be blood on the carpet at the BBC. Watch out those few independent thinker who may still work at Broadcasting House, the headsman’s axe awaits you!
Showing your true racist colours there, Jurgen. It seems you find it so easy posting such offensive comments. No wonder you post under innumerable names.
He’s just another Moby of the type very prevalent here lately.
Yet another group joins the ranks of ‘society’s most vulnerable’ (SMVs)
Today the Government talks tough about the prison regime.
Naturally the BBC are not happy about this and throw open the studio doors to their civil liberties mates to whine about it.
The latest SMVs are those newly sent to prison.
At this rate of new members of the SMVs, I’ve lost count of who is no longer in the club.
I guess we are all SMVs now. Perhaps the BBC will explain?
Must be something to do with Ed Miliband’s ‘One Nation’ ?
BBC 5 Live have an unwritten remit to bring Left-wing politics to the world of sport.
So the Beeboids are cock-a-hoop about this non-story….
‘US basketball player Jason Collins has come out as gay, the first active male athlete in a major American professional team sport to do so.’
Is this news?
‘Collins, who has played 11 seasons in the NBA with six teams and is not currently attached to a team….’
So he is far from being a top player.
Elsewhere he has been described as a ‘journeyman player’.
‘Sportswear company Nike, which has endorsed Collins, also supported his decision. “Jason is a Nike athlete,” its statement said. “We are a company committed to diversity and inclusion.”‘
Absolute paydirt for the BBC is to find and promote a gay Premiership footballer.
He will be guaranteed extensive airtime to make his name. And probably moving on to some quango job.
Would suit relegation threatened, injury hampered, subsbench johnny.
No, it is not ‘news’, and certainly not worthy of the blanket coverage the BBC is giving to this item. Not only has it featured prominently in BBC News, but the long piece about it on the Today Programme today was preposterously out of place. But it followed the BBC ‘agenda’ so naturally had to be included.
The BBC instead should follow the anti-gay bigot agenda. Hell yeah!
Make a change from their cultural relativist,deconstructionist ersatz religion.
No need to when they just continue their Anti – Israeli, Anti-Christian, Anti-White, heterosexual male agenda.
Anyway, did anyone see their coverage of the Abdication of the Netherlands’ Queen Beatrix? Of all the presenters they could have used they had to go and find one of the very few BLACK Dutch reporters. I wonder if those ethnic minority news reporters actually care they are being patronised and chosen to front news programmes BECAUSE of their ethnicity. The BBC actually encourages inverted racism.
And before the flokkers chide me by saying they could have been chosen because they are good at their job, I’ve seen many who are atrocious at presenting and I’m sure could have been done better by others who were obviously disregarded because of their pale skin colour.
Oh for a world with TRUE equality, where everyone is chosen on merit and ability and takes their chance like everyone else.
No one should go into a job interview with the belief their skin tone gives them an advantage.
Yes, it is a major story in the US, and one which does not make the President look bad. So the BBC is duty-bound to cover it. Of course, nobody seems to be criticizing Jason Collins for claiming to be the first professional athlete in a major team sport to come out, when there have been quite a few women professional basketball and soccer players publicly out for a while now. Very sexist.
It’s mostly a big deal because of the rampant homophobia in male professional sports, and we can all draw our own conclusions about in which ethnic cultures this is most prevalent. There’s a reason why Collins included race in his statement. The BBC ought to be discussing the ethnic cultural aspect, but as Helen Boaden admitted (ppg 67-8), there are far too many Beeboids who think the BBC’s commitment to diversity prevents them from reporting things which make minorities look bad.
very true, once again the divisive spectre of “special” accomodation,/privileged position, in the game or agended media rears its ugly head.
Hmm an ideal opportunity to be featured on numerous high profile BBC programs with their resident gay interviewers – Today with Evan, Saturday Live with Rev. Richard, PM with Eddie and BH with Paddy. And that’s only the Radio ones which spring to mind. Cosy chats all round!
He “came out as ‘gay’ “, did he? Wow, what a hero!
Herosim has plumbed new depths, these days.
Time was, a homosexual would be nicked and locked up. Not a bad thing, in my narrow-minded view (which I am not really permitted to express, for fear of prosecution).
Whatever happened to freedom of thought and word? the world#’s been turned on its head.
Hopefully, in the fullness of time, what goes around will come around.
I AM NOT INTERESTED in their sexuality – I don’t go telling everyone about mine….
I SO wish we could back into our posts and correct stupid typos…
See? I missed out “get”!
The nature reserve near where I live and where we walk our animals is crawling with these disgusting individuals in the evening. It is so apparent what they are there for and getting up to because they don’t even try to be discreet. The police do nothing about it and the BBC would no doubt say it is their human rights to behave like this.
You are permitted to express it, in fact you just did. And you have freedom of thought, its just a pity you didnt think before you wrote it.
Fortunately times have moved on and views like your belong in the last century.
Don’t you mean
“it’s just a pity you don’t think as I do”?
“Fortunately(?) times have moved on”
For now maybe and in Islington possibly.
But the problem with social constructs is that they are liable to change.
To illustrate the point ,can I suggest Ernst Röhm as your next pseudonym?
Not just Islington (I’ve never been), certainly more so in the younger generation though.
It’s abit sad that some of you feel left behind. Don’t worry though, eventually you’ll die out.
Not just Islington (I’ve never been), certainly more so in the younger generation though.
Really? You’ve obviously never been to Tower Hamlets either.
Thanks for listening,in part at least.
And don’t worry I’ve a few years left in me yet
“Fortunately times have moved on and views like your belong in the last century.”
Well that’s a 1200 year improvement over the eighth century.
Read “Lights Out: Islam, Free Speech And The Twilight Of The West” by Mark Steyn, if you can find a copy.
Very good on freedom of speech generally.
Freedom of thought and word does not mean freedom from criticism for those words. You have no more right not to be offended than anyone else.
Bias by stealth
Sometimes it’s only when you lift the rock you find the bias motives underneath.
Last night was a seemingly innocuous article about encouraging young people to vote with the suggestion that first time voters should be forced to do so by law. The rather weak explanation was that young people are not engaged to vote but by forcing them first time we hope they will continue. Of course the bBC had someone putting the other side which is unusual.
So where’s the bias?
By allowing the ‘study’ & its recommendation airtime the bBC add a level of credibility, and a possible foot in the door with the decision making agencies which matter.
You still haven’t said where the bias is !
OK the bias here is in the voting demographic and the tendency of young people to believe in the left wing claptrap that more experienced minds can see through. As Churchill said (or attrib) “if you’re not Liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not Conservative when you’re 35, you have no brain.”
Does anyone think that a similar study which encourages people likely to vote Tory would be treated in such a way? I don’t!
The BBC frames the discussion about young voter participation in socialistic terms. There was more of this on “Today” this a.m. The basic line is that “we” need to encourage more participation in elections from the “disaffected”/”alienated” young.
Note the underlying assumption that it is somehow society’s fault that young people choose not to vote; “we are all guilty!” You could interpret their non- participation as showing either contentment with the status quo or rejection of political parties which are too similar. Alternatively you might argue that they are too lazy or obsessed with celebrity trash culture to bother with party politics.
Turnouts in recent elections have been poor: 2010 – 65% (even after the TV debates); 2005 – 61% (even with postal voting); 2001 – 59% (when a Labour win was very likely, based on opinion polling). People are, however, free not to vote; and the BBC has itself at times encouraged cynicism with politicians.
Im with Peter Hitchens on the subject of suffrage. there should be no representation without taxation, in other words you should be in a job paying taxes and therefore contributing in a positive way before you are allowed to vote. Also rather than lowering the age to vote I would raise it to at least 25 when you are no longer considered to be a ‘young person’.
So someone leaving school at 16 and securing employment would not be allowed a vote for around 9 years. As they would have no say in how their taxes are spent then perhaps we should return to the old adage that “there should be no taxation without representation”.
Jesus, Albaman! Where have you been for the last fifteen years. How many sixteen year olds can just leave school and find employment immediately, unless they are working for parents or relatives? Haven’t you heard youth unemployment is at a peak, and rose swiftly under the last Labour government? I seem to recall that, under electoral law, “imbeciles” are forbidden to vote. Having seen some of the results of modern schooling I’m in agreement with that law.
Good to see that you actually failed to address the key issue. As for “youth unemployment is at a peak, and rose swiftly under the last Labour government”; it is still rising under the current administration and is unlikely to peak at any time in the near future.
Young people know pretty much bugger all about life and politics so for them to actually influence the outcome of polling is a bit daft in the least. In fact how many people go to the polls and vote because ‘ we’ve always voted that way see’ (welsh accent and usually Labour voters) I guess my point is if we had more responsible people who are aware of the issues voting we just might get more responsible governments. Maybe an IQ test should be passed as well.
Not for Beeboid Hampstead Harrabin and fellow warmist Beeboid lobbyists?:-
“The next big freeze could last 250 years: Experts say Sun’s activity wanes every 200 years – and the next ‘cooling period’ is due by 2040”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2316898/The-big-freeze-250-years-Experts-say-Suns-activity-wanes-200-years–cooling-period-2040.html#ixzz2Rvz5NFIh
If the truth were acceptable to the eco-green lunatics, the cooling has already started. But, of course, in their sad, warped minds, cooling is warming, really.
I’ve noticed that it starts to get much cooler between 5 and 6pm.
Must be due to pollution caused by all those bankers making their way home in their polluting Porsches. That’s my theory, anyway.
Research…sounds a runner to me!
University of East Anglia will fall for this one…now where`s my hockey stick and my sad eyes.
A Beeboid loyalist is leaving:-
“Torin Douglas bows out after 24 years on media beat:
‘The fact is, morale within the BBC is not good.'”
By William Turvill.
Note Robin Aitken’s funny comment in “Can we trust the BBC?” “Morale is at rock bottom – and always has been!”
Anyone catch the bBC prog’ last night – The Editors? I saw the beginning, and watched Lardell interviewing “average” Americans and crowing about the fact that the USA is no longer the world’s only superpower. Why nobody punched him in the face I don’t know. Bias? What bias?
bbc news reports, that six “extremists” have been convicted
of trying to bomb/planning mass murder at an EDL rally? … hmm link EDL/Extremist same sentence … anyway …
Expect VD :-D, yep! Drearybyshire to give an elongated platform as per usual, to the intended victims? … 😀
like she did breaking a leg rushing to get into Gitmo?
……. or …… maybe not 😀
Not ‘extremists’, just the usual ‘men from Birmingham’. Omar Mohammed Khan, Mohammed Hasseen, Anzal Hussain, Mohammed Saud, Zohaib Ahmed and Jewel Uddin.
Ah, the religion of peace ! Peace be upon them!
Piss be upon them…
5 live mentioned extremists, in the same sentence as the EDL, surprise surprise, there is much talk of of a “beleaguered community” who do they mean? …
sheila foglegity, chips in with, oh, i remember we did a long piece on those “cameras”, that caused a lot of trouble in the community …..
hmmm lets not forget who the real victims are eh!.
still heard nothing from the ACTUAL targets of that hatred, not on the bbc as yet, they ve forgot about them already
So these would be EDL bomb extremists then?
Indeed, EDL is in the title with ‘bomb’, but Islam is not.
The article has already been edited:
to remove the word ‘terrorist’ and replace it with ‘bomb’. (‘Terrorist’ is not an approved word in BBC style guide, far too judgemental.)
“Six men from Birmingham have pleaded guilty to planning a terrorist attack ”
“Six men from Birmingham have pleaded guilty to planning a bomb attack”
“one of the would-be killers was under surveillance in relation to another terrorist plan.”
” one of the would-be killers was under surveillance in relation to another terror plan.”
The original article was insufficiently biased for BBC standards, so they made it more so.
Regarding the nationality of the terrorists, Jewel Uddin was Bangladeshi, and two of the others are Pakistanis. Poor old Birmingham gets the blame from Al-Beeba though.
Dominic Casciani’s inset “Analysis” included this line:
The British police and MI5 don’t have the manpower that the East German Stasi once had…
What he left out is the specific type of manpower the Stasi had at their disposal with which to keep everyone under watch: the people themselves. Neighbor informed on neighbor, brother informed on brother. I know we hear every once in a while that tips come from within the Mohammedan community, but surely there needs to be much more of that and less of the “don’t snitch to the kaffirs” mentality.
The BBC has occasionally given voice to the notion that this problem needs to be solved within that community rather than forcing it from without, so how about it?
INBBC reporting Birmingham Islamic Jihadists’ bomb plot against English Defence League (EDL).
Note:- BBC-NUJ opposes EDL via NUJ trade union policy.
“Six” [I…… j……..] “admit planning to bomb English Defence League rally”
“Six Islamic terrorists facing lengthy prison sentences after admitting plot to bomb EDL rally causing mayhem and mass injuries.
“They arrived at rally at 4pm – only to find it had finished at 2pm.
“Extremists’ car stopped on their way home because it had no insurance.
“Vehicle is towed with a cache of weapons hidden inside.
“They had a nail bomb, two shotguns and swords – but they weren’t found at the compound for TWO DAYS.
“Group didn’t take mobiles with them on day of the attack to avoid detection.
“Jewel Uddin was involved in another bomb plot which could have been ‘bigger than the 7/7 atrocities.'”
By ROB COOPER
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2317029/Six-Islamic-extremists-plead-guilty-failed-bomb-plot-English-Defence-League.html#ixzz2RwfNzln0
Thank god these so called Islamic terrorists are thick as a plank. Who in their right mind would drive a car full of explosives and weapons without making sure it was insured considering we have more surveillance cameras and ANPR cameras than just about any other country. What a bunch of muppets, Can you imagine the IRA making that same mistake?
The Marx Brothers, with guns and a bad attitude.
Hey – that would make a great BBC TV comedy series!
Here’s how the BBC sees things…
“On 30 June 2012, the EDL, an anti-Islamic group that says it supports peaceful protest, held a rally in Dewsbury, despite attempts by the Muslim community in the town to have it stopped.”
“Says it supports peaceful protest”
I have no time for the EDL but can the BBC provide an example of the EDL carrying out or indeed planning a terrorist attack? No, just insinuation
I was going to post the same quote. An extremely snide insertion by the Quislings.
Yes, and the BBC ‘says’ that it is an impartial and unbiased broadcaster as well…..
Another thought – is it just me but do these ‘men’ who appear so frequently in our courts all seem to be, in addition to being delusional arrogant monomaniacs, incompetent educationally sub normal idiots.
Thank goodness. WTF would we do if they were competent and clever
It doesnt mention a terrorist attack, but I expect there have been protests which haven’t turned out peaceful.
You’re confusing ‘It’s all too much’ with the Quisling Broadcasting Corporation.
“but I expect there have been protests which haven’t turned out peaceful”
Yes your fellow enlightenati, the UAF have seen to that.
Oh,please, Jurgen! The EDL protesters plan to be peaceful. It’s the UAF fascists and followers of the R.O.P. who turn up intending to physically attack demonstrators who cause the bother. Watch any video of trouble at EDL demos and you will see it’s the left wing goons who start trouble EVERY time. We regularly see BBC headlines that say “X number arrested at EDL rally.” but never tell us it’s always the lefties who are lifted by Plod. Their headlines just give the impression it’s EDL demonstrators being arrested.
“The EDL protesters plan to be peaceful” – if that is the case why does a post on their Facebook page relating to a forthcoming March contain the phrase “lets get ready to rumble?
A few comments from the “peaceful” EDL members:
“Some one should just go and stab the c***s up”;
“where is my shotgun kill em scum muslims sorry for being a racist but it piss me off and i have got a licensed shotgun”;
“He’d look a lot better going over the roof of my car I think “;
” I’d love him to get lairy with me,he wouldn’t be able to run with broken legs and a face that’s been stamped all over!”
Ah yes, if only you could read the posts from the jihadi sites huh? I’m sure you would post a balanced counter- argument. But then, seeing the videos the jihadis post could give some indication of their intentions?
For the sake of clarity – I have no knowledge of the EDL, its motivations or intentions so I am open to challenge based on fact – but not on assertion or insinuation.
I am aware of the fact, despite the BBC obsession with speculation about the ‘far right’ and ‘domestic’ terrorists, that the EDL have not participated in or been convicted of planning a murderous attack or even ‘disruptive’ attack (e.g. Fathers for Justice batman climbs a crane) on anyone. This is quite unlike the numerous convictions of Jihadi types who have blown up or tried to blow up planes, buses, trains, themselves, airports, and nightclubs IN THIS COUNTRY in the last fifteen or so years. Last week similar disaffected pseudo- citizens of the USA conducted such an attack on Boston. You may have noticed the results. It was in the news.
The point of my short post was to highlight the implicit, weaselly, conflation by the BBC of the EDL and the wannabe murderers just convicted. As for EDL protests turning violent – well there must have been some street scuffles and a few fights etc. Hardly a problem unique to EDL demonstrations. I seem to recall anti-capitalist anarchists smashing things up in London as the principal objective of their ‘protest’. This sort of street aggro is not in the same league as, say, the 7/7 London Transport murders in which, may I remind you [whatever germanic incarnation our resident bridge dweller is assuming today], FIFTY TWO innocent commuters were killed, and over 700 were injured. Were any of them your friends or relatives?
Albaman, I like your posts and this isn’t a personal slight – but imputing a moral equivalence between some nutters ranting on a web site and some street violence and terrorists apprehended with bombs, guns, knives and an illiterate manifesto abusing the queen and expressing an explicit intention to murder EDL members is facile and offensive.
Oh how the bBBC love to finesse their bias into everything: Dominic Casciani, Home affairs correspondent, is now calling it ‘EDL bomb plot‘, neatly implying for their core audience that it was the EDL plotting the bombs.
I bet he is really proud of having got that subliminal smear onto their website.
That should be ‘Dhimmi’ Casciani.
Casciani, ti prego, dimmi perche!
[= Casciani, please, tell me why!]
Certainly how I read it initially.
I guess ‘Plot to Bomb EDL Rally’ was another ‘truth wouldn’t fit’ job?
The seriousness of the intent and possible consequences make laughing at this tricky, but from the perps to the police the whole thing reads like ‘Four Lions’ meets the ‘Gang who couldn’t shoot straight’. Those sheepish aspiring mutilators, eh? What tinkers.
But maybe that was the intent?
Whilst the first para does explain, that will likely not be what is seen on twitter or mobile, at least first.
What one does get is ‘If the English Defence League had been better organised’ which, given the facts, is a very odd way to describe the early conclusion.
And speaking of odd, this ‘reporting’ reads in a quite bizarre way:
‘The main homemade device in the car was an adapted 4ft (1.2m) firework. It had double the normal amount of explosive pellets inside it.
Now I know that most modern fireworks are designed to go off with a bang, but what does that actually mean? It was a super sparkler that had been beefed up a bit, with added shrapnel?
Mr. Casciani is a talent to watch out for, and avoid.
The manifesto is also noteworthy:
We love death more than you love life.
How very multicultural.
It is the greatest honour for us to what we did
Gibberish Buster’s head just… well… let’s say it’s spinning.
Could you imagine them calling it a ‘Muslim bomb plot’? Me neither.
If it was ‘subliminal’ you wouldn’t know it.
Thank heavens we have clever people like you looking after all the other dimwits who don’t read beyond the headline. Who are those people anyway?
Er you maybe? Though you always seem to know what other people really mean when it suites you.
Matthew 7:5 old man,Matthew 7:5
The Fellowship of the Ring, page 21, paragraph 12.
Really not very helpful if you don’t provide the edition you’re citing the page from, dumkopf.
‘…all the other dimwits who don’t read beyond the headline. Who are those people anyway?’
Well, they can range from twitter-addicted finance types who believe all they read on AP, to excitable folk who believe anything they are told by anyone if it is cue for a kicking-off.
Lucky the Free Syrian Army stuck to weather spoofs. This time.
Going the route of ‘it gets clarified elsewhere’ really is a smart one to go down.
Even the BBC can’t always keep it together on defending that. Eventually.
Your efforts have been so overt and grotesque I had you pegged as a false flag.
But it seems you really may be of a view this helps the BBC by association.
First they came for the EDL but Jurgen said nothing, for he is not in the EDL.
One day, they will come for Jurgen, and who will be left to say…….?
He’s not around. The ringmaster was looking for him – the performance starts shortly and he has to get his big baggy trousers on.
I think I see one coming over the back garden fence now!
FO Jurgen, twat
Virtually everyone skims headlines deciding what stories to read. That is the purpose of a headline, and they are especially important on the internet where they are the only part of the story that you see. Here is a test of your powers of comprehension:
Which of these two BBC Style (TM) headlines describing the hypothetical murder of some moslems by ‘domestic malign forces’ is the best and most informative
Option 1) “Moslem murderers convicted”
Option 2) “Convicted for murder of moslems”
“EDL Bomb Plot” is an option 1 headline.
this has been the protectionist bbc speak all morning
gaulling, didn t catch the beginning of the conversation
as i was driving back, but a police communities spokesman, and councillor zafar (some cooked up gov money extraction machine, under the guise of community rights), and i think Foglegity, all shooting the (Anti-EDL) breeze, anyone tuning in would have no idea they were the targets/victims in this.
The EDL have the right to protest, and bring attention to what is being purposely protected by the likes of the bbc
and if it is peaceful protest … i ve no issue with it. if there is violence but not by them it rather proves their point.
EDL is Abhorant… for not allowing themselves to be blown up by nice cuddly followers of Islam…. strange to see in the Telegraph until you realise the guy works for the BBC…
Yes, tricky one. Blow up the mouthy gobshites, or arrest the ones planning to set off bombs? What to do, what to do…?
But, in typical BBC-style:
Last updated: April 30th, 2013
Comment on this
Comments are closed.
Must have been worried about more mouthy gobshites giving them tricky decisions on whether to shut them up or blow them up.
‘the guy works for the BBC’
Comments are closed
What… were the odds?
O/T, but a similar coyness on this version of ‘A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Jihad’:
On presumes these erratically applicable legal reasons?
car boot containing, 2 sawn off shotguns, assorted knives, samurai sword, another sword and a bomb …. driven to Dewsbury – intention mass murder
yep! sure sounds like the religion of peace to me
but relax … only 4% want to bomb us? 😀
that said with over 3 million muslims here, thats over 30,000 … the rest just agree with islamic aims … sp thats alright then.
INBBC, Islam and EDL.
Of course, Islam Not BBC (INBBC) ends its ‘report’ on the Birimingham Islamic jihadists’ planned attack by including a politically gratuituous comment from a Muslim organisation in Birmingham. That comment contains no apology for the Islamic jihad plot to kill British non-Muslim people.
INBBC allows no statement from the targeted victims of this particular Islamic jihad plot: the English Defence League and its supporters.
The INBBC ‘reporting’ is coloured by NUJ policy of opposition to the EDL.
“Six” [I…… j…….] “admit planning to bomb English Defence League rally”
“Six Islamic terrorists facing lengthy prison sentences after admitting plot to bomb EDL rally causing mayhem and mass injuries.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2317029/Six-Islamic-extremists-plead-guilty-failed-bomb-plot-English-Defence-League.html#ixzz2Rx3j2u46
Typically confused liberal gibberish. By good fortune an appalling terrorist attack was prevented. The intended victims are irrelevant.
Had the attack succeded then we would probably be living in a different world. Terrorism is always beyond the pale. It is the beginning of the end of civil society and the rule of law.
I was really expecting someone might have noticed the radio 4 program on Wagner which must have slipped through the net.
Apparently Wagner was a screaming leftie, and the ring cycle is a damning criticism of capitalism. The anti Semitism was because the left hated the Jews as a symbol of capitalism, Wagner we are told invited them to exterminate themselves.
Now if all this is correct it provides strong support to the argument that the Nazis were left wing and the Jews were killed because of their symbol of capitalism.
I wonder if the bBC realised just what this program was suggesting
Paul Mason? Well, I guess since he actually was a music teacher, he’s at least somewhat more qualified to talk about Wagner than he is about economics. As a Wagner fan and someone who understands what a horrible human being he was, I’ll have to listen to this to see just how Mason combines the two.
I didn’t know it was on (for some strange reason), but wouldn’t have watched it in any case.
I’m looking forward to the day when someone can produce a programme on Wagner without mentioning Hitler or capitalism. Godwin’s Law at work I suppose.
The Ring is open to many interpretations but I think capitalism is stretching things a bit, modern productions notwithstanding. The alleged Jewish slurs (association with the Nibelungen dwarves) also strike me as far fetched since the supposedly superior heroes and gods are an unprepossessing lot, by and large, who seem to fail in every endeavour.
Alec Guiness’s portrayal of Fagin in Oliver (1948) is a masterpiece in many respects but last time I saw it I was struck by how overtly antisemitic it appears to be, yet it attracts (relatively) little criticism.
Perhaps it’s easier to see something sinister in Parsifal, but I wish these pretentious clowns would just concentrate on Wagner’s music and directions, and stop using the operas as a framework for their own tired prejudices.
There’s no shortage of books on Wagner for those who are interested. Best to stick to those and avoid the BBC, as usual.
I listened to half the show and then turned it off. The Professor, Paul Lawrence Rose they got as a talking head claimed “you can hear racism in the music”. This crackpot sees antisemitism in everything, hell even in Tristan und Isolde. Talk about twisted
Bryan Magee in his Wagner and Philosopher demolishes Prof Rose’s arguments or lack off.
On watching Wagner’s Operas they usually turn out to be the complete opposite of what trendy critics claim. So I put criticisms down to projection.
Though it is true Wagner was a Revolutionary and a Utopian Socialist in his younger days, he ended up a Liberal but never a reactionary.
As Nietzsche wrote “He ceased being a revolutionary and became revolutionary”.
The show was a wasted opportunity, to trawl up out dated criticisms.
The BBC should have played this sketch instead…
The music at the end isn’t the Idyll, but whatever, it’s still funny.
It’s the overture to Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg.
“you can hear racism in the music”
Just plain silly.
I’m very surprised the BBC didn’t take the opportunity to link The Ring Cycle to some kind of secret gay culture amongst classical composers of the era.
Funny you should say that. In Wagner’s day, one of the criticisms against him was that his fan base consisted of masculine females and effeminate males.
So in the 1870s his music was considered a bit LGBT.
Anyway in the mind of Paul Mason Wagner’s life was something like this………
Directed with a sledgehammer, as usual.
Probably because of Ludwig II.
I do hope that one of us takes Nigel Farage to one side, and explains to him what the BBC are up to with himself, and with UKIP.
Dreadful half-arsed ambush from Humphrys this morning, but old Nigel rose to the bait, and let himself be judged by Humphs mocking impressions of a taxi driver who had sat on the Guardian for a few hours.
UKIP policies?…well, we`ll not know if the BBC have anything to do with it…they`re all racists and crackers, probably best they don`t adopt or go into foster caring.
Maybe Nigel needs to stick around, stop running off to Brussels…and get the measure of the BBCs elephant traps.
Nigel will soon be destroying the BBCs hired hempheads for fun-but he needs to take on the likes of Humphrys and his taxi driver impressions( that I myself found pretty insulting, but the BBC don`t care anymore do they?)
OK for metropolitan elitist Humph to mock a Cockney taxi-driver (because = poor White racist trash) but not one from Cardiff or Liverpool or a Muslim, naturally. The arrogance of Humphrys is nauseating.
Humphrys did fairly point out – after a gentle bit of smearing – the one major flaw in the whole UKIP thing: no clear policies on anything other than being against Europe and immigration (the way he stated the anti-immigration stance being one of the smears). I’m not saying that UKIP and Farage have never stated other policies, but surely it’s not an unfair statement of the general perception. Farage didn’t exactly redeem his party in response, either. His answer to the question about other policies was basically to rephrase the anti-Europe policy. It’s in the party’s name, after all, so it’s a tough position.
Look at the BBC’s extremely biased summary of Miliband’s car crash interview yesterday:
They didn’t once bother to mention borrowing which was the main focus of the interview. Unbelievable.
“Milishambles! Ed refuses TEN times to admit Labour would borrow billions more as his Alternative Queen’s Speech reveals a £28.1billion black hole”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2316626/Milishambles-Ed-refuses-TEN-times-admit-Labour-borrow-billions-Alternative-Queens-Speech-reveals-28-1billion-black-hole.html#ixzz2RxtUlSyD
Does “Food Addiction” exist, asks our BBC poppet with her forthcoming show to plug?
Oh God here comes another cause in need of a charity grant and special considerations.
The BBC continue to play Buckaroo with the nation, and gleefully looks forward to seeing which of their adopted wristband issues gains traction, and causes trouble, new laws and guidelines-and(of course) more state funding and lawyers to advocate for the client group.
The BBC are the nations worrywort, a nanny checking her knickers for any sign of…well, anything that would worry us all…and get a living for her brood of worried well hypos.
Does “Food Addiction” exist Sally?…I`m pretty sure by the time your squit of a half-hour grumble is through, it will certainly be heading for Brussels via regional courts in the hope that it does!
Shoplifting?-that`ll be an addiction…no charge.
Siphoning off petrol?…well some nutter has drank it , so that`ll be a beverage..no charge.
Brillo pads?…why not?…addiction to Shreddies in tribute act guise…case dismissed..
How the BBC manage to turn normal activities into medical conditions is a wonder-I wonder why the hell we`re paying for this crap!
womans hour had a fatty on to bemoan people calling her fat, and there were suggestions that there should be a new ‘ism’ to cover them too. Head scratching as to why people would want to call fatties names – probably because they’re never going to be fast enough to catch anyone slim?
That’s not the best of it.
All this coexists with the BBC’s constant warnings about an ‘obesity epidemic’ which is going to kill everyone in the world, unless climate change gets them first. Apparently, if we don’t ban hamburgers and force everyone to eat cardboard, we’ll all be dead by *;30 tomorrow.
As ever with the BBC, the question is ‘which is it’? Is being a salad dodger a lifestyle choice or is it worse than crystal meth? Or does it change, depending on whether the BBC is pushing restrictions on free speech or pushing restrictions on free trade?
You’ll never catch Murray with her big fat paid for by you pension, no you can never hurry a Murray.
I think there is such a thing as food addiction, but I know it better as ‘greed’.