Open Thread By David Vance | May 6, 2013 - 3:04 pm |May 8, 2013 open thread For comments of general Biased BBC interest. Bookmark the permalink.
obama on assad … any use of chemical weapons, will be a red line not to be crossed/game changer etc, as the narrative was pushed that the goverment was using them with no substansive evidence.
obama on jihadis actually using chemical weapons .. we need much more time to collate information, vigorous investigation … ya da ya da ya da.
the news this morning says there is evidence the jihadis have used them and that the assad gov has not.
then we have the bbc report, so filled with innuendo
one would think the assad gov has used them and is continuing to do so
the dissapointment in Peter Allen’s voice on 5dead was palpable..
It was pure Syriawood – just like Pallywood. Obama says that use of chemical weapons will cause the USA to intervene. So the next day, five ‘citizens’ lying on stretchers with foam around their mouths. No-one dies, they are all ‘treated successfully’. Assad is blamed. The world media springs into action, goading all governments to get involved.
What a total bunch of brainless idiots, even to believe that Assad would risk global intervention over such a small, unsuccessful attack. But there you go, governments and the media, lead by the warmongering B-BBC.
‘The world media springs into action, goading all governments to get involved.’
I have no clue what is going on. I don’t think anyone does. Especially ‘world media’. Yet this does not seem to have stopped them, for a moment, engaging in a 24/7 rush to feed the gaping news maw with ratings fodder or propaganda to order.
I found this piece, from an unexpected (and one often not totally objective, so caveats on absolutes abound) source, interesting:
Beyond asking questions that appeared to have escaped many, and especially those who long since have given up caring about knowing better, one paragraph truly resonated:
”Walk into a TV studio and they’re all reading newspapers. Walk into a newspaper office and they’re all watching television. It’s osmotic. And the headlines are all the same.
As eloquent of the #2wrongs morass that exists in today’s ‘news’ media as I can imagine.
They are all at it. It is tripe. So they are as all as bad as one another.
However, one in there is supposed to walk a different, more professional, more objective path. And is paid a small fortune to do so.
But it hasn’t, and doesn’t.
Why are people therefore still compelled to contribute to this failure?
“Walk into a TV studio and they’re all reading newspapers. Walk into a newspaper office and they’re all watching television.”
They are, in the main, a feminised bunch of loud cluckers and narcissists, more concerned with ‘feelings’ and scoring points in their agenda-driven argument/story than in plain reporting of the facts.
At times they appear to be resolutely blind to facts that do not suit their ‘story’. (The BBC ignoring the contents of the Climategate emails is one very obvious example.)
Still I have a warped sense of humour about the MSM news: which came first, the chick-lit or the egocentrism?
It does give the impression that all these expert journalists really care only about what other journalists think. I realize there’s more to it than that, but it doesn’t build confidence.
I saw a few minutes ago your comments about Benghazi (BBC: “Ben who?”), which seems to be another example of BBC ‘no-one wants to hear about that‘.
Egocentrism is characterized by preoccupation with one’s own internal world.
Egocentrics regard themselves and their own opinions or interests as being the most important or valid.
Self-relevant information is seen to be more important in shaping one’s judgments than do thoughts about others and other-relevant information. Egocentric people are unable to fully understand or to cope with other people’s opinions and the fact that reality can be different from what they are ready to accept.”
Excuse me, but I’ve already provided links to CNN, CBS, and the widely-read The Hill. They seem to think it’s important as well, so it’s not just me thinking my opinion on Benghazi is the most important. You could try debating the issue rather than ad hominem remarks.
Your links to other sources are why I am pointing out in particular the BBC’s egocentrism over the Benghazi action, and why it could not be you that was the target of my criticising remarks.
Working gun made with 3D printer – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22421185
There are some quite strong anti-American sentiments in the comments section.
If those comments had been directed at any of the left’s protected groups, they would have been deleted. However, the left seems to think that anti-American racism is somehow more acceptable than other forms of racism…
I noticed that bBBC quoted the EU’s policing agency with approval – so no doubt the manufacturing and sale of 3D weaponry will be strictly licensed by Big Brother. God forbid that the little people should be able to protect themselves.
“Ms Baines from Europol said: “What we know is that technology proceeds much more quickly than we expect it to. So by getting one step ahead of the technological developments, we hope and believe we will be able to get one step ahead of the criminals as well.”
I think that the 3D printing technology is absolutely marvellous. The possibilities are so great that I think it will completely change the entire economic foundations of our countries. Now, let me see is that technology arising in a muslim country, I wonder? Or is there a small endangered country in the middle east that has played a very significant part in its development? I think we all know the answer to that. It would be refreshing if the bbc could once in their miserable lives report in the benefits that Israel brings to the world, even if they can’t bring themselves to admit that the muslim world contributes absolutely nothing of value.
The “small endangered country in the middle east” bit just prompted a different thought. I wonder how the BBC would be reporting on this technology if, say, a bunch of these printers were smuggled through the Tunnels of Heroes into Gaza, and they started fabricating weapons. Would 3D printing technology in that context still pose “risks”, or would it be a wondrous boon for their fight for freedom?
I look forward to the first explosion of the 3-D printer derived pressure cooker – the convergence of 21st century technology with medieval suprematist theology.
How typical that the BBC moves on to comparing this single-shot weapon, which is about as practical as a muzzle-loading flintlock pistol, with actual criminal uses of the 3D printer. As if it’s a logical progression.
No mention of the political affiliation of the Congressman who wants to outlaw any guns made with this technology, so Rule #1 goes into effect.
Also no viewpoints offered in support of the attempt to preserve individual liberty and 2nd Amendment rights – other than a quote from the guy who made it – while presenting two separate views opposing the technology, plus we get to hear a law enforcement official worrying about how dangerous it all is. Balanced? Not. Fortunately, at least we learned that the ATF doesn’t view this as illegal. But that only serves to highlight the existential threat, if one is coming from the BBC, anti-gun perspective.
The guy who made the gun apparently describes himself as a “crypto-anarchist”. If only he had printed something in protest of welfare cuts or evil corporate greed, the BBC would have given him more support, and that kind of anti-government activity would not have been described as a “risk”.
The Beeboids are probably still grieving over their beloved Obamessiah’s defeat on trying to take away 2nd Amendment rights from His subjects.
As I was watching I thought how pretty useless it looked as a firearm, being ex-forces Single shot short barrel so therefore a low muzzle velocity and inaccurate as it also fires I would assume a low power 9mm round it’s practicatility used would be limited. Why would anyone thinking of using a weapon bother with this (we were never told how much the raw materials would cost, plus you still need to acquire ammunition) when anyone so bent seems to able to obtain conventional firearms any way. The biggest value of this would be to “restrict” the ownership from the public and only let this technology to be available to selected licensed owners and not the general public who God forbid might start to make all kinds of things for themselves.
Would you feel safe firing it? It seems a far cry from commercially produced handguns using synthetic materials developed or selected specifically for that purpose.
Someone should have pointed out that anyone with a metal lathe could theoretically produce a single shot handgun. Lots of cheap lathes on Ebay.
More interesting, but not yet even as lethal, is the 3D printed receiver for an AR-15. That’s the only part of the weapon that’s officially regulated. One can buy all the other parts and assemble them on top of it without needing a license or anything like that. Of course, it’s basically a piece of plastic and falls apart right away, but it’s theoretically much more of away to get around draconian gun laws than the single-shot toy.
Instead, one could just buy a proper gun made before 1899, no paperwork necessary. They may be officially “antique”, but are just as deadly as anything new. The only salient difference is the capacity. If the cops don’t show up for 20 minutes, one can do plenty of damage with something out of Sharpe’s Rifles.
Anti-Americanism and anti-Israel / Judaism are the only permissible forms of racism that are acceptable to the left – oh, hang on, anti-British cultural values? That’s qell acceptable…
oops. should be ‘well’, that’s what two bottles of shiraz does to you…
The whole idea of 3D printing is the spark for a revolution in manufacturing. I’ve been mesmerised by it’s possibilities since it first broke into the public domain. The possibilities are astonishing.
But I never even considered the idea that you could make a functioning gun with a 3D printer. I would have thought the barrel would explode. But if a 3D printer can produce materials capable of withstanding the pressure of a bullet then …
What next? Timers, detonators, wiring?
Of course you cannot make the ammunition or at least the gunpowder, yet. But once a 3D printer can make chemicals (yes, I do know) you have a Star Trek replicator. All you need is the raw materials and bang goes the farmers & supermarkets. Allahs little helpers can have an A-bomb at the press of a button, so to speak.
So now the idea of banning guns is moot. So they’d better ban the ammunition – oh hang on that’s what the Democrats want isn’t it?
Ever get the feeling you are being led up the garden path by the nose?
Guns aside, the implications for manufacturing are interesting. Might have a small impact on China’s current domination.
1000s riot, insisting on “blasphemy law”
“Rioters vandalized markets and set fire to bookshops where the Holy Koran is sold. Thousands of Koran and religious books burned. They also attacked the ruling party’s political office and national mosque,” he told the BBC”
what! … just a motoon minute … 1000s of korans burned?
expect muslims worldwide to protest at this outrage then, by the strongest means possible?
(sound of crickets) …
holy hysterics … insist all the perpetrators of this outrage against allah are well and truly sharia-ed eh? ….
hello (tumbleweed) … hello … anyone there?
it won t be long people …
better check this out , from the absurdly named
alliance of civilisations?
“Thousands of Muslims protest outside the Houses of Parliament in London on Sat 6th October 2012, demonstrating love for the Prophet and their outrage at Islamo-faux-bia.
The event saw Muslims from ALL SECTS, including Sunni and Shia communities, establishing a united front against Islamo-faux-bia”
erm … what do you think would happen if someone had turned up with a mo-toon?
When did the BBC policy of ALWAYS referring to the Koran as the “Holy Koran” start? Has anybody got a link to a BBC article referring to the “Holy Bible”?
Similarly, Mohammed is always referred to as the “Prophet Mahammedmed”. Can anybody find any references to “Jesus Christ the Saviour” in a BBC article?
I don’t prticularly care but I would be interested in working out why the BBC adopt this formula. As I recall they wouldn’t put the Koran in room 101 because people would suffer ‘real offence’ and there might be ‘consequences’. I guess that offending some christians with Jerry Springer was OK as there was never going to be any “consequences…”
Here is that famous exchange where the phrase “pusillanimous” failed to appear. (The BBC Room 101 hypothetical scenario seminar)
“ALAN YENTOB: If he’d thrown in the bible, this maybe a contentious view, I would have to think longer about it because in a way I mean it might offend people, but not offend people in the way that throwing the Koran in…
CLIVE ANDERSON: What’s the difference? What’s the difference?
ALAN YENTOB: Okay, because we know, … it is the reaction and the honest truth is, for a joke, I mean if I’m being perfectly honest I would say no, don’t do it. I wouldn’t even bother to talk to anybody else about it, I think it would be reckless, and dangerous and it would put..
CLIVE ANDERSON: And the difference is fundamentalist Presbyterians in Highlands of Scotland are not going to go on a riot even though they’re terrifically cross but they may do in the streets of Bradford if the Koran ..
We’ve been told in the past that it’s not, in fact, a BBC policy to qualify Mohammed or the Koran that way, but is instead left to the choice of the individual Beeboid. Of course, like so many things we see as bias at the BBC, there’s no need for an official directive from the top if they all think the same way about a given issue. The result is that the majority of Beeboids will feel it’s the right thing to do, and the institutional bias will occur naturally. This is something that no amount of management reshuffling or restructuring can correct.
Although I have to laugh (again) at one attempted explanation they tried on someone who registered a complaint about it. I wish I could find the comment someone here posted a few months ago about this, but I remember the gist of it. Apparently the BBC claimed that they added the “Prophet” qualifier to make sure everyone knew which Mohammed they were talking about.
Hmm, they may have a point. After all, it is the most common male name (if you count all the variations of spelling) in Britain………………….
But those people all have last names. Even the departed Nicked Emus – an actual journalist – acknowledged it was a silly excuse.
Perhaps my humour was a bit too dry – of course it was a ludicrous excuse!
Okay, my apologies. Looks like my humor sensor was temporarily offline again.
what a perverse inversion of reality eh!
It shows with great clarity, that Islam the ideology is totally devoid of any shred of decency and morality, and polar opposite to what we hold as a standard..
Thats why in the civilised west, Judas and Adolf have dropped off the map
whilst Moh (more insane, more perverted and murderous) is celebrated? … simply perverse
I think the explanation is reasonable. All the BBC have to do is add one word. Muslim prophet Mohammed. All fixed!
Does making a digital copy constitute ‘burning the Koran’ ? Huge moral dilemma in the Islamic world…
Naughty. It’s actually no problem at all. I once almost bought
Cat Stevens’Yusuf Islam’s recording of some of the Surahs.
Whenever he wants to advertise his music for sale on British TV he reverts to Cat Stevens. He is wise enough not to use yussuf when he wants to make money.
This is not true. He’s released two albums under the name Yusuf, plus a DVD or two. If his former name is mentioned in advertising, you can bet that will be the record company’s doing and nothing to do with the artist and it’l probably be selling back catalogue..
Yes it was tv advertising.
Could be record companies doing.
Does he have no say in it?
Percy is correct, there is at least one album cover with the single name of yusuf, and totally excluding cat, available on amazon at present.
Generally the site doubles up the description to yusuf/cat so theres no room for doubt.
Hat tip to percy, Dysgwr was wrong.
So who here understands what really is happening in Bangladesh:
Clashes over Bangladesh protest leave ’15 dead’
At least 15 people are reported to have been killed and more than 60 hurt after police and Islamist protesters clashed in the Bangladeshi capital, Dhaka….”Rioters vandalized markets and set fire to bookshops where the Holy Koran is sold. Thousands of Koran and religious books burned.
Amazing how the bBC reports how trouble and strife is besetting another peaceful Islamic nation maybe there lies for this inclusion into the bBC narrative:
“I am Muslim and 90% of the population is Muslim too but the protesters do not represent our views,”
So just why are so many armed Muslims protesting on the streets of
East LondonBangladesh? Well in a nuttshell the leader of the opposition (whom all the protesters belong too) has received a death sentence for his part in killing his fellow man during the war of independence (1971) from Pakistan. Bloggers demanding he be treated like he treated his victims (Executed) have themselves found themselves the target of the opposition who are using this case as a party political broadcast in which to gain the moral highground by equating calling for the death of an Islamic leader as slander against Islam. Is there anything Muslims don’t call as an attack on Islam?) That people is as simple as I can put it, something the bBC hasn’t bothered its arse in doing. Also the reason why I added protesting on the streets on London above is because pro Bangladeshi government supporters in the UK are finding themselves under police protection because the mores of Islamic justice are emerging on the streets of London.
Met police chief orders investigation after death threats made to Bangladeshi activists
Something the bBC not only doesn’t mention, but is unable to join the dots with this story:
NHS boss faces death penalty over charges of torture and 18 murders in Bangladesh
One of Britain’s most important Muslim leaders – who has a senior role in the NHS – is to be charged with 18 murders by a war crimes tribunal in his native Bangladesh
Want to guess which Bangladeshi political party he belongs to?
The bBC, the traitors within our midst
thanks Pounce – as you say – the only thing you can trust the BBC to do is not explain what is really happening in the Muslim world.
Never mind Syria…..
Is open warfare breaking out on the streets of ‘Beds, Herts & Bucks’?
‘Luton shooting hours after peace rally’
‘Police are investigating another shooting in Luton just hours after a peace rally was held to try to end violence in the town.’
‘There have been 12 gun-related incidents in the town in 2013, and three fatalities since last September.’
‘Community leaders held a rally outside the town hall on Sunday in reaction to a spate of stabbings and shootings.’
‘Community’? What community would that be?
‘Pastor Lloyd Denny, chair of Luton in Harmony, said the Non Violence Alliance, Walk to Freedom and Tropical FM were involved in the rally.’
But what community is represented by ‘Luton in Harmony’?
‘Glenroy Campbell, from the Non-Violence Alliance – member of GANG – God’s Anointed New Generation, said ahead of the rally: “We are just sick of the violence that is going on in Luton and will gather together on Sunday to show our solidarity. ‘
But what community is represented by ‘GANG’ ?
‘Luton in Harmony is a community campaign group launched just over three years ago. ‘
Yes, but please BBC…. tell me what community!
‘The Non Violence Alliance was formed more recently, following the death of 19-year-old Delaney Brown in Leagrave in September.’
Non Violence Alliance, yeah yeah…. I give up.
The BBC are refrusing to tell me what community is involved here.
I bet the Police in Luton are taking all this very seriously….?
‘Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner for Bedfordshire, Tafheen Sharif, said she understood the feeling of unease in the town.’
“You do hear a lot of it, but if you put it into context, the fact is it is not as bad as other places similar to Luton,” she said.’
Or perhaps they’re not.
What places are ‘similar to Luton’?
Answers on a postcard.
BBC/Police : PC Rules!
“Tommy And Family Attacked!”
I can’t help but admire Tommy Robinson and his family for their ability to continue to oppose the forces of evil waged against them, in the face of every obstruction that our local and national governing bodies can place before them. One day people will come to their senses and realise just who are the enemies in our midst and it’s not just those who were massing in front of his house.
Speedboat victim ‘doted on family’.
This is the lead headline on the BBC news website. For a second, I wondered if I’d navigated to the Daily Mail website in error…
Whilst I feel sorry for Nick Milligan and his family – and accepting that yesterday may have been a slow news day – his death was the lead story on the BBC yesterday. I do wonder if he had not worked within the TV industry whether his death would have been noted only on the Cornish local news.
‘Sky News’ has (-can’t find it on BBC-NUJ):-
“White Britons ‘In Retreat’ From Minority Areas”
(inc video clip).
“The 4.1 million ethnic minorities who now live in white minority areas is a significant increase from the 2001 census, when only around one million minority Britons lived in such wards.”
Of course, the ‘political left’s ‘multicultural’ experiment of open-door, mass immigration (as advocated by BBC-NUJ-Labour) has resulted in enormous cultural, economic and social problems; but does appear to have increased the Labour Party’s vote.
‘Multiculturalism’ leads to apartheid.
And those many ethnic white British people, who are not able to afford to move home, are forced to live as a minority in areas which used to be their country.
The ethnic British people are being colonised.
George: The Beeb did cover it, sort of.
In Feb Mark Easton wrote a ridiculously fanciful piece about how the white population had “bought themselves that little cottage in the countryside or by the sea.” And how ‘It is a story of aspiration. It is a story of success.’
Utterly deluded, or more likely just knowingly dishonest about what is actually happening.
The comments are scathing.
That BBC article!
It should win awards for ‘obfuscation in journalism’.
Yes. To those on this site who assure me that BBC bias is no more than a Left/ liberal group-think and not a conspiracy, can they explain the motivation behind Easton’s article? Is he stupid, or willfully trying to deceive us, or resigned to White flight and seeking to calm people?
“the motivation behind Easton’s article?”
White washing over bourgeois liberal hypocrisy?
I’m sure Billy Bragg has some similarly specious validation for his flight from vibrancy.
Bragg bought the house 11 years ago as a protest against living somewhere really pokey without a glorious view and an acre of expertly manicured left-wing garden.
Last night Bragg said he would have given more money to poor people if it was not for the extension and the double glazing and confirmed that anyone who noticed the size of his house was just an ‘old fashioned racist’.
Ive seen that before (though i never tire of it) and I know the daily mash is satirical ,but is that relly Bragg’s house?
Apparently. If property is theft, Billy’s in a lot of trouble with the hypocrisy police…
Nicely fenced in – a mini fortress to keep out the plebs…
The trouble is i would bet a lot of Braggs neighbours in the village are similar leftie wealthies, or yokel like drudges. If i lived there i would be on the bastards back all the time, stirring up trouble for him, reminding him of his hypocrisy.
Looks like he’s not keen on costal ‘right of way’ footpaths either
Or paying his taxes – although he puts this down to a protest against bankers’ bonuses 😉
Reading the top rated 50 comments it is plain that Easton is quite right. It is a story of aspiration. The people who are leaving London aspire to a life free of the fear of their neighbours.
Not what he meant of course …
Ah, INBBC, but tell us: – Is it Islamic jihad?
“Iranians jailed for life in Kenya over terror charges”
‘Jihadwatch’ puts an accurate headline on the same INBBC report:-
“Kenya: Iranian Muslims jailed for life over jihad bombing plots in Nairobi and Mombasa”
“Iran is stepping up its preparations for war with Israel”
By Con Coughlin.
And Israel will be prepared. I foresee another bloody nose on the way for Iran.
The Iran- Iraq war was like WW1 all over again, trench warfare. Iran does not know whats in store for them if they start with Israel.
Guess Ahmadinnerjacket is depending on non-so-covert support from al-Beeb…
Ahmadinnerjacket is going to end up getting a JDAM through his bedroom window as an eid gift if he keeps pissing off old benny
Nothing on BBC (yet…?) about massive demos in France against gay marriage. “The movement against gay marriage mobilises more French onto the street than the traditional right and the extreme right put together” (my translation)
as i ve driven back today, 5live keeps mentioning nazi/far right, special report – neo nazis, radio 4 the same,
hmm … is fatty nolan on tonight?
how about panto dame tomorrow and (be nice if it was) “your call”?
have that al bbc “blanket coverage” feeling comin on
I ordered a bbc removal kit from amazon, so hopefully it will arrive on time so i miss all that shite.
I’m confused. The BBC refer to the ‘right-wing’ or ‘far-right’ neo-Nazi group (NSU). which they themselves name as the National SOCIALIST Underground. Surely the clue is in the name.
Isn`t it funny what the BBC choose to major on?
This story from Munich is surely one for the Germans to process and pass judgement upon.
How come the BBC don`t seem bothered in reporting the case of Kermit Gosnell(abortionist butcher in the USA) but are happy enough to ramp up this one from Germany?
Need we ask?-just like the Irish refusing to give the abortion in Galway-the Germans not dealing with the Turkish murders( and this surely is for the German judges to confirm…not the BBC)…the liberal media clearly want some stories to count more than others.
Christians murdered by Muslims in Nigeria?…no.
South Africa not getting aid to pay for Zumas SUV?…tell us more!
Oh, f*** the BBC!
Or at least let none of us pay for its slurry any longer.
…in passing, on Radio Bour food programme earlier.
‘… and Nicola we’re in the middle of a recession’.
Just so yerno, Nicola, treacle, (that outside of the bbc bubble at any rate) we are NOT in the middle of a recession.
Hope this helps.
Nor (outside of the bbc bubble at any rate) is the globe warming.
Thank me later.
“Buddhists Are Wising Up to Jihad;
BBC Doesn’t Like It.”
The BBC are a bit confused about this story:
Basically some homosexuals were making a nuisance of themselves outside a theatre, to promote ‘gay clubbing’.
Because gays rank at the top of the BBC respect pyramid, they have therefore headlined this story as “‘Queen’ Helen Mirren scolds drummers”
Obviously had it been an EDL march, a Countryside Alliance march, or similar, the headline would have read ‘Play disrupted by EDL march’ or something similar.
But here the BBC mince their words, to avoid saying anything bad about gays at all, and much of the article is devoted to stressing how gays have the right to make a horrible noise wherever they please.
Gay clubbing!? I thought there was enough controversy surrounding seals!
Or “seels” maybe? Breaking the seventh seal?
Must be a new ‘Muslim Patrol’ video.
Transphobic maan, homophobic too!
Come on BBC…prosecute the intolerant old queen!
Oo er missus!
BBC pushes Assad propaganda in Israel raid report
The BBC has reported the Assad regime’s claims as news, in a clear-cut example of intensive anti-Israel bias
The example of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
For INBBC: –
more proof that Islamic jihad is the murderous enemy of liberty:
“Taliban bomb kills 18 at Pakistan election rally”
“The Pakistani Taliban have condemned Saturday’s elections as un-Islamic and directly threatened the main parties in the outgoing coalition, the Pakistan People’s Party, the Muttahida Qaumi Movement and the Awami National Party (ANP).”
INBBC does NOT include the reference to elections being ‘un-Islamic’ in its report:-
“Deadly blast at election rally in north-west Pakistan”
Will this catch on here? Lauryn Hill (no, me neither, but apparently she’s an American who used to be a singer before she took time off to have six children) plays the race card to claim that she shouldn’t have to pay tax because she is descended from slaves.
Wow! the best example of ‘card hustling’ I’ve seen so far. Not so much playing a ‘card’ but an entire loaded deck containg five aces and seven kings. The real issue here is she is no doubt sincere and has been ‘led to believe’ that her pethetic and frankly imcomprehensible whining is an entirely legitimate explanation and that she is in fact a victim.
Impact of UKIP, even on BBC-NUJ.
BBC-NUJ summary of Lord Lawson in ‘Times’:-
“Lord Lawson calls for UK to exit EU”
I wonder if BBC-NUJ would have put up this summary of Lord Lawson’s case for U.K. to leave E.U. had UKIP not made substantial electoral gains last week. Still, it’s something.
As the song says: “This Could Be the Start of Something Big”.
“Why we must quit the EU:
Thatcher’s Chancellor Nigel Lawson emboldens Tory rebels with explosive attack on ‘bureaucratic monstrosity.'”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2320180/Nigel-Lawson-Why-quit-EU.html#ixzz2Sb8pmtdU
According to BBC political correspondent Norman Smith when he was on the one o’clock news such people are “Euro bores”!
Presumably they are bores because they are pointing out to the Euro fanatics at the BBC that much is going wrong in the Euro. This of course is opposed to Stephanie “is it Wednesday or Thursday” Flanders who not so long ago assured us that the Greek bailout was working!
Has anybody in favour of the Euro ever been described as a bore by the BBC?
‘According to BBC political correspondent Norman Smith when he was on the one o’clock news such people are “Euro bores”’
Given the BBC’s finest do like their social media crossovers, I wonder how long before our Norm has a big sign that says [Yawn] when he’s ‘reporting’ (in ‘I mean that sarcastically’ quotes), to really put his objectivity in focus?
As opposed to a Leveson bore, a Global Warming bore, a Banker bashing bore, a “Cheridee” bore and a “there they go about the bloody cuts” bore.
These are consciousness-raising pioneers, whereas the asset stripping of our sovereignty/right to exist as an independent country…well that`s “boring.
Legalise drugs bores, more sex ed bores , abortion bores, euthanasia bores, let`s suck up what Mecca has to offer bores…this is the BBC.
The usual ad hominem attack, when awkward questions are raised: ‘bores’ is code for ‘we don’t want to talk about this and will try to discredit any who do’. Another instance some time ago was when an ‘Any Qs?’ panelist raised the Andrew Neather revelations and the Labour man (possibly Ph Woolas?) said “Oh no, not Andrew Neather AGAIN!” – code for “I don’t want to face the truth about what my party did”.
He wasn’t referring to Lawson. I’m surprised no one has made the point that the BBC having Lawson’s pronouncement all over its headlines today is the BBC calling for EU withdrawl?
That’s the usual logic isn’t it?
Depends on how it’s presented. So it’s okay for Smith to call someone else a bore?
Seriously, you can’t watch the One o’ Clock news in the states. So you can’t see this. And you can’t get a sense of the whole discussion. That’s slightly more excuse for missing the point that the other posters I guess. As Onion says he wasn’t calling any particular person a bore he was discussing Cameron’s problems with tackling this issue full stop. Bore was used in the wider context of saloon bar-style bore who is never happy whatever the PM offers on Europe. There’s plenty more along the same lines in the Telegraph. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100215556/ukip-could-get-to-be-really-quite-annoying/
So it’s okay for him to make value judgments. Noted.
if only the likes of Lawson, Tebbit and Lilley would reform as a Maggie tribute act, and then make a deal with UKIP.
This would be the Coalition that could yet save the country.
Invite even the few Labour MPs who didn`t fall for Blairs crap-Filed, Hoey, Stuart etc.
I`d vote for that.
And today’s bBBC ‘celebrity’ accused of ancient sex offences is Scouse ‘comedian’ Jimmy Tarbuck.
Surely Tarby was an ITV man through and through? Far too working class to have appeared on the BBC much.
Not another one! Still, takes our minds of “Asian” groomers.
Jimmy Tarbuck, Rolph Harris, Jim Davidson, Stuart Hall.
The prison pantomime should be a corker this Christmas!
If TV this Christmas is going to as awful as it usually is, I’m going to get myself convicted of something around November.
On the other hand, “It’s a Knockout Belmarsh Special” doesn’t have much appeal.
At the scandal hit BBC there has been an embarrassing administrative mix up. Lord Tony Hall has been sacked from his job whilst BBC presenter Stuart Hall has been left to announce yet another internal BBC inquiry into the BBC.
Ladies and gentlemen, girls and boys…. welcome, welcome to a glorious sunny afternoon at the corporation recreation ground…. stop laughing…. what’s a little drizzle…?! Do we fear grey skies? So what if there is a clap or two of thunder! Are we a feared?
Here we are on the green and pleasant sward of Ye Olde England…. And did those feet….? Perhaps the poet Homer had the very streets of Wigan in mind when he wrote the lines…. No, young man, you are mistaken! He’s not Bart Simpson’s dad!
To business…. Now today we are entertained by two crack teams of bright young things…. the White City Dodgers and our brave and hopeful newcomers the Salford Part Timers. Each and every one of them hoping to win their big night out in Europe! I don’t know about their politics but I hear they all fancy themselves in the ‘Fil Rouge’.
There will certainly be lots of scrambling up the greasy pole and friendly helping hands up onto the high podia. But look, what’s this? They are all dressed as skittles and they are roped together at the ankles. Oh what wonderfully creative ideas. What amuses me is the way their expressions never change. It is all getting a little sticky for them. They are slipping over all over the place. Can they possibly save the day? Is the game finally up for them? Of course not, now they are playing their Joker! Another BBC Internal Inquiry!
white guys were doing naughty things 30 years ago so its ok for everyone else to do it now…
Nauseating racist article from a black journalist.
I think he should buy himself a calculator – with a percentage function.
As not seen on BBC
Agreed. He is completely wrong anyway: apart from the point you make about percentage, also nobody was blaming “brown” people, although the BBC and many other MSM did insist on the “Asian” thing.
Does the Guardian support paedophila?
The big difference this article ignores is:
– most of the UK’s population is against paedophilia, which is why it is done in secret to powerless victims
– there are sections of the population which support, protect or promote paedophilia for ideological reasons.
Do these seem to have anything in common:
BBC, Islam, socialist social workers…etc?
That’s a very important distinction Derek.
We often hear that Western culture is depraved. Yes, there are things going on here that we are deeply ashamed of, but we are aware of this. They are usually illegal or antisocial aberrations; they are not central to our culture and we do not set out to protect them (or most of us don’t).
“Muslims, ‘sex gangs’ and white working-class women”
By Brendan O’Neill (May, 2012).
Got to love the bBC sob story for the 56 year old drug smuggler who got caught and is bitching about how the UK isn’t doing enough in which to defend her. The last paragraph says it all:
“She fully accepts responsibility, she accepts it was wrong. She deeply, deeply regrets what she’s done but what she’s asking for is a punishment that’s proportionate.”
Maybe if a few more drug smugglers get their necks stretched then British idiots will stop presuming that if caught they have nothing to worry about as the British bBC will fight a rearguard action for you and get you off to a life of celebrity status on morning TV,
“but what she’s asking for is a punishment that’s proportionate”
And I’m sure that’s what she’ll get. But it will be proportionate in the country where the crime was committed.
It can’t have been much of a surprise to her, unless she was a complete imbecile which, while admittedly a high probabity, is no defence.
When travelling to Singapore some years ago I was handed an immigration form. It was very clear that the Singaporean government took a dim view of drug smuggling as it stated in very large letters that the penalty upon conviction was death.
I got the same advice travelling to Malaysia. The FCO travel advice page for Malaysia says….
“There are severe penalties for all drug offences. Trafficking incurs a mandatory death penalty. Possession incurs a custodial sentence and possible whipping. This includes Amphetamine-type stimulants. ”
and advice page for Indonesia says…” Don’t get involved with illegal drugs. Possession, trafficking and manufacture of any illegal drugs are serious offences in Indonesia. The Indonesian authorities have a zero-tolerance policy and those caught face lengthy prison sentences or the death penalty, usually after a protracted and expensive legal process.”
There is a subtle bit of advice to travellers on arrival
Perhaps she thought that all these Far Eastern countries were kidding?
I’m sure it isn’t just the BBC but this women should only get the counselling she needs to come to terms with the death penalty she will be receiving.
So long as she pays for it 🙂
I see that the BBC’s HYS discussion on Lord Lawson’s suggestion that we leave the EU is being used as part of an anti UKIP campaign. Soon Cameron’s pals in the UAF will be demanding no platform for the fascist UKIP.
As for the UKIP voters, just so long as they, and their children, and grandchildren -know- they are voting for a racist, homophobic, borderline fascist party 😛 You let the Tories in and now I can’t believe you’re letting a monstrous ideal like UKIP in, did WWII and extremists like the Nazis teach you nothing? 😛 That’s what UKIP is you know, extremists
It’s been removed now.
‘It’s been removed now.’
There’s a lot of it about.
Yesterday I was interested to learn the term ‘Stakhanovite’ but, sadly, before I was able to explore the possibly ironic aspects as they may pertain to the BBC, it vanished too.
Such May Day balcony retouching is hopefully only in honour of the time of year.
Censorship on top of propaganda is never healthy, and clearly not restricted to most trusted narrative shaping media monopolies, speaking of whom..
Folk often share the BBC’s odd hierarchy Top Trumps here, and this one suggest that in matters ME, and Syria, who are good guys and who are bad can vary depending on enemies of enemies.
‘Most could probably see through the spin, and realise the complete bullsh*t emanating from Damascus.’
Ah…. but… stick it in ‘quotes’ and anyone can say it and the BBC will print it. If it suits.
(The current top… only comment is well worth it, too)
O/T… well… until this bit, which sounds more like one of them there guidelines some like to use:
‘It is a little odd that a public authority can commission an inquiry of this sort, pay for it, and use its results, in this case, broadly to clear its name, and then not be able to produce documents which, had the inquiry been internal, it would have been required to produce to the requester.’
If pressed, I wonder if they will eventually mutter about sending it as Illuminated Script, but as there’s a shortage of monks with such skills (off fighting other faiths no doubt) they apologise for the delay… yadayada….
One commenter offers:
‘Justice is not seen to be served when a court allows a public body to cover up misdeeds by such a flimsy pretext as presented in this case.’
Hey, get Hugs and a half-dozen bag-carriers in on the public purse with the right judge, and who knows what can get covered up?
The finding that there has “not been any systematic manipulation of data” would hide the findings hidden in the working papers such as “ignoring data that does not fit the assumptions“.
In fact, the problems for the warmist morons are always caused by ignoring data, such as changes in the Earths Cloud Albedo or changes in high energy cosmic rays.
These mental blocks are caused by the need for the assumptions not to be proved wrong by the facts.
Therefore they assume that the Earths Cloud Albedo does not change, and they can only see changes in low energy cosmic rays.
“You know something is going right with the world when Charles Moore’s biography of Margaret Thatcher is Number 1 in the Guardian bookshop.”
I see the bBC is promoting the Swedish law of Jante as the way to go:
You’re not to think you are anything special
You’re not to think you are as good as us
You’re not to think you are smarter than us
You’re not to convince yourself that you are better than us
You’re not to think you know more than us
You’re not to think you are more important than us
You’re not to think you are good at anything
You’re not to laugh at us
You’re not to think anyone cares about you
You’re not to think you can teach us anything
Hang on the above laws while supporting the bBC’s mantra of everybody is equal doesn’t subscribes to the tennents of the bBC’s favourite peaceful religion. So guess who they find in which to say..Muslims are exempt the laws of equality for all;
The Greatest? Muhammad Ali breaks the principle of Jante
Err bBC, I was taught as a child a very simple mantra by my mother:
Nobody is better than me, but I am no better than anybody else.
Your mother had obv. not heard of me, for she could not otherwise have spouted such an untruth. 🙂
The BBC does not support Creationism, but it does support the Christian ideal that all men are created equal rather than the evolutionary fact that all men are diverse.
But the confused morons do like to celebrate diversity.
Soviet scientist Trofim Lysenko is highly regarded too, for teaching that acquired characteristics are heritable. For instance, the acquired sin of owning slaves has apparently been inherited by every single white, who it seems ought to feel guilty about it.
The confused morons (as Richard aptly calls them) must be thinking of Biblical original sin.
BBC journalistic house-style can be a little inconsistent.
This is particularly apparent when the Anti-English Broadcasting Corporation is busy ‘bigging up’ everything Welsh.
So we have ‘Welsh rocker’ Bonnie Tyler.
‘Sir Thomas John Woodward, OBE (born 7 June 1940), known by his stage name Tom Jones, is a Welsh singer.’
Gareth Bale is a ’23-year-old Wales international’. Rather excusable factually but his recent awards are clearly due to his performances for London club Spurs.
But Mark Bridger? He is just a local man.
Mark Bridger hasn’t been living in Machynlleth all that long.
He is not Welsh.
Where’s he from?
It’s: ‘give British people’s taxes to Islamic Somalia and to Somalians in Britain day’.
UK’s political class (inc INBBC) adopts the soundbite ‘policy’ that if British people’s taxes (and military aid) are not given to non-representative Islamic hierarchy (GOVERNMENT?) in Somalia to resist (Islamic jihad) Al Shabab, then the problems of more mass immigration of Somalis to Britain will increase (already over 200,000 Somalis live in UK); and, so, apparently, it is British people’s/UK government’s responsibility to do more for Somalia otherwise there will be more Islamic jihad Somalis in Britain going to Somalia to fight jihad there, often using welfare money paid to them by British people’s taxes.
Today’s INBBC ‘World at One’ gave uninterrupted political passage to Islamic Somali ‘journalist from Norway’ to tell us how economically and socially deprived e.g. the Somalis of Camden, London are, and how we (the British people) need to do more to assist. Otherwise…
Part of the ‘give to Islamic Somalians’ propaganda:-
“David Cameron and Mohamud hail ‘progress’ in Somalia”
More INBBC propaganda FOR Islamic Somalia, and Islamic Somalians resident in Britain, and AGAINST non-Islamic British people.
“Singing for Somalia from the diaspora”
(inc video clip).
“Jihad: The Somalia connection.
Numbers of young Britons heading for war-torn African country have soared.” (2009.)
“British Muslims recruited to fight for ‘al-Qaeda’ in Somalia” (2012).
WTF!!! I though the Somali refugees were fleeing persecution from islamists. So what are they doing becoming islamist over here and then going back to fight the secularists???
Lets give the BBC some credit where its due (rare enough!)
Shelagh Fogarty held a discussion this morning on the fact that London is now the TB capital of the Western World.
But lets not give them too much credit, there was no mention of the fact that we are importing diseases on a daily basis!
Syria, chemical weapons:
whatever happened to INBBC’s reporting of this?
-It’s been left to Radio 1’s ‘Newsbeat’ to try to censor out Syria Sunni jihad link with chemical weapons:-
“Does Syria have weapons of mass destruction?”
By Nomia Iqbal.
“Syrian Rebels and Chemical Weapons”
By Walid and Theodore Shoebat.
‘Censoring out’ seems somewhat of an odd reputation to be getting near daily if seeking to cling to the ‘most trusted’ handle.
If this is borne out, President Obama’s drawn lines, red or otherwise, are going to look like a ball of string created by a Delirium Tremens sufferer on an Etch-A-Sketch.
Maybe both sides simply need to be drip fed just enough to annihilate each other (with a bit of unfortunate collateral damage to innocent kids that no one seem too fussed about these days unless there is a photo editor with questionable verification skills)?
That has been crude but effective throughout history, though the downside is when the left overs (personnel and ordnance) make their way back home to haunt those who sought to bolster the ‘defence’ industry employment sector with some short term sales.
It seems the BBC has reported the BCC’s belief that we are not in recession.
‘The UK is set to avoid falling back into recession, according to the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC).’
And that’s official…
‘The Office for National Statistics said its first estimate for gross domestic product (GDP) showed the economy grew 0.3% during the first quarter of 2013.’
Someone please tell BBC 5 Live.
Two items this afternoon – one on payday loans and one on abandoned dogs – both have presenters claiming these problems are due to us being in recession.
BBC : The narrative wins over the facts.
“EXCLUSIVE: BBC bias exposed as newspaper purchases reveals continued Guardian bias.
“For the second year running the BBC has been shown to disproportionately favour the Left-wing Guardian newspaper.”
“EXCLUSIVE: BBC bias exposed as newspaper purchases reveal continued bias as it disproportionately favours purchasing right-wing papers in total.” Which proves the exact opposite point of course.
Reminder, the Julians and Fionas st the BBC are too busy pushing the correct truths that they can’t even do the basics anymore:
At what a seems around £300kpa a pop, you can never have enough green boxes, I find.
And if Mr. Mosey’s tweet is anything to go on, how one gets one’s box greened with ‘the most powerful DG yet’ seems pretty clear too.
A thumbs down, and a thumbs up for the BBC from James Delingpole…
Islamic Republic of PAKISTAN:
– INBBC’s reporting priorities –
INBBC ‘s current top online ‘Asia’ news story, relating to Pakistan today:-
“Imran Khan injured in Pakistan campaign rally fall”
(Oh, oh, oh, Jemima: all together …)
inc video clip.
‘Jihadwatch’s current top story relating to Pakistan today:-
“Pakistan: Jihad-martyrdom suicide attacker murders 12”
“The jihadist detonated his explosives near a vehicle carrying an Islamic supremacist candidate — someone with whom he probably agreed on most things. Except that the jihadist believed that Islam and democracy (including electioneering) were incompatible, and made his point with flair.”
“BBC blocks licence fee payers from accessing BBC websites”
Admittedly I don’t know too much about country restrictions Re: BBC (I will endeavour to plug that gap) but if true then it stinks.
However, your reliance on jihadwatch.org and infowars etc makes me a little wary of this site.
Not trolling. Just a niggle. Please take it as such.
Nope fair do’s gibber we all have to put the effort in to find our own path so any reliance on one or two websites isn’t enough but we have to begin somewhere !
Agreed Mat. I do my best to read widely. As much as time allows. I feel there are sites such as those that I mentioned that are in the first instance founded principally on a propaganda brief. The latter would swear that King Kong was somehow implicated somehow in 9/11 😉 I think such partisan urls should be treated with shovels of sodium chloride.
I use a nifty app called Zite I choose a few topics I am interested in, primarily for writing purposes and wake up every day to read news stories from the world over. It is a pickle trying to work out who to believe. Everyone has an axe to grind.
I should add that I certainly don’t use the Beeb as an objective news source. That’s how I found this site, actually by typing BBC Bias into my search bar.
“It is a pickle trying to work out who to believe”
Do not believe anyone. Think for yourself.
For instance, look for facts on Google Scholar.
The BBC is the worst of the “FACT Excluders“.
‘Admittedly I don’t know too much..’
There was an aspiring, self-selecting hall monitor here once who took dim view of such admissions when leaping to offer a view anyway.
‘However, your reliance on jihadwatch.org and infowars etc makes me a little wary of this site.’
Sources can of course add relevant context, and being wary of any purporting to inform objectively is wise. Hence best to subject even fact to confirmation. This applies of course equally to the BBC as any site you trust less.
‘Not trolling. Just a niggle. Please take it as such.’
Well, one man’s niggle ‘n all.
But once you arrive at the truth, we may welcome you yet to the lighter, more fragrant side of the Farce.
GW. I am trying to move the debate along and add to it. Maybe you could give me a break. Or does my handle still smart? I can change it. Just please have the integrity to not selectively quote me again
For those who put more store in comment than rebuke:
“Admittedly I don’t know too much about country restrictions Re: BBC (I will endeavour to plug that gap) but if true then it stinks.”
‘GW. I am trying to move the debate along and add to it. Maybe you could give me a break. Or does my handle still smart? I can change it. Just please have the integrity to not selectively quote me again’
Your ‘integrity’ was introduced by creating a name to then attempt to address me and my style of writing rather than any attempt at discussing the topics raised.
The name only serves to remind me of that crack-handed introductory salvo, and smarts not at all here. You may however be regretting all it stands for. Maybe a change would help you more?
What anyone writes is clearly there to see if anyone wishes, and by being in sequence is unavoidable.
Trying to direct how I ‘quote’ is duly noted. I can’t in any case see any selectivity.
As to giving you a break, well, that remains to be seen.
You don’t appear to be keen on the debate moving in any direction other than the one you want, so this may not always be possible.
This Anorak didn’t provide a link for what he claimed was blocked, and it should be possible to check before rushing to condemn. I couldn’t find anything about 3D printing a kidney on the BBC Future site. But here’s a link to what I assume is the non-UK version, as it has .com instead of .co.uk:
Is anyone here living in the UK blocked from this and getting that same kind of message?
I am blocked from viewing the sites content….
BBC Future (international version)
We’re sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee. It is run commercially by BBC Worldwide, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, the profits made from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes. You can find out more about BBC Worldwide and its digital activities at http://www.bbcworldwide.com.
The refusal to acknowledge that without license fee money the existence of the site would not be possible is much the same as thier enabling of Jimmy Saville etc. to gain access to children and then to remark that it had nothing to do with them promoting him on public funds….. I hate the BBC and the way it arrogantly denies any involvement in wrongdoing…..
Looking forward to ALL BBC sites and channels going commercial, and the end of the propaganda tax.
Yikes. Not accessible to me in UK, David. I wasn’t condemning incidentally. That is on the face of it a big worry. It can’t be a licensing / content thing, right? I am genuinely not au fait with legalities but there really shouldn’t be any red tape here.
Why select content for other countries? That is absurd and a little sinister.
Out of interest (again I don’t know) is that content available stateside?
Yes, GB, it’s meant for my consumption and not yours. I don’t quite understand why they decided to do it that way, as the mothership website is made available to all, only when I look at bbc.co.uk I get ads. Which is as it should be. So there’s no technical reason why you guys are not permitted to view the .com site. It’s clearly a revenue grab and nothing else, which is a shame, as it’s got some decent stuff, and not at all obviously ideological.
I haven’t bothered to check if some or all of the features are available on bbc.co.uk somewhere, so maybe it’s not as sinister as it seems. So here’s a brief list of a handful of features on the home page, in case anyone can find them available on the UK site. I’ll give both the link text and the title of the piece itself, in the hopes that this aids searching.
LINK: Giant planes that defied gravity
TITLE: Aviation giants: Ten super-sized planes from history
LINK: Does boredom give you pleasure?
TITLE: The people who find pleasure in being bored
LINK: What came before the Big Bang?
TITLE: Will we ever… know what happened before the Big Bang?
LINK: How to make our cities smarter
TITLE: Smart cites: Sustainable solutions for urban living
Unable to view from the UK?
QVC sell a gadget called ” surf safe” that allows you to set your location anywhere in the world that you choose.
Cost? A mere 25 quid. Have I tried it? No I have not.
I dont wish to view their stuff as badly as some do.
Am I paid commission? Huh…I wish!
If you really must view it, hidemyass.com is cheaper. 🙂
So here I am reading the story about the golan height on Al Beeb when I come across this picture:
OK didn’t work
So here I am reading the bBC article on the Golan heights when I come across this picture:
Take note of how the bBC makes sure you know that Israel has occupied the area since 1967.
Then I wonder how would the bBC report on an Islamic country occupying stolen land, funny just across the water is Cyprus and here is the bBC picture for Cyprus.
For some strange reason the top half of Cyprus isn’t occupied, but rather is a self declared republic.
The bBC, the propaganda arm for Islam
…worked this time, and you’re right. But then we know that for the BBC 1967 is year zero in the I/P conflict.
Here’s a chart showing how many of each newspaper the UK public buy:
And here’s the chart to show what the BBC buys:
This should be clear enough, even for the trolls here, to show anyone defending the BBC is either brainwashed, or shares their insidious and unethical agenda.
The Commentator has more:
EXCLUSIVE: BBC bias exposed as newspaper purchases reveals continued Guardian bias
As someone unaffiliated to the BBC but as someone who is interested in facts not selective interpretation I would say that while the Guardian is the clear leader, the ‘right wing’ papers on aggregate have a much higher consumption in the round.
I agree the Beeb is totally left leaning but unless my maths are out ( I am reading on a hand held device so, apologies if I am off beam) then this graph could be used as evidence of a right sided biased just as easily.
Devil’s advocate I know but it may bear consideration.
‘As someone unaffiliated to the BBC but as someone who is interested in facts not selective interpretation I would say that while the Guardian is the clear leader..’
Just ‘cos you say something of course does not have to make it so. The BBC falls into that presumption a lot, too.
If you are disputing my interpretation then please say so. Disputing ‘me’ is childish. Perhaps for the good of the site you and I should engage no further.
‘Perhaps for the good of the site you and I should engage no further.’
You arrived here with the express intent of engaging me. It was both childish, and provocative. Trying to reinvent yourself as you find inhabiting this place entertaining may garner empathy, but those original Leopard spots remain on record. Others beware.
If you wish to refrain from anything further on what I write that is your choice. An odd evolution, but yours to make.
I regret to advise that if I feel what you write subsequently is worthy of comment, I will do so.
You don’t get to set the parameters of engagement.
As it stands, your body of work thus far makes the claim to be concerned about the ‘good of the site’ one well worth.. bearing in mind.
Gibberish Buster seems apt because (I admittedly teased you but was never nasty) I think there are enough people here to congratulate each other on silly points. I hate the BBC but being a moderate kinda fella with a Bengali wife. Yip muslim too. She hasn’t killed me yet. I think ethically it is more important for me to highlight exaggerations and unfounded nonsense than join in. I do when the points are sound, mind.
Others beware indeed.
I have done some sums and I am afraid that the hypothesis of a ‘balance’ arising when you aggregate consumption into ‘left’ and ‘right’ papers simply doesn’t hold water.
Tha actual data is available on the website linked above so you can double check if you are not happy.
The paper mix is
BBC left* 44.5% Right 55.5%
Amazing in itself but does this reflect the consumption of newspapers by ‘political standing’ in the UK as a whole?
Of course not.
Nationally Left* 19.8% Right 80.2%
The left is therefore over represented in the BBC by a factor of 225% and the right under represented by a factor of 70%
Looking at specific newspapers
a 600% over-representation for the Guardian
A 54% under-representation for the Mail
*Inde, Guardian, Mirror and FT
If we assume (and I know this is not PC but go with it) that people with a degree education don’t generally buy tabloids and the BBC only hires graduates (anomalies and nepotism not withstanding) Do those figures make better sense?
I’m just asking the question but will admit that my prejudice might ring true.
Fine, so they don’t read the Sun; but please explain why the Guardian consumption at the BBC is six times higher than the national figures on a like-for-like basis? The Mail is a perfectly reasonable middle brow paper read by millions every day and that truely reflects ‘Middle England’ but it has no influence whatsoever on editorial policy at the BBC, whereas the Guardian and the BBC news cycle is in lock step.
I don’t know why and it looks disproportionate for sure but not a big surprise. I agree on that. Is Daily Mail really middle brow? I dispute that, to be honest.
Just done another sum to exclude tabloids. This makes the BBC over representation even more extreme
Right = Telegraph, Times, Mail
Left = FT, Guard, Inde
BBC Left 48% Right 52%
National Left 16% Right 84%
So, perhaps they all get one of each paper. This is logical etc but why is it that the BBC never reflects the editorial agenda and story selection of the Right (particularly the Mail) and slavishly follows the Guardian?
I’ve had a few beers I will check those numbers with a sore head on the ‘morrow. I will come back for debate or with my white hankie 😀
To put it another way
UK consumption per day of main left wing papers (3 papers)
UK consumption per day of main right wing papers (4 papers)
or around 4 times more than left.
BBC annual left wing papers (3 newspapers)
BBC annual right wing papers (4 newspapers)
Definitely no right wing bias here 😉
Interestingly the one media person I know. ( not beeb mind) swears that in his graduation year all but one student was leaning to the left. Is it a societal thing? Inner city London UnI to be fair, not oxbridge.
I don’t feel left or right but I buy the Tele and the Guardian every morning. Less so now when I can get most content online but it sums me up, I suppose.
Without knowing the ‘orientation’ of your friend, it’s impossible to determine what he considers ‘left’. An example would be somebody who believes the BBC is balanced, then ‘left’ would be far left.
The BBC always refers to the BNP as far right, when in fact they are far left.
When somebody complained to the BBC about this they received the reply that ‘because they were so far left they appear on the right’. 🙄
It’s fair to consider that more and more people are dissatisfied with the agenda that the BBC pushes, in light of the reality they are seeing in their day to day lives. Multiculturalism, Immigration, EU, Climate change, etc.
The fact that we have to pay no matter what makes it so, Teddy. The fact that they are unaccountable also makes it so. For the sake of good relations I will reserve opinion on multiculturalism, though by doing so I accept it will stick out a mile. 😉
I find it hard to wade through stuff on here that are so blatantly anti-muslim. It has become BBC Loves Muslims and We Don’t like it rather than Biased BBC
I utterly agree that the BBC is biased but I cannot get behind that.
I agree with you – the islamic issues here are too dominant
As far as I’m concerned you have no need to withhold your views on multiculturalism. Personally I have travelled in 54 countries, many quite diverse, and feel enriched by the experience. But that doesn’t mean that they can each integrate successfully with every other in any rewarding way.
Without adding further complications, we have so many problems within our own society that need some sort of resolution. By adding further issues makes it impossible to solve for the time being. Cultures must be capable of integrating for any possibility of success. It is clear that any Muslims who want to implement Sharia should have stayed in the countries they came from, instead of stirring up foment here.
I don’t have a problem with Muslims who sincerely want to integrate and enjoy the freedoms that they we have, or any other race, faith, colour etc for that matter.
Immigration – there’s a limit!
The 500,000 Eastern European migrants that officials didn’t know were here: So many entered UK that authorities lost track
“I don’t have a problem with Muslims who sincerely want to integrate and enjoy the freedoms that they we have, or any other race, faith, colour etc for that matter.”
Immigration – there’s a limit!
I’m absolutely fine with that, mate. There are some on here who aren’t so pragmatic.
It has become unsustainable but we must be careful not to tar all with one brush. I have travelled widely too. I have always been welcomed because I tried to assimilate. Some immigrants here don’t while some do. I am not nearly so naive as to believe that cultures can meet without a clash.
I’m steadfast in my belief that most muslims who live here want to escape that oppression.
It’s just a shame that the large minority who want to perpetuate oppression are given such favourable coverage by al-Beeb, compared with outfits like the EDL – which is portrayed as far right, despite its having gay and Jewish sections and members of different colours.
Bear in mind that most here are referring to the attempt by the BBC to skew the much needed perspective and debate about vile Islamic pursuits that certainly don’t fit into our society or way of thinking. Just the fact that there has been over 20,800 deadly Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, with most unreported by the BBC, shows the disparity here. Moderate Muslims appear to be sitting on a fence, perhaps understandably, but they will have to find a way to also engage with the menace , to help preserve the values that they came here for. It’s the BBC that stifles this much needed debate by putting a false, or absence of view of the problems to the public.
Not this one again. Look the BBC buys more rightwing papers than centre or left. If you look at individual titles it buys more copies of the paper with the best media reporting. For a media organisation not a total surprise. And finally as Guido has admitted if you look at magazines you get completely the opposite picture. http://order-order.com/2012/09/21/what-magazines-the-beeboids-buy/ As he put it; ” It turns out the BBC’s love for lefty rags doesn’t extend to the New Statesman – the Beeb bought more copies of the Speccie than the Staggers between January and July this year. An ideological shift to the right?” When even Guido Fawkes thinks the BBC has shifted to the right it might a sign there’s nothing to see here.
Troll profile aside. That is interesting.
According to your link, the BBC buys
1405 – Economist – left wing
850 – New Statesmen – left wing
Total = 2255
958 – Spectator – right wing
And you call this a ‘shift to the right’?
You also seem to promote the Guardian as ‘the best media reporting’.
Either statement shows just how absurd your thinking is.
Let me throw another spanner in the statistics. I buy the Daily Mail most days. I hate its politics. I like to read opinon I disagree with. It stirs me more.
So Guido is using the term “Beeboids” now? And people say this site has no influence…. 😉
The Economist is hardly right-wing, and the Spectator actually allows quite a few Left-wing voices through.
Newspapers I have bought.
(1) Daily Mail: For the facts, left out of other media sources.
(2) Daily Express: For supporting UKIP.
(3) Telegraph: Content not as extensive as the Daily Mail
(4) Sun: Lost interest a few years ago after Jo Guest left.
(5) Times: For General Election results.
(6) Guardian: For a look into an ignorant dream world.
(7) Star: She was on page three, I was young once.
P.S That ‘The Sun’ is so far ahead with Joe Public is an absolute indictment of society today.
Don’t read it but people I know who do say they do because of the sports coverage. And the tits.
Ha! Fair do’s. I am an LFC fan so It really is ‘sun’light to a vampire to me. 🙂
‘That ‘The Sun’ is so far ahead with Joe Public is an absolute indictment of society today.’
Possibly, in your opinion.
Interestingly, the public still opts to ‘buy’ the Sun’s content (in all senses of the word), but is of course denied that choice with certain other media options.
I don’t have the time, inclination, or energy to follow every post of yours with ‘in your opinion’ Sorry. Do you want to correct every post by everybody like that? If so,you might start solely with this thread and see how many you don’t need to chastise. Daft, GW.
Blog comments are by definition opinion.
Blimey, the high ground silence didn’t last long.
Think of the site GB.. Think of the site!
Who you have the time, inclination or energy to follow next before presuming to weigh in, with luck they will be more inclined to give you free rein.
Seeking to hold to account but demanding not to be held. The parallels with the BBC are remarkable.
I posted that before new rules were acknowledged. Onwards and upwards.
Not an indictment of the anti-Murdoch BBC, then?
News at Ten on BBC1. Pure speculation that the Queen is not travelling to Ceylon because she is unhappy with the regime.
I would have thought that the BBC would simply report this and avoid quite contentious editorialising.
Perhaps there is an agenda. With the BBC there usually is one.
When has HM EVER expressed a political opinion in public or private? When has she EVER opposed the recommendation of her Govts left or right. She has endured the familiarity of Mugabe and Ceaucescu and sundry other nasties – she may not have been happy but she did her duty.
Never, so do the BBC really believe that they have scooped the world with this earth shattering political intervention by our constitutional monarch. Where is their evidence? None? Perhaps they just MADE IT UP. And just perhaps she is telling the truth at 87 (Phil is 91) she really doesn’t want to fly long haul and wants to give Charles a chance…
This is disgusting BBC speculation and Editorialisaing at its absolute worst.
I agree, there is a BBC agenda at work and I think what they are saying is that the BBC doesn’t like the govt in Srilanka and is unhappy with the way that the Tamils were defeated in the horrible and bloody civil war. I would be very interested to see where such off-beam speculation came from.
At the time Ceausescu had spoken against USSR intervention in Warsaw (for obvious reasons) so he was considered to be somehow a dissident, more enlightened.
This has backfired however, because the Romanian dictator grew more and more egotistical and infatuated with himself. Of course Her Majesty couldn’t foretell the future and just acted on the present.
Further to this I doubt if the children who do research for the BBc know that the Queen was in Africa when her father died.
Prince Philip is now frail and I very much doubt if he could take long haul flights. The Queen may well want to stay close to home. That is very understandable. But not to the BBC.
That organisation will underestimate our affection for our Queen at it’s peril.
‘That is very understandable. But not to the BBC.’
Or to many in the MSM whose careers seem based on ‘analysis’ skills on par with reading chicken entrails and a need to see in them what is worst for pushing ratings or suits set agendas. Or both.
Some of course are more prone to mis-diagnoses on such bases than many…
The truth is, one suspects, still getting its boots on. Again.
Not optimal for a ‘most trusted’ worldwide media monopoly.
In the spirit of ‘rolling news’, I should advise that it has rolled back.
I was going to say reports these days can be a moving target, but then again…
Maybe it’s just down to who gets paid to mislead less, less often?
Beeboid Nicholas “I can’t bear that man. I mean, he’s so awful, he really is”* Witchell was more than keen to float this Queen snubs Sri Lanka nonsense.
*Prince Charles 2005
As a BBC lifer Witchell is determined – at one remove – to give voice to Amnesty International claims. Why? The fate of the Tamil Tigers rather spoilt the BBC meme that you can’t defeat terrorists.
I see, however, that like so many BBC on screen socialists Witchell is a gun for hire…
Thank goodness the case of the three kidnapped girls happened in the US and not the UK. Hispanics are a difficult group for the biased bunch as they come well down in the hierarchy of isms. Being white and Christian they really don’t deserve any lefty support do they! And when you consider what they did to those poor American Aztec et al well they probably deserve as much as is comming to them.
So on they wheel a Democrat to explain to them that the entire town is feeling embarrassed for the Castro family whom the democrat knows personally despite there being such a small minority of Hispanics in the area. He doesn’t mention anything much about the victims as most of them are at the bottom of the hierarchy.
The BBC – when you haven’t got a bias of your own go and find some one with a similar political view and borrow theirs!
So the girls were abused by three brothers of the Castro family. I don’t remember which BBC programme they were in.
I don’t see any reason at this stage to attach any significance to the fact that they’re Hispanic. After all, this is not the first kidnapping/imprisonment case to be discovered.
Perhaps David Preiser will comment in due course.
Some ‘expert’ on 5 Live this morning chats with our Nicky as the Dame tries to develope some ‘men are hateful wimmin are heroic’ narrative. The ‘Prof(?)’ seemed rather put out that these men were “not Hillbillies from the boondocks”.
The tone was such that it appears the BBC would rather that had been the case.
I don’t think anyone other than the biased lot are making anything of the fact that they are Hispanics. The point is that where ever there is the possibility of bias the BBC seems to manage to exploit it.
I haven’t heard anything on the BBC worth complaining about so far. It’s probably easier to solicit comments on the Castros than on the victims’ families at this early stage, considering the turmoil they most be enduring.
Believe it or not, I do know what the point is.
Anyone ever go to sites like this? http://www.palestinecampaign.org/pubbcbias/
Hysterical nonsense of course but it evidences the fact that if you don’t use judgement objectively, everything is Bias
‘Anyone ever go to sites like this?
Not until you shared it.
Of course, bias is one thing; inaccuracy and lack of professional objectivity quite another.
Maybe there is a special qualification some have and others don’t that allows these to be recognised…’properly’?
Interesting also that a mechanism for interactive discussion is not immediately apparent on the site you share.
If there was, I wonder what their modding policy would be?
It does bring up the important point that the Israel Haters are convinced against evidence to the contrary that the BBC is actually pro-Israel!
Yes, GB, most of us have seen that and other sites plenty of times. It’s why I laugh when the BBC claims balance and impartiality because they “get complaints from both sides” (and the reason why I almost always use that phrase with scare quotes).
It’s a poor defense on its face because not only do we not know the volume of complaints on each side, but we’re not allowed to judge the validity and content of any. If they’re all of the “If the BBC doesn’t label Israel as a racist, illegal entity bent on genocide, in every article, it’s pro-Israel bias”, or “If the BBC reports Israel’s wrongdoing, it’s anti-Semitism”, then we get nowhere, and the BBC can claim that they “got it about right”.
However, if the majority of complaints that the BBC is pro-Israel are in the aforementioned vein, while there are reasonable complaints from the other side – for example, how they often report as if 1967 was Year Zero (as if nothing happened between 1948 and then), accompany articles with dishonest maps, or refuse to acknowledge that Egypt also shares a border with Gaza and Israel isn’t the only country involved, or refuse to acknowledge that the destruction of Israel is in the Hamas Charter or that the Palestinians will want their eventual State to be Judenrein – then perhaps the BBC isn’t so balanced after all.
But we’re not permitted to know what the complaints are, and so can’t disprove the BBC’s claim on that score.
‘But we’re not permitted to know what the complaints are, and so can’t disprove the BBC’s claim on that score.’
Which is why, given permission from the complainants (pretty much inherent as not possible to be provided by them otherwise – trickier but not impossible if from a central archive via a simple opt-in/out request), I’d be happy to see all or at least as many complaints as authorised… of any ‘hue’… censorship or ‘selection-free’, made available so the judgement on high from CECUTT can simply be assessed by one and all on the basis of what there has been and is shared.
Likely a lot, but that’s the nature of our sound-bite and 140 characterless world; in the claimed pursuit of neat summaries for time poor executives or audiences who cannot handle the the truth, someone gets to control the edit, and with great filtering can come great omission. Or excuse. And cover-up.
It would at the very least be interesting to see who is pro and who con, and why.
The BBC clearly is not keen, as suggested here:
‘MORE ON THAT BBC COMPLAINT
By David Vance | October 20, 2011 ‘
But if pushed, they can budge on detail, but through gritted teeth and by not making things easy…
So the claims do seem capable of being weighed, and in public, but so far most are kept as you say out of public view by those perhaps with more than a vested interest in keeping it that way.
Like so much.
…through gritted teeth and by not making things easy…
Such important information, of interest to most concerned licence-payers, may be made available on clay tablets…
You do read cuneiform, don’t you?
Today program 08:40 (approx.) Figures given for male Iranian asylum seekers who HAVE been raped because of their opposition to the regeme.
Asylum seekers come to the UK with what ever story they think will be good enough to get them refugee status, but until that story is tested in court it is no more than a claim. The BBC is reporting these claims as hard fact and ascribing numbers & statistical value to them.
This is wrong! It could be that there are no male rapes what so ever and this is a story which has been sold to economic migrants as a way to gain access to the UK, but the BBC never questioned it.
The BBC habitually fills news articles with cut-and-paste background information. Frequently the background takes more space than the news. It raises questions but doesn’t answer them.
Syria crisis: UN peacekeepers seized on Golan Heights
The Golan Heights, a rocky plateau in south-western Syria, has a political and strategic significance that belies its size. Now why might that be? Could it be because control of the heights is control of a large part of Israel’s water supply? Could it be because the Syrians used the heights to shell Israel from 1948 to 1967? Could it be that Israel control of the heights removes the last physical barrier between Israel and Syria’s capital? Could it be that someone in the BBC copied the line in its entirety from somewhere else (possibly the profile) and understood nothing more?
Both countries signed an armistice in 1974, after which the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) was put in place to monitor the demilitarised zone. Surely Israel’s 1981 Golan Heights Law needs a mention? This applied Israeli “laws, jurisdiction and administration” to the Golan Heights. Although many Israelis see that as annexation the Heights were not formally annexed.
A member of the Martyrs of Yarmouk, Abu Iyas al-Hourani, later told the Reuters news agency via Skype: “The brigade does not want this issue blown out of proportion like the last incident.” What last incident? Could the abduction of 21 Filipino peacekeepers in March, that the BBC’s ubiquitous Barbara Plett reported mean this group has form? Why doesn’t the BBC link to its own article. Could this have implications for UNDOF’s mission?
As so often the BBC gives the impression of providing extra detail to aid understanding but doesn’t really.
INBBC ‘reporting’ NIGERIA:
-relegating Islamic jihad massacres, by Boko Haram “as it is popularly known*.”
1.) ‘Atlas Shrugs’:-
“JIHAD IN NIGERIA: AT LEAST 42 PEOPLE KILLED IN ISLAMIC SAVAGE ATTACKS”
Nigeria: ‘Many dead in Boko Haram* raid’ in Borno state”
[* “as it is popularly known” -INBBC’s Will Ross description.]
INBBC’s Ross appears to make a cynical criticism of Goodluck Johnson’s strategy for resisting Boko Haram:
“The current military offensive is not working. So what is the way forward? President Goodluck Jonathan appears to have put his faith in God and the unlikely prospect of all the Islamist militants accepting an amnesty. His predecessors have faced daunting security challenges but this one is on a different scale.”
However, INBBC does not come clean about its OWN politically routine actions which contribute to misinformation on Nigeria’s problem, by rejection of Islam as the motivating ideology of the Islamic jihad massacres, and by misdiagnosing the conflict as a sectarian one between Muslims and Christians.
INBBC can’t find space to report this, what with main news for INBBC ‘Asia’ online still on its Imran Khan.
“Bangladesh: 140 Christian girls rescued from Islamic madrassas, sex slavery”
You’re spoiling us Mr Ambassador….
BBC News 24 and Matthew Amroliwala lines up an interview on the Queen’s Speech with….. wait for it….. the Romanian and Bulgarian Ambassadors.
That’s our Licence Fee well spent then.
Pass me the Ferrero Rocher.