Morning all! Sun shining, time for a new one of these! A whole new WEEK of BBC bias awaits so document it here!
MONDAY OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Jeff Dec 22, 12:04
Weekend 21st December 2024
So, the German authorities received “multiple warnings” from the Saudi government, telling politicians that this man was a danger to… - MarkyMark Dec 22, 11:41
Weekend 21st December 2024
If we change “Christmas Markets” to “Festival Events” we can end the attack by upset Islamists and save lives. -… - MarkyMark Dec 22, 11:23
Weekend 21st December 2024
Cosy, green & cost effective heat pumps Installation from £500 including a £7,500 government grant with Britain’s favourite heat pump… - MarkyMark Dec 22, 11:22
Weekend 21st December 2024
“Rishi has proved to be a diligent constituency MP and it was no surprise to see him re-elected in 2017,… - pugnazious Dec 22, 11:14
Weekend 21st December 2024
Same with EV cars which might be more polluting than normal ones…not forgetting we have to scrap all those cars… - MarkyMark Dec 22, 11:08
Weekend 21st December 2024
Assisted Dying on the NHS – free POD for those who want to save the planet. - MarkyMark Dec 22, 11:08
Weekend 21st December 2024
[img]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcThzT6qzemJKeCSKC5IWA1GlSv96j37liloUw&s[/img] - MarkyMark Dec 22, 11:06
Weekend 21st December 2024
German 2016 … HA HA HA HAHA ! Gay Islamist spies for ISIS! ……………………….. Berlin, Germany 2016 Arrested German spy… - pugnazious Dec 22, 11:04
Weekend 21st December 2024
Jeez…haven’t seen a BBC TV news report on Magdeburg….just as well might put a brick though the TV as [is…
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
Has the BBC become MBC – the Muslim Brotherhood Corporation?
BBC headlines online this morning….
Morsi loyalists shot dead in Cairo
Crowds throng Tahrir square
An unpresidential democracy
What next for Muslim Brotherhood
I suppose the BBC has picked their side and are going to go on supporting them
Until Trafalgar Square looks like Tahrir Square; by which time the ‘progressives’ will have left by helicopter, & beeboid second homes in the ‘hideously white’ enclaves of France, full to overflowing. And yet hopes were so high when Sunni Jim Naughtie, the ‘Purple Nose of Cairo’, was crated in to Egypt by Hercules transport plane, his clueless head full of ‘nuanced’ literary festivals to calm the beating Arab heart. What could possibly go right?
Best draw a veil over Egypt now. MB cutting up rough? Nothing to see. Sounds as though Al-Bowen has hauled his arse out of there…
Jeremy Bowen @BowenBBC 6 Jul
slightly disappointed the shotgun pellets gifted to me by the Egyptian army didn’t set off the metal detector at the airport.
Oh dear, expect Egypt’s army to get much BBC Bowen’s ire in future. If the Israelis have learned anything it is that our Jeremy bears one hell of a grudge.
Perhaps some of our more militarily mind chums could correct me but …
Aren’t shot guns close order melee weapons? To be hit and wounded by a shotgun pellet you would have to be close (within 50yds?) to the shooter. Was Bowen in the middle of a scrap (if so why) or was he watching from the sides?
Isn’t it more likely Bowen was shot by his own side?
“Isn’t it more likely Bowen was shot by his own side? ”
Given that the MB protesters had been previously reported as firing shot guns at ant-morsi protesters
That’s exactly what I thought
“more likely Bowen was shot by his own side” well yes … especially if it was in the back
If you think Bowen is going to hold the same kind of grudge against the Egyptian Army as he does the Israeli Army – and all of Israel – think again. This will be an accident, not deliberate, whereas he’s convinced the Israelis were trying to kill him.
If the Israelis wanted him dead he would be. What is it with this lefty idiots? They accuse Israel of all sorts of conspiracies, most of which would take genii to pull off, and yet they can’t arrange the death of a half-wit reporter?
Shurely shome mishtake?
Bowen didn’t say the Israelis were after him, personally, I don’t think. I believe he meant that the evil Jews were trying to kill whoever it was in his vehicle, journalist or not. He gave no specific reason for it, but it’s not like Israelis need a reason to kill, right? 😉
How are the BBC going to spin the video footage that has emerged of pro-Morsi protesters firing guns at the Egyptian soldiers. One video shows a protester emerging from a corner wall firing a handgun at a bunch of soldiers and another clip shows a Morsi supporter carrying what looks like a gun that fires either rubber bullets or tear gas cartridges.
I just knew when they reported 51 Morsi supporters being shot by the Egyptian Army, it would be a Pallywood production blaming just one side for the violence.
Shame the BBC didn’t make such a song and dance over the M.B. backed killings of Coptic Christians during the Morsi presidency.
“Local staffer Abu ben Eldersofzion blamed Obama for staging the coup (see blurry photo of man with straggling sidelocks handing over a well-stuffed brown envelope).”
Yes it is the voice of the muslim brotherhood. How dreadful they have been overthrown.
On the previous open thread a poster named ‘tommy’ questioned my assertion that the BBC had had a ‘bad Wimbledon’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jul/06/john-inverdale-marion-bartoli
BBC apologises for John Inverdale’s gaffe over Marion Bartoli
• Presenter says French player ‘was never going to be a looker’
• BBC accepts comment on radio broadcast was ‘insensitive’
http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/wimbledon/andy-murray-fergie-and-a-very-awkward-bbc-interview-by-garry-richardson-after-thrilling-wimbledon-win-8687041.html
Andy Murray took time out from preparing for his Wimbledon semi-final to defend a BBC presenter from furious fans after a “car crash” post-match interview.
Veteran sports journalist Garry Richardson sparked fury from irate Murray supporters after suggesting the World No 2 should be told off after his remarkable five-set quarter-final comeback.
He was branded a “tool” and “an idiot” after asking the 26-year-old if his coach Ivan Lendl would give Murray the famous Alex Ferguson “hairdryer” treatment for his performance.
I said wait for the viewing figures.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/andy-murrays-wimbledon-2013-victory-smashes-tv-ratings-8695264.html
QED
And you think those figures would have been less if the match had been shown on ITV or Channel 5 ?
As I’ve established before, If you take out set pieces ,sporting events and pupil ceremonies, and based on viewing figures ,at any given time 80% of public choose to watch something other than BBC out put
Compare the way Carol Thatcher was treated for one word out of politcally correct place – sacked, with the way John Inverdale will be treated – slight slap on the wrist. Why the discrepancy?
One spouted incredible Partridgesque rubbish on air, the other made her remark in a private conversation.
One apologised so that we can all move on, the other’s written apology to the BBC was deemed insufficient by the BBC. She would not apologise any further as she said she never meant anything harmful by the remark.
Carol’s big mistake was to make the remark within earshot of Jo Brand – who of course is a world class
hypocriteexpert in racism…“you can’t be racist towards white people”
And Adrian Chiles, I believe. Then Thatcher was required by Jay Hunt to make a Maoist apology, confessing to racism, which she declined to do. Apologizing for any offense caused wasn’t sufficient. She had to confess to racist intent as well.
Jo Brand is a Wej, so obviously she likes to play the race card when it suits her. Her race are vilified in Muslim childrens’ textbooks, but I’ve yet to see her criticising Islam.
Sorry Mark, Big Fat Brand has not got a single wej gene in her big fat body. Where did you hear she had ? We have enough problems.
What on earth is a Wej. ?
I always assumed people meant “Jew” when I saw this odd word “Wej”.
Oh. See what an innocent I am?
Correct Andrew, none offensive, old cockney term, wej =jew.
Back slang, perhaps, like “riah” for “hair”, etc.
Or reknaw for Marcus Brigstocke.
Carol Thatcher’s main problem was to have the wrong mother. They were looking for any excuse.
I heard no bias on Radio 4 this morning! – my radio alarm failed to go off 🙁
I also heard no bias on radio 4 the electric was running low at the other property. Where there is no TV thanks for the latest TV license threat letter anyway. So I listen to radio 4 as I can’t stand the music played on most stations.
We’ll keep the red flag flying here!
BBC soothe their Win-bledon hangover (Jocko beats Djokovic) with 5 Live doing their class-based critique of tennis coaching for youngsters.
Yawn yawn yawn.
I thought we did this naval gazing when the Brit failed at SW19. I’m talking about you Henman! Best forget that Buster Mottram – black shirts at Wimbledon?
Why do the BBC take this negative stance? Well, we wouldn’t any feel good factor setting in.
And it’s just not fair.
Deep down we all dream of a world where every British youngster is up there on the professional tennis circuit. Well those that are ‘lookers’ (cf John Inverdale).
I guess the BBC have in mind something along the lines of affordable housing – Affordable retractable roofed centre courts?
I have a dream….. Lemon barley water gushing from the public fountains!
Hey! How about a new tax to pay for this? Along the lines of the TV Licence Fee…?
I worry that other countries think that the BBC speaks for Britain and reflect British attitudes. You can forgive them for thinking that a state funded broadcaster would do so. Also they may not realise that the BBC has changed from the old days when it was at least fairly honest and become a propaganda tool of the liberal left , frequently anti British in its reporting and comment and is steadily undermining democracy at home.My limited experience is that foreigners do think that the BBC is much more representative of British opinion than is the case. Americans are often relieved when they find that many Brits loath the BBC and all its works.
But of course most of our politicians do think that the BBC does reflect British public opinion, God knows why, and this allows the BBC to drive the political agenda of the country. Only Farage seems to resist that error and to ignore what the BBC try to present as the balance of public opinion. The BBC will probably wait until after the next election before turning the attack dogs on UKIP in the hope that UKIP take Tory votes and let Labour in.
which is precicely why the bBC and the politicos spawned Tommy Robinson and another 1,000,000 Tommy Robinsons.
they don’t inhabit the same country as the rest of us.
No, you don’t inhabit the same country. My chum Tommy can hardly get a 100 louts to follow him!
Were as the UAF seem to have no problem recruiting any amount of violent louts
Interesting that isn’t it?
yes one that apparently deliberate,
re – reverence to our armed forces
so …. and ……….
You should worry, Doublethinker. Alot. And to judge from Beeboids like Katty Kay and Mark Mardell and various World Have Your Say Beeboids, they think they speak for the world as well.
The BBC believes it has a Divine Right to broadcast their opinion anywhere on the planet. Their perspective is best, above all others. Oh, and their news reports.
Do you think that many Americans believe the rubbish that the BBC put out? In the UK the BBC monopoly is so dominant that we seldom hear any other points of view. But in the US there must plenty of news and comment which will at least give people a choice and chance to make up their own mind, rather than being spoon food on BBC rubbish to the exclusion of anything else.
Yes, most people who read or watch it do believe BBC reporting. Just read the comments on Mardell’s blog or the sycophants on Katty Kay’s Twitter feed for examples. Most of it is the international stuff, which no US media outlet can really touch, not having the legacy of decades of taxpayer largesse and government investment in international infrastructure. That’s why BBC World News America won a Peabody. They can bring in an endless supply of colorful international reporting done by people with accents we like to hear. Nobody else can do that. And most of the audience of BBC World News America, which does domestic reporting and in-studio
Leftoid love-insinterviews with commentators is the same Left-wing audience which implicitly trusts MSNBC and thinks the NY Times and WaPo are bastions of impartiality. It’s a limited audience, though, which is why the show was cut in half and dumped from BBC America and relegated to select PBS outlets. I’m sure it just confirms the very low opinion Beeboids have of the US public, with little understanding of how the first half hour was pretty much the same as what BBC World News was showing on PBS at the same time in many markets.Fortunately, there never was a single national broadcaster for years and years, and the US has no official state broadcaster with a legacy of trust and deep cultural connection spanning generations. The mainstream media tilts far to the Left (other than less than a handful of exceptions), but thanks to talk radio, the internet and Fox News, they no longer control everything.
More of that famous “impartiality” was on view on Today concerning woman bishops in the CoE. Humphrys rounded on Emma Forward, a lay member of the General Synod, diocese of Exeter and asked her when she’s going to join the 21st Century and the rest of Islington by voting for the women bishop measure in Synod. Humphrys and Reverend Canon Rosie Harper, a Synod member and supporter of women bishops formed a formidable team against the severely emotional and incoherent Emma.
Emma was, I think, trying to convey that, rather than voting against women bishops in principle, she was against this particular measure which did nothing to accommodate the 25-33 percent of CoE members who are being railroaded by the triumphalism and extremism of the women bishop advocates.
Needless to say Humphrys refused to give Emma the space to formulate her argument and asked her why she – and her fellow irridentists – just didn’t leave the CoE: a question, by the way, which I can’t remember being posed by any BBC reporter in the last 30 years (or ever!) to representatives of the priestesses lobby.
I did enjoy Humphrys suggesting that the C of E ought to be superior to Islam. That’s the subtext of his statement that not allowing women bishops is the kind of discrimination we see in…ahem…other cultures. Oh, dear, I hope nobody thinks about it for too long, otherwise unapproved thoughts might take root.
Having said that, Emma Forward was about as useless and incoherent as could be. Humphrys clearly enjoyed skewering her non-argument, but she gave a very poor accounting for her side.
“Forget MPs’ pay, BBC fat cats are the real scandal”
By PETER MCKAY.
[Opening excerpt]:-
“We are invited to fulminate again this week when the proposal to raise the salaries of MPs by £10,000 to £75,000 is made official.
“But why is an ex-Labour MP, James Purnell, worth four times more, £295,000, to the BBC?
“A former Culture Secretary, Purnell was chosen by recycled BBC Director General Tony Hall as director of ‘strategy and digital’.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2357963/Forget-MPs-pay-BBC-fat-cats-real-scandal.html
“But why is an ex-Labour MP, James Purnell, worth four times more, £295,000, to the BBC?
Is it because he can help bring about a Labour election victory and the Labour government can then award the BBC a 34% real terms increase in the license fee, as happened over the term of the last Labour governments?
That would certainly justify it in the BBC’s eyes.
You are right. As usual follow the money trail. The sad thing is these people actually feel entitled.
It is perfectly possible to privatise the BBC. Compared with the railways it is a doddle. The country benefits two ways. Capital sum and tax returned to the very people who will spend it. Could be done in a year at the most.
Let’s give Jeremy Clarkson the job of privatising the Beeb, as Top Gear is its top program. As the man says, how hard can it be ?
I think that it is grossly unfair to blame the BBC for awarding themselves huge salaries for doing no useful work.
Firstly, they are just following the rest of the public sector who award themselves eye wateringly large salaries, when actually, the country would be better off if they just stopped doing whatever it is they spend their time doing.
Secondly, they are fulfilling their primary task which is to try to get Labour re-elected, present difficulties notwithstanding.
Thirdly, they are well down the road of helping to create a multicultural society which welcomes anyone who wants to come with a hat full of free benefits, and will rank along the NHS as one of Britain’s greatest ever achievements.
“Firstly, they are just following the rest of the public sector who award themselves eye wateringly large salaries, when actually, the country would be better off if they just stopped doing whatever it is they spend their time doing.”
This. Exactly this.
-Can’t find this on INBBC:-
“UK: Devout Muslim, clutching Qur’an in court, jailed as Internet groomer rapist.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/07/uk-devout-muslim-clutching-quran-in-court-jailed-as-internet-groomer-rapist.html
When albeeba post it, Dez will provide the link.
LONDON: location for Islamic Sunni-Shia violence.
‘Jihadwatch’:-
“UK: Sunni/Shi’ite jihad violence comes to London as police probe attack on Shi’ite.”
[Opening excerpt]:-
“Sunni-Shi’ite jihad attack in London? Not hate. Pamela Geller or Robert Spencer reporting on that attack? That’s when it becomes hate.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/07/uk-sunnishiite-jihad-violence-comes-to-london—-police-probe-attack-on-shiite.html
INBBC’s reluctant to report the consequences of its long campaigning for ‘multiculturalism’, ‘diversity’, ‘mass immigration’- in short: ISLAMISATION.
R4 eulogising Murray before, during and after the 8:10 interview.
I’m not feeling it. Am I the exception or is the Beeb trying to tell us what to think again.
Salmond literally flying the Saltire at Wimbledon, against all tradition and good manners, and Murray’s previous comments about supporting whoever is playing the English at sports are really rubbing the salt in.
I like Djokovic, he seems like a nice lad. Murray, on the other hand, is a curmudgeonly miserable angry Scot.
Maybe it’s just English pride but…
Is it wrong to support whoever is playing against Murray?
And to pray for Scottish independence.
Agreed no interest in the tartan racket wanger or any of this tennis hobby lark ! sorry but the only thing in Wimbledon I have a liking for is wombles [well assuming they are not caught up in another BBC sex scandal]
Oh and independence for the McGlashans north of the hopefully soon to be built ‘Hadrians security DMZ’ would be great if we could just get them to stop being In -dependence on us !
Scottish independence?
It would be fun to see the government of Scotland / West Albania trying to fund S/WA levels of public spending from the S/WA tax base with according to the Times (zzz Murdoch rag zzz) a whole 270,000 Scots/WA’s actually being net taxpayers.
I’m not feeling it. Am I the exception or is the Beeb trying to tell us what to think again.
——————————————————————–
Couldn’t give a stuff myself either. But the BBC is trying to give Murray/ Wimbledon the Princess Di Died treatment. I suspect a rather large percentage of the country couldn’t give a stuff either.
Barely a mention of the British Lions – could it be because Sky had that one. Rhetorical question.
In the droid bubble Murray winning Wimbledon As Seen On BBC is nearly up there with Barry being elected.
Get out more.
There’ll be calls to give Murray a knighthood, next.
Oh, there already are:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/andymurray/10166030/Andy-Murray-wins-Wimbledon-reaction-live.html
Sport leaves me cold, tennis more so. Playing games isn’t going to extricate the mess the Former UK finds itself in, other than by anaesthetising the public, and keeping them quite (or I should say whooping and ululating whilst the ship sinks).
So sick and tired of the old canard about Murray supporting whoever England are playing …. He was, and confirmed in the same interview, almost the next sentence, that it was a joke – he was taking the p%%s out of a certain Salmondesque view of some Scots. He was in his teens at the time so less cynical about how he would be portrayed for a cheap headline. Murray appears to be a highly intelligent, droll and witty man, who has the luxury and integrity to be able to give idiots like Gary Richardson and Holly Willoughby short shrift when they become too intrusive for the sake of a media ‘exclusive’ . Things we used to admire – I can even forgive him crying because he does seem to genuinely care about his sport, the fans and history.
Fat Salmond on the other hand is a possibly a ruthless sociopath who early on decided he was never going to make it on the UK political stage – too many posh boys/not photogenic/too Scottish, so cut and run to brilliantly develop the SNP into the most formidable gang since Cosa Nostra.
Anti ‘Scotch’ bigotry equally abhorent as Anti English –
You sad man.
Sky is getting just as bad. This morning Eddie Izzard goes to Syria on behalf of Unesco to report on the refugee crisis there. He dons normal attire for this job not his usual trannie style, maybe he knows in different times the locals would have him stoned to death for wearing a cocktail dress and high heels. The world is full of hipocrites, liars and self promoters.
Ah that creep a prospective Labour MP now so has dropped the fake tranny bit ! which I never brought anyway as all he ever did was wear a bit of slap and a hinge and bracket cast down !
Not even a burka for our Eddie?
God…half the escapees from Britain on drugs/wife beating etc of an “Arab disposition” need no excuse to put on their sisters burqa and get away unimpeded.
Bunch of girlies this lot-that`s why all we get are women speaking on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood-the blokes are sewing sequins onto their suicide belts this season.
To die for…Allah Akhbar!
Glastonbury.
“BBC: Big Bucks Cavaliers.”
“People wonder how on earth the BBC can get away with sending 256 staff to Glastonbury, but the answer is you can do anything you like when you don’t have to worry where the money is coming from.”
By Camilla Tominey.
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/camilla-tominey/413087/BBC-Big-Bucks-Cavaliers
“BBC FOUND GUILTY OF SEXISM AGAINST MEN OVER RUSSELL JOSLIN CASE – NOONE DARE SAY IT”
http://therightsofman.typepad.co.uk/the_rights_of_man/2013/07/bbc-found-guilty-of-sexism-against-men-over-russell-joslin-case-noone-dare-say-it.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+co%2FeFCe+%28The+Rights+Of+Man%29
“Colin Murray quits Radio 5 Live just weeks after BBC apology over Clare Balding ‘gay slur'”
“The Northern Irishman, who started his BBC career at Radio 1, is joining rival talkSPORT”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/colin-murray-quits-radio-5-2037683?
It will be interesting to see if Murray, freed from surveillance by the Radio 5 commissars will adopt a different ideological tone
He doesn’t strike me as very independent thinker and often seemed to be taking the party line without really understanding what it was
Oh be fair now, poor Colin Murray did some pretty severe penance for his Clare-Balding-storm-in-a-Twitter-cup fake offence.
His punishment was that he had to clock up attendance at 100s of hours of Bump Club.
Enough to bring tears to the eyes of the most hardened of male sports chauvanists.
I hear that just as he cast off his BBC electronic tag he passed John Inverdale at the revolving door of Room 101 re-education department.
I do hope Colin Murray didn’t experience any bullying or harassment while working for the BBC.
The thing that I found most amusing about the reaction of the po-faced PC-brigade to the bBBC Fighting Talk Clare Balding joke was that they completely overlooked the other half of the Defend the Indefensible round. The episode was broadcast live before an audience in Liverpool and the other contestant was given the indefensible task of a 20-second impromptu speech on ‘Now that I’ve been to Liverpool, I can see why everyone hates the whingeing Scousers.’!
Of course the media (especially the bBBC) is full of homosexuals, ever alert for the slightest opportunity to tell us about their sexual choices, but no-one who wanted to complain about a slur on Liverpudlians!
Where he will joing Keys and Gray…!
Enjoying the beeb’s coverage of Tory party internal problems – survey of 850 party members
quite puts Milliband’s problems into the shade – internal battles for power, subversion of party selection processes, police involved, harman quotes ‘a one off’ [what about Jack Dromey then?]……..
strange focus, strange priorities
oh, and despite the Andy glorification, the British Lions beat the Aussies to a series win on Saturday – still that was on Sky and isn’t news is it
The rugby had the wrong result, if the Lions had been thrashed, there’d have been blanket coverage.
23 likes for an assertion with no evidence to back it up. Says a lot.
About how people feel about BBC based on their experience
The British Lions beating Australia was the main story on the BBC Sport front page on Saturday.
Thank you Chris.
hardly blanket coverage
Murray becoming the first Brit to win Wimbledon since 1936 is, I would suggest, a bigger achievement than the Lions winning in Australia. That is not to diminish what the Lions did, which was brilliant, just that Murray’s win was even more so.
I don’t know how it can be asserted that the BBC would have given more coverage had the Lions lost either.
“Murray becoming the first Brit to win Wimbledon since 1936 is, I would suggest, a bigger achievement than the Lions winning in Australia.”
Agreed: but are you conceding that BBC coverage of lions win of series
was surprisingly thin?
Experience, Chrisuemada, experiance
No, the original implication was that the BBC had ignored it, which was untrue.
The problem was that there was more than one major British achievement in quick succession this weekend, as well as the women’s final at Wimbledon. I think the BBC coverage of all was appropriate – even after Bartoli beat Lisicki the main story was still the Lions’ victory as I remember.
Perhaps they’ve gone a little overboard on Murray, but that doesn’t mean they’re deliberately downplaying the Lions.
Every newspaper had it as the main/only storry. So why would the BBC be different?
The utter ignorance of how the news media works revealed in these adurd posts beggars belief.
I don’t think they have gone over-board at all. Look at the nationals — pages of coverage. 17.5m watched the final. 77 years since a British male champion.
Of course on this site none of that matters and somehow it is all a big conspiracy of some sort.
Surprised Alan hasn’t find a way to blame the Muslims and any minute now Guest Who will leap in to defend this site from “trolls”.
James Stables
Well what have we here…James Stables? What was wrong with ‘Jim Dandy’ or ‘Nicked Emus’?
Different name same old crap from you though.
How many years have you been stalking David Vance now? Lots….very very odd.
And after all those years you still haven’t grasped the point of this site though it’s in the title…Biased BBC.
A simple concept.
Why post quotes from the Bible? It just shows you have no idea what you’re doing and that you have no understanding of what is being said….not as clever as you keep telling us you are eh?
Any post with ‘Islam’ in it isn’t trying to compare Islam with Christianity…it’s asking why the BBC doesn’t treat the two religions the same and why the BBC spends so much time producing pro-Islamic material whilst producing so much anti-Christian programming.
Simple.
Perhaps you can explain why you are so pro Islamist yourself.
Curious that you don’t complain about all the posts about ‘Unite’…many though there were….and yet anything with ‘Izzzlam’ or ‘Moooslem’ in it gets you going.
‘any minute now Guest Who will leap in to defend this site from “trolls”.’
Well, an hour anyway. Sorry to be late.
This may come as a surprise, but defending any site from trolls doesn’t seem too awful a trait. So I’ll take it, thanks!
Though quite why you are parroting Scott dragging me into threads I’ve nothing to do with, while responding to paras you all don’t read… all the the time… is quite the poser.
It’s like nerves have been touched.
BBC online = Friends of the BBC’s yes-we-did cover it ie security blanket
Hmm
Strangely, one day on and Murray’s win still features prominently
Whereas one day on from the Lions win….
One day on from the Lions’ win there was another major British achievement to report. Today, that’s not the case.
So, you agree then. Murray’s triumph was permitted to overshadow that of the Lions
I would add that the BBC is supposed to report ‘news’ not what they find most exciting
It is supposed to distinguish them from other news organisations
But it would appear their coverage is as starry-eyed as everyone else’s
Overshadow? No.
It would have been strange to continue to make the Lions’ victory top billing after Murray’s triumph.
A major new story needed to be reported, very quickly after another major story. The newer one takes precedence, as it always does in news.
As I write this, an article on the Lions is still one of the top news stories on the BBC Sport front page.
I would say that the British people on the whole found the Wimbleon final more exciting (a British male victory not having happened for so long) than that of the Lions, and indeed many more people watched Murray’s win (although of course the Lions’ series was only available on Sky), so the BBC’s coverage is IMO appropriate.
Ok sense of perspective it’s hitting a ball over a net with a bat. I’m English an Englishman didn’t win. It won’t effect the lives of the vast majority of the uk. Unless of course you run a tennis club you might get a few more punters in for a couple of weeks. I never watch Wimblebore the only sport I watch is F1 & Moto GP. The coverage of F1 is abysmal Highlight in which you have stumbled across the winner hours before is a real winner. I’ve heard a rumor that BBc is thinking about dropping F1.
You are also British, and a British man won. Of course, if you personally choose not to support Andy Murray then that is your right, but millions of British people, English, Welsh, Northern Irish and Scottish, did support him and the BBC’s coverage reflected that.
The British Lions winning the series ‘won’t affect the lives of the vast majority of the UK’ either – is that a reason not to get excited about their victory?
I’m not British. I’m English If you wish to deny my ethnic origin fair enough. That’s why these days most ethnic surveys will ask if you are English, Scottish Welsh or Irish. I’ll take your comment as an insult.
Did you not read the word ‘also’? I was not denying that you are English. If you don’t wish to consider yourself British then that is your right, but legally being English also means that you are a British citizen.
I didn’t mean any insult by it – I am proud to be both English and British.
A tad difficult to recognise when a Scot sees himself as ‘British’ – no?
Not helped, of course, by that small matter of independence going on at the moment, just in case it had escaped your attention. And, of course, the ‘Little Scotlander’ circus that seems to follow Murray around on these occasions (Alex Salmond, Alex ‘we’re the master race’ Ferguson, saltires etc….)
So…. ‘British’? Debateable, to say the least.
Do we know what Murray’s views are on independence? He has said that he’s not sure which way he will vote http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/scottish-independence-andy-murray-talks-referendum-1-2868666
Surely the point here, as I said above, is that millions of British people from all corners of Britain support Murray, and the BBC’s coverage reflected that.
I feel obliged out of sense of fair play to jump in and say you are right .And further the BBC went no more overboard than they did when England scraped a win over Australia in rugby world cup
But to suggest that the BBC weren’t strangely quite over lions series win
takes defence of BBC to the limit of credibility.
I don’t think they were though. It was the main story on the BBC Sport front page on Saturday, even after the women’s final at Wimbledon had finished.
The story of the Lions’ victory then got overtaken by another British triumph, which as you say the BBC reported appropriately. From the Lions’ point of view it is unfortunate that their magnificent achievement was eclipsed a day later, but that is not the BBC’s fault.
A web page
how much TV coverage did it get
(Reply to Stewart)
That’s a question I can’t answer because I didn’t watch much TV over the weekend. If you can show that BBC TV moved on from the Lions’ victory too quickly then fair enough.
You didn’t watch much TV Chris? didn’t watch!
so your making assertions without any -( I can hardly bring myself to say it) – Evidence!
No neither did I (due to being at work for most of Saturday and out on my bike Sunday ) but you would have thought it would have been unavoidable (the lions win)
but clearly it wasn’t was it ?
I do have evidence – that of the BBC website making the Lions’ victory very prominent. Unless you (or anyone else) can show the BBC TV downplayed their win, then we cannot include it in this debate.
You’re making an assertion without evidence – that the BBC is being quiet about the Lions’ win – which you can’t back up (you seem to have accepted that the BBC website did give sufficient coverage) as you didn’t watch TV over the weekend either.
It’s worth noting that more people in Britain play tennis than Rugby Union
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/22806853
you have evidence about apples the debate is about oranges
In the absence of evidence about oranges lack of evidence is evidence
And evidence about apples is no evidence at all
This debate is about BBC coverage, which includes both TV (oranges) and online (apples) media which many people use to access BBC content. I have provided evidence for the online part which you seem to accept. Neither of us can provide evidence for the TV part. The question is, should we assume therefore that BBC TV did not report the Lions’ victory at all? Given that the BBC is a news organisation, and this was a major news story, it seems unlikely they would not have reported it on their TV broadcasts, and I would have expected more of an outcry than I have seen had the series win passed unheralded.
Chris said: ‘Surely the point here, as I said above, is that millions of British people from all corners of Britain support Murray, and the BBC’s coverage reflected that.
No. In your earlier post, to which I was replying, you said: ‘You are also British, and a British man won’.
All I was doing was questioning whether Murray saw himself as British, especially in the light of the Scottish independence movement and the Little Scotlanders who seem to attach themselves to the Murray bandwagon.
Please be consistent with your argument.
This site is about BBC bias, and my quote there was relevant to that.
In the first part of my post you quoted, I asked if we can be sure what Murray thinks about independence, which entails his views on his Britishness (or lack thereof), with evidence suggesting he himself is not sure. It is not surprising that those who support Scottish independence have jumped on his bandwagon, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he supports them.
I would point out that not only was Murray happy to parade around Wimbledon with the Union Jack after his Olympic gold medal last year, but that he has also accepted an OBE.
Ah yes, the old Union Jack ploy – and Crash Gordon’s favourite goal was Gazza’s vs Scotland in the ’96 euro Championships.
Gullibility not my strong point, I’m afraid.
Leaving nationalities aside, I’m genuinely pleased for the lad because I think he’s shown a lot of guts and determination to finally win it and, if rumours are true that he donated his winnings to a cancer charity, he must be a very decent bloke indeed.
I noted this one too…how many rats do you smell with this “survey”?
1. How are YouGov able to retain old Tories that they interviewed previoulsy, so as to interview them again…this would be a skewed sample if only based on prior answers to their last survey…any ful kno!
2. What are a London Uni and a Sussex one doing in “commissioning YouGov” to do a survey on Tories and their voting intentions…being Universities you`d have thought that their own departments would be doing such a job?…so why the employment of YouGov?…and who paid…and why?
3. A survey of 850 previously captured Tories is hardly grounds for anything, other that you`re recycling pre -selected groups to trash the Tories, sow division and hope we`ll all forget about Falkirk.
An absolute scandal…what a rat-infested smell zone the BBC has now become(along with their pals at Unis, prepared to hack away in the hope of a Labour Government).
Call it what you like-it is not science, it is not a survey worthy of the name, and it has been done and paid for in serving political ends only…and the BBC dare to push it on the news?
No chance of a survey about Labour, the BBC fatcats pay deals or the license fee scandals are there?…nah, thought not!
I think you might visit the excellent ‘UK Polling’ site, which gives the results and analysis of most published opinion polling.
The current one is about Ed Millibands leadership of the Labour party and the effect that Falkirk has had. This has been reported by the BBC and Falkirk to be honest has been well covered and is still rattling around headline top spots days after the event.
Where the BBC show bias I’ll certainly step up to criticise them, and complain to their customer services (safe in the knowledge they never ever admit to bias!), but on the Falkirk issue they’ve been all over it.
If you want to know how yougov conduct their surveys then why don’t you read the results? The methodology is almost always included in the preamble, and I expect they asked a question as to how long someone had been a party member which allowed them to derive these figures.
Of course, BBC-NUJ is politically aligned with UAF and with ‘hope not hate’.
“Britain’s Powerful Enemies of Freedom”
By Bruce Bawer.
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/britains-powerful-enemies-of-freedom/
Bower’s book ‘while Europe slept’ is frighteningly prescient
Now come on, it can’t just be me who’s noticed that BBC sports coverage now spends an inordinate amount of hot breath and effort in telling us how absolutely wonderful, brilliant and indeed how sheer superlative the event (covered by the BBC) now happens to be.
This is of course a steaming hangover from the Olympics where it was avowed BBC policy that the whole thing was – and just had to be – all so very very fandabbydosey*.
*Sorry but Murray’s win and first officer Salmond’s flag waving has me lapsing into the Scots there.
it’s Fandabidozi 😛
even the Independent thinks the BBC gets Moslem covergae wrong…..
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/we-british-go-out-of-our-way-to-avoid-using-the-word-muslim-8693702.html
Fisk is as reliable as Old Faithful. Even here when he’s finding a truffle, he has to wind up with a swipe at Israel and how it controls everything.
I did like this line, though:
….for fear that those who safeguard our moral values (or who safeguard those values they find of use)….
BBC broadcasting in a nutshell.
Ah, the sweet irony of the articles title. It’s a shame that the independent, just like several other media sources, have banned any comments on the article. Typical really of any story that has muslim, or islamic content within it.
Maybe it’s because no one is prepared to admit they listen, but to me the Archers has to be the most PC load of left wing nonsense the BBC has the nerve to call ‘unbiased’.
In it all the wealthy characters are made to appear as unpleasant as possible, when that isn’t possible as in Nigel Pargetter they are killed off.
Desperately improbable plotlines have characters like Ilona an Albanian cleaner who in a pink fluffy cloud of left wing luvvery is looked on in a kindly way by other long standing characters who even provide her with work.
Nasty rich man Brian Aldridge sets up a mega dairy, and in a swipe at new immigration laws can’t find skilled workers except from the far East so expect yet another load of tosh about how the socialist workers paradise village takes them to their hearts.
We’ve seen a Muslim mathematician, two or three different gays, various nationalities and religions all introduced in highly unlikely ways just to make political points, and everyone smiles and gets along with each other, real life is just too awful to allow into the bubble.
I honestly believe that the Archers deserves an entire thread of it’s own such a great illustration of the thinking at the BBC has it become, summing up the nutcasery that is political correctness.
The Archers is a long-running British radio soap opera broadcast on the BBC’s main spoken-word channel, Radio 4. It was originally billed as “an everyday story of country folk”, but is now described on its Radio 4 web site as “contemporary drama in a rural setting”.
Originally produced with collaborative input from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, The Archers was conceived as a means of disseminating information to farmers and smallholders to help increase productivity in the post-World War II years of rationing and food shortages.
Now produced in full compliance with BBC PC guidelines it is seen as a means of promoting PC values in the post-Labour era of uncontrolled mass-immigration.
In other words, the show is continuing its mission, only with updated goals. I wonder how many other BBC shows have similar purposes?
I think they all have. Even Jeremy Clarkson is outnumbered by those two nancy boys he has to work with.
If it wasn’t for the Archers I doubt I would have discovered Kate Rusby or the Unthanks. Something I will always fondly remember Mike Harding for.
I’d always tune to Radio 2 when it came on in the evening whilst I was on my way home. Otherwise I’d like as not crash the car whilst shouting at the tosh on the Archers.
I have to confess that I regularly listen to The Archers and agree it’s becoming increasingly pc. There are more gays to the square inch in Ambridge than there are in Soho. All the Polish characters, or characatures should I say, are sympathetic, hard working and thoroughly decent. Only the most vile racist could posibly resent their being here.
I’ve got a feeling that snotty gossip Linda Snell is going to be outed as a closet member of UKIP and run out of the village by an outraged group of UAF farmers.
Well, why not?
“Soldier brutally attacked in street”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/49573
For information, on Lee Rigby’s funeral:-
‘Daily Mail’:-
“Memorial for a hero: Monument to be built in tribute to Drummer Lee Rigby in his home town.
“‘Lasting tribute’ to be erected in Middleton, Greater Manchester.”
“Drummer Rigby, 25, was stabbed to death outside Woolwich barracks in May.
“Funeral to take place next Friday in Bury with guard of honour.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2357258/Memorial-hero-Monument-built-tribute-Drummer-Lee-Rigby-home-town.html
Watch out for a three line report to pop up on BBC on line* regional news pages.
* Or, as it is becoming known in these parts – the see-I-told-you-the-BBC-reported-it resource.
The BBC line is that the murder was the fault of the nasty white people and nothing to do with the guy who did it Islam or Moslems at all.
Argentina produces about 50% more wheat than it can consume, yet somehow there’s such a massive domestic shortage that the government is now freezing prices and ordering companies to maintain domestic supplies on penalty of fines or imprisonment. Why is this happening? Because the previous Socialist President (late husband of the current Socialist President) set export quotas in a misguided attempt to boost the economy. Now the people are hurting so much that the government is recommending that they bake bread at home to save money.
All these resource-rich Latin American countries keep driving their economies down the toilet, yet the BBC seems unable to address the reality behind it all.
BBC: Socialism always works, nothing to see here, you don’t need to know about it. Instead of that, here’s a story we can all appreciate about a Brazilian billionaire who is losing wealth. Oh, wait, the BBC found a reason for resource-rich Brazil having economic difficulties: China isn’t buying so much at the moment. Not Brazil’s fault at all, you see.
Just a thought on the BBC’s coverage of the Andy Murray triumph.
I’m not a great fan of tennis or Andy but credit where it’s due and, to be fair to the BBC, coverage of any British sporting achievement on all broadcasting media and the paper presss is so ridiculously OTT anyway that effusive coverage by the BBC of a genuinely unprecedented (for 77 years) triumph is not, against that background, entirely unwarranted.
OTOH, the sight and sound of politicians climbing on to the victory bandwagon (cf the immediate soundbites from Miliband and Cameron and the absurd waving of the saltire by a seriously overweight Scot) are quite disgusting. Another feature of politicians’ complete misundersanding of appropriateness or dignity was Cameron’s sucking up to the knuckleheads of the electorate by floating the idea of a knighthood (only to be swiftly disabused by Andy who said his achievement wasn’t worth it). As Murray also didn’t say; to give him the same honour as that accorded to Tony Robinson is not a sincere mark of respect and admiration: it’s a plain insult. So devalued has the honours system become that a plain and honest “Mr Murray” is far more distinguished than “Sir Andrew”.
Accordingly, on this occasion, I can’t see that the BBC’s coverage was biased. Murray came through his win – IMHO – as a first class sportsman of whose abilities and modesty he and his family and friends should justly be proud.
just nowhere near equal billing for remembrance
of the 7/7 atrocity … BBC and the sycophantic cult of celebrity eh! the jollies never end Glasto – Wimbledon – South Africa next?
if only someone had sprayed EDL somewhere near a mosque …
As I wrote, the coverage everywhere in the media of any sporting triumph (or, more usually, failure) is quite ridiculous. Look, for instance, at the idolatry concerning Alex Ferguson and Mourinho.
Yes I hold the BBC to a higher account since it’s supposed to be impartial. However, in this case, despite buying into the lunatic overkill and deification of Murray (2 separate items on last night’s BBC1 News at 10), allowing the politicians to mount the bandwagon of Murray’s glory and giving credence to the possibility of Murray being knighted, I can’t label the coverage as biased.
Certainly the BBC can be generally and specifically criticised for its editorial choices as to which stories are covered but this was (repeat was) a big story.
Is Virginia Wade not British? Or don’t women count as people when talking about historic sports victories of this sort?
Yes, though she speaks with a South African accent and was born there. Ann Jones won the Women’s Singles in 1969, defeating the great Billie Jean King having lost to her in a previous final, and Angela Mortimer won (1960 I think) against another Briton Christine Truman (later Janes).
Or don’t women count
When talking about the men’s singles final, no.
Tonight on *sorry I haven’t a clue*, there was a joke about the conservatives, a joke about U.K.I.P. a joke about capitalism and so I waited for the joke about the Labour party or socialism. Guess I must have missed it. Oh well, maybe next week?
You don’t need jokes – you can see the real thing.
How about this one then.
A paid up labour supporter enters the local Labour party branch to cast his vote for the next parliamentary candidate.
To his surprise he is given a sealed brown envelope and told that the voting slip and the candidate has been filled in for him and all he has to do is sign that he has received his form.
He starts to open the envelope – but stopped by the party apparatchick.
“But I only wanted to know who I was voting for” he says.
“You can’t do that – don’t you realise this is a secret ballot”
On Radio 4’s Arthur Smith comedy thing from 23:00 today, there was an attack on Nick Griffin, mainly for being an oik, fat, shabby suited, in short lower class!
Old fashioned snobbery and from a man who has eked out a career on the BBC pretending to be working class
Actually, it wasn’t ‘Arfer’ who made the remark but someone with an educated southern accent, about which he talked at length in the context of imagined social advantage.
Mentioning Mr Griffin’s invite (eventually withdrawn) to the royal summer party last year, there seemed to be an attempt to blacken the Duke of Edinburgh at the same time (if they had got chatting, they might have found shared Right-wing views!) but it came down on the Duke’s side in the end.
The patronising middle class contempt for Griffin may in part be because he is not an uneducated oik: he got a degree from Cambridge University and is clearly articulate. Perhaps BBC types can’t forgive humanities graduates who fail to draw the (for them) “appropriate” conclusions from their studies and become Left-wing pseudo-liberal radicals.
Just thought I’d sully myself and root through the dross on the BBC web-site to see if the story of the soldier in Barnsley being set upon by ‘Asians’ had surfaced yet. No.
However on the Yorkshire page the 9th most read story was Andrew Mitchel resigning over ‘pleb-gate’.
Obviously a technical error and not an attempt to remind people without putting the full-story out. I’m sure no one will read this story and think another Tory has being having a go at the cops. Perish the thought.
The page incidentally is this one from 20 October 2012.
Whilst looking at the sad story of the soldier killed in Rugby I noticed this story on the Wirral web-site. It is similar to the one above in that it is an old story that has re-surfaced; this time by recent searching patterns.
This could be the reason for the BBC article resurfacing after a year but look at the difference in how they approach it. The BBC keeps schtum whilst the Wirral Globe manages to flag the anomaly.
Obviously the unique way the BBC is funded prevents such automatic flagging of old stories.
these muslim brotherhood swivel eyed loonie lot are getting on my nerves,they fire guns,throw petrol bombs at the army and what happens next.oh yes they are bleating on about the egytptian army defending themselves by firing back,but of course jeremy bowen will always be lurking somewhere amongst these lot to report how nasty the army are behaving towards these jihadi lunatics.just makes me sick.
I’ve just listened to Radio 4’s Anaysis – They’re Coming For Your Money, followed by Shared Planet – Valuing Nature (I was driving so didn’t feel the need to change stations).
The former made the assumption that budgets can’t be cut so we will get tax rises so get ready for them folks, whoever wins the next election, and the later that we ought to be paying for nature.
The common agenda is that one way or another the plebs must pay and the political elite will just carry on adding ever more areas of our lives under their control.
There was a brief suggestion that ideally the spend side of the balance sheet should be cut (ex- chancellor Lawson) but really that wasn’t an option in the short term as they needed £20Billion. How about chucking the EU subscription or those 700+ Quangoes? Clearly our ‘Analyst’ was short of ideas an had never worked in the commercial world. How does a business increase revenue? If it is daft it raises prices, if it is smart it does things better and cuts prices.
That should have been apparent in the example of the East Anglian family that they kept quoting from. They had cut down the visits to family because of the taxes on motoring, so instead of raising some revenue the government raises none.
Still it is all part of the BBC high tax, high cost agenda for the plebs. (The Food Programme used to be about food, now it is all about how we, that is you don’t pay enough.).
“Military warplanes swooped over the anti-Morsi crowd filling Cairo’s Tahrir Square, drawing a heart shape and an Egyptian flag in the sky with coloured smoke. Large banners read ‘Obama, hands off, a message to the USA. Obama supports the terrorists of 911′ with a picture of Mr Obama with an Islamists’ beard.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2358126/Egypt-violence-2013-Army-opens-crowd-demonstrators-killing-51-injuring-322.html
Hey, maybe this is the Arab Spring after all? It’s the BBC’s nightmare thought. Let’s hope we follow Egypt’s example and rise up against the Islamist/Correcntick alliance in Britain.
General rant about PFI deals, only connection with the BBC being their total lack of analysis or interest. Great what 3.5bn buys you isn’t it……….
“military warplanes” ?
as opposed to the RAF fleet of “corporate warplanes”.
When they are eventually delivered, the entire tanker fleet for the RAF are to be “corporate warplanes” owned by the Air Tanker Consortium and used on a lease / per use basis by the RAF – presumably with a 9,472 page contract governing usage and free for commercial charters in the mean time*. Any chances that this insanity will, over the contract lifetime, end up costing 23 times the price of just buying them and maintaining them in the RAF?
Similarly in the run up to the Gulf War (2) the fleet of PFI owned ‘army’ tank transporters was left sitting in their depots because all annual mileage had been used up. The Army had to charter commercial vehicles to move its heavy equipment around – when it had Scammel trucks costing a couple of million each just sitting there…..but they didn’t own them
Another triumph for the Brownite policy of hiding capital expenditure in PFI schemes.
I have been waiting for years for the BBC to follow up on Private Eye’s campaign about PFI schemes. Anybody, anybody, with an IQ over 90 can see that the additional margins (cost plus) and operational costs – and the fact that the PFI owners never actually take any risks (all schemes are via limited special entities that fold instantly if there is a risk) mean that these are fundamentally stupid extremely expensive and wrong headed schemes. Still there are many, many, idiots out there who would rather rent a car from a finance company for five years and have no assets at all than buy it outright using a loan for lower monthly payments and own it at the end of the loan period.
So why have them? Because Gordon Brown had come to the limits of public spending and decided to rent a shed more on a lease basis that will cost us far more in the long run. All part of the unexamined (by the BBC) Labour money tree strategy
*The RAF leased its first 4 C-17 transports, paid a fortune in excess mileage, and eventually bought them with an extortionate balloon payment at the end of the lease
Cracking post, mind if I pinch it for my FB page, I’ll give you the credit obviously 🙂
Certainly old Cheese – but what is a FB page? If you are interested in PFI madness the Eye runs a story pretty much every issue.
I suggest that you link to the Public Accounts Committee report on FSTA as well. To quote Clint Eastwood as Gunny Highway – “a total cluster-f**k sir”
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmpubacc/425/42503.htm
There is enough material in that report for a two hour special. the same is true for pretty much every PFI deal.
Appalling pro-Muslim Brotherhood propaganda on Newsnight. They have some bloody nerve, the BBC, spinning this sycophantic garbage. If it’s an Islamic government you can count on the Left-wing, middle-class, metro-trendy BBC for support; if it’s a movement that’s sick and tired of Islamic extremist puritan neanderthals, then forget it… you’re part of an evil coup. Despicable pro-hardline Muslim groveling by the BBC.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3932/mass_resignations_at_al_jazeera_over_biased_egypt_coverage
Maybe BBC journos could learn a bit from their Egyptian counterparts. Like Journalistic integrity
I wonder if any of those resigning are ex-BBC?
No, they would keep quite and take the shilling
If so, It may have come as a surprise that the less uniquely-funded AJ may not have seen their departure as requiring several years’ ‘golden integrity’ money for handing in their notice.
Where I lead others follow
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3941/why_haven_t_bbc_jounalists_followed_al_jazeera_journos_in_resigning_over_bias
Complete and utter parochial, small-minded, self-absorbed pro-SNP drivel on the pathetically pointless BBC Newsnight Scotland, tonight. Trying to politicize Andy Murray’s Wimbledon win; horrific stuff.
The beebyanka, yesterday, had this:
“Profile of groundbreaking novelist Alice Walker, who rose to fame with The Color Purple.”
And even more fame for being viciously anti-Jewish. Then, however, why should the famously impartial beebyanka be expected to identify Walker as a viciously sectarian harpy? It must be their innocence, the poor dears.
It can’t be an institutionalised hostility towards Jews, can it?
Probably more like an institutional understanding that anti-Semitism is not worth fussing about and that Jews are so rich and powerful enough that they can take it. Plus there are those who don’t believe there is much anti-Semitism anymore, and that any who brings it up is only making an excuse to stifle debate about Israel’s evil actions.
If I ever met a BBC journalist face to face, I’d ask them.
You never know what’s lurking in the surf off Brighton. No, not a shark, it’s those damned ‘asians’ again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-23231508
All female children should stock up with Mace.
Those pesky Buddists again….
‘move along, nothing to see here’ springs to mind
Bump Club? or how about a fabulous summer of wimmin’s football?
Here’s the link, if anyone ever witnesses something like this off of our coast –
http://www.sas.org.uk/campaigns/sewage-and-sickness/pollution-incident-reporting/
So the Post Office has been found ripping off their subpostmasters with the Horizon computer system. Sometimes this has led to criminal prosecution, and imprisonment – others have lost their homes & been made bankrupt, but that’s about it, there’s very little examination of the very poor wages – often below the minimum wage, no exploration of how the government steals the money from the pockets of those running the larger offices to subsidise the rural ones. Nor the fact that the government takes NI off them as employees but then when they want the same rights as employees tells them they’re self employed!
There’s no examination of Royal Fails appalling record on equality, back at the turn of the century they were the subject of an equalities commission investigation – the first since the 1970s things were so bad.
There are two reasons why the BBC doesn’t want to shine a light onto the disgrace which is Royal Mail.
It’s managing director is female (like most of the failed NHS trusts) and it’s not going to allow another one to be criticised.
And it’s probably about to be privatised and it wouldn’t like to provide ammunition for those who support that.
A shame because there are a lot of stories lurking just out of site for Royal Fail & the Post Office.
There was an article on the BBC Look North with an interview with one unfortunate Subpostmistress and then a further interview in the studio.
Must admit it made one angry at the injustice.
Irony lost on INBBC: ‘ban jihadists Boko Haram; ban Spencer and Geller’.
Days after banning Spencer and Geller, the two American long-time blogging opponents of Islamic jihadists, such as Boko Haram, the U.K Government ‘leadership’ of Cameron-May-Warsi now bans jihadists Boko Haram!
Cameron-May-Warsi put Spencer and Geller in the same political category as Islamic jihad murderers!
The political incongruity is lost on INBBC; but then, to INBBC (and to Sham ‘Liberty’), Spencer and Geller are no ex-Gitmo Binyam Mohameds:-
“Minbar Ansar Deen and Boko Haram face UK membership ban”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23228908
BBC: “Disgraced former NY politician Eliot Spitzer in comeback”
No mention that he’s a Democrat, of course. There’s a quote from a “New York Democratic political consultant” in the eighth paragraph, but nothing directly identifying Spitzer’s party affiliation.
If this was a GOP politician there is simply no way a BBC reporter would fail to identify his party affiliation, and the headline would probably be something like “Disgraced Republican politician in comeback” or “Prostitution scandal Republican politician in comeback”.
This double standard in reporting Dems and Republicans happens time and time again.
John Humphrys (JH) interviewing Billy Hayes (BH – General Secretary of the Communication Workers Union) around 8:15 this morning (09/07).
(BH) : “…..The thing about this – this seems to me the big problem in British politics – is posh people politics. The ordinary people don’t have a say in what’s going on in political parties. It’s kinda like a political class across all the parties……”
…..
(BH) : “Well I think the great problem is – people being disillusioned with the political process. And the essence of this is getting more ordinary people, people that work in work places and not part of this political class that runs everything from – seems to me anyway.”
(JH) : “Alright”
(BH) : “Everything from the BBC to-to Parliament….”
Droid Reader-Out-Loud, Big Kate Silverton quoted in one of the weekend rags…
‘I have champagne tastes and sometimes champagne money’.
Now they argue, the news bunnies, that their’s is a really difficult job… live tv, producer in earhole, autocue spinning, tweets to read, incoming texts from hubby .. and that is why they get big money.
Fine – sounds to me pretty much like a QVC presenter, who gets a real world salary of £40,000 OTE. I’m all for parity there, Tony ‘New Era’ Hall, if yer reading this.
So, dwell on Hefty Kate’s words next time you’re in the supermarket, mulling over Tesco’s £10.99 champers and skipping it for the £2.99 Albanian Cava. Console yourself with the thought that although you’re not buying champagne for yourself, at least you’re buying it for someone else.
Needless to say I’m not talking from experience here. My stock came out of Madame Cliquot’s cellars before the war, and I gave Sprott and Burlinghammer 110 shillings a crate for it.
Silverton used to regularly appear of the Matthew Wright show on Channel 5. She was always very left wing in her outlook although Wright took pains not to quiz her too closely as she obviously had no idea about politics. Just another posh girl pretending to be down with the plebs, er proles, er audience.
It was so obvious that she was only saying what was expected of her that I wondered at the time if she wanted to work on the BBC …
I recall a Radio Times feature a few years ago which informed us about the difficulties that Ms Silverton had had in conceiving a child. TMI or too much information, IMO or in my opinion, though I suppose it does show that money can’t buy you everything even if it means you can be relaxed about buying champagne.
As we old hippies used to say in the sixties
‘Life is a shit sandwich. The more bread you have the less shit you taste.’
Or
‘Money doesn’t buy happiness but you can buy a better class of misery’
Remember the golden Rule
Those that have the gold make the rules
Talking about Stephanie Flanders…
“Awkward? Ed Miliband denies it’s ‘weird’ he and Ed Balls both dated the same BBC reporter.
“Ed Miliband has revealed he and Ed Balls have a rather personal connection in a sometimes cringe-inducingly personal interview.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/413542/Awkward-Ed-Miliband-denies-it-s-weird-he-and-Ed-Balls-both-dated-the-same-BBC-reporter?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+daily-express-uk-news+%28Daily+Express+%3A%3A+UK+Feed%29
She’s pictured standing proudly in front of the Karl Marx statue in Highgate cemetery – perhaps the two Eds were too right-wing for her.
http://www.barnsley-chronicle.co.uk/news/article/6709/soldier-brutally-attacked-in-street
http://blurbrain.com/another-british-soldier-attacked-by-group-of-unknown-assailants/
Britain Today:
Another soldier attacked in the street
despite MSM “blackballing” this still hangs in … just.
bbc news? , bbc england? , local bbc?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-23231508
more “enrichment”? by allah loving adherrents?
nothing to see cover it up … just like oxford eh!
muslim premier league anyone?
They can always say they heard voices racially abusing them – a ready made excuse for abhorrent behaviour. http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/kieran-knifeman-heard-voices-racially-4888663
Expect to hear that in court more often.
It would appear the soldier was attacked by drunken white thugs, although the necessity of reading between the lines to get to the truth in the media would lead people to believe otherwise.
The only ‘evidence’ on the web that the thugs were white that I can find is a couple of comments on the Barnsley Chronicle page. Not exactly ‘evidence’ really. Do you have a different source?
It may even be true and would explain the lack of interest by the rest of the press – just another after the pub fight.
The same might be true of the Rugby incident.
However , as has been often stated, when the race of the attacker is known and is white then descriptions are often given. There were witnesses for both attacks so it is not an unknown. Neither can it be said that, because arrest were, supposedly, made that the descriptions of the attackers is not required. the Police are always on the look out for new witnesses.
Either way this stinks and given the reactions on the Chronicle’s web page there is probably a lot of angry people in Barnsley. How better to cement community relations than to wind up one side and then pull the rug away leaving the other side feeling attacked for no cause.
“white thugs”? … the bbc staple?
where did the info for that come from?
link?
The religion of peace strikes again. I’m feeling truly enriched.
‘Well, you do have a tendency to leap in, as soon as Alan, Preiser, et al have their bigotries challenged, with paragraphs of tedious prose that are clearly intended to shut down debate (although you apparently think it’s through elegant argument, when the reality is that it’s through somnambulent prose that even your mother would interrupt her latest paid session to tell you was shit).
You want people to take notice of you: if they always do so because you’re a crashing bore who doesn’t realise that nobody takes you seriously, that’s your problem.’
Coffee time. Interesting overnights.
But as there are those who claim (rather shy on accuracy; rather broad on inclusivity, so apt for BBC DOTIs) only read the first paragraph of what I write, I thought I’d simply kick off with the entirety of what one felt was a worthy contribution in ‘speaking for all’.
Which makes this second share of theirs one they will indeed probably want to miss in complement.
‘Just curious – what is the case of BBC bias you’re highlighting?’
The logic fails seem to be heading into areas of derangement along with their frequency. Which may explain their no longer being around.
Personally I don’t hold with blanket censorship, as often the words used in theory to insult or deceive reflect more poorly on those who pen them and serve better in the preservation, but it’s not my site.
However, the ‘Report comment’ facility now exists for those seeking to see rule policing as set by administrators enacted.
It is interesting what the rules are the BBC has set:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/4180404.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/4176520.stm
Most will be able to testify they can and do apply ‘off topic’ quite freely, and in case of repeated instances, the response can be quite severe:
‘Violation of any of the rules above may lead to your membership account be temporarily suspended or terminated. The BBC additionally reserves the right to suspend or terminate any membership account at any time and at its sole discretion.’
I raise comments here sometimes. I also chip in on some. It appears I also need to respond to quite personal attacks on occasion.
As here, they are of course off topic, and I apologise to others.
To those who feel the need to make them, I regret that such well-poisoning or attrition attempts in securing sole ownership of commentary privileges are really not going to succeed.
Continue if you will, and let the BBC be known by association with those that so slavishly seek to defend their inaccuracies and lack of integrity no matter what, and/or so obsess over those who seek to see it corrected.
Stay in the bunker too long, and the result is inevitable.
A few links and a quote:
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/stats-update.html
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/oversight.html
I wonder if an FOI might see this one shared for any of them?:
‘explaining how The Trust relates to licence-fee payers’
Compare & contrast this report from Russia Today as a much more open truthful and unbiased picture of the UK today. Russian news is much more reliable than the BBC, and to be honest regardless of Putins problems he’d make a much better PM than any other the spineless excuses for leaders we have.
A very fair minded report, I think. And from Russia!
We’re going to pay dearly for this, in due course.
So when hate preacher Choudray is interviewed by RT and allowed to speak without interruption or challenge that is unbiased but when he is interviewed by the BBC that is evidence of BBC bias.
Exactly. because RT will give an uninterrupted
platform to the opposing view ,and regular does where as the BBC does not
need I say ‘simples’
‘RT will give an uninterrupted
platform to the opposing view’
If so, a point in their favour.
That, and, best I’m aware, not requiring £145.50pa from me to ‘interpret events’ in the name of the UK public.
Ironic given which country’s media was more associated with propaganda backed by censorship. But then, it was a different time.
‘Hate’ preacher something which the loonies of the left are unable to describe, or legitamise, so lets call him Islamic truth speaker because it’s actually more accurate (unless you can prove otherwise). Was asked onto RT to discuss his beliefs and these were challenged. He was able to express the views held in the Koran and Hadith and to criticise other Muslims for failing in their duty to follow them.
In contrast Chaudry is never allowed on the BBC because we can’t have people learning the true nature of Islam, until of course a British Coldier is murdered in the street, and he’s wheeled on to be a patsy to deflect attention away from the ‘real Muslim majority’ very many of whom support the murder, because there’s irrefutable proof its sanctioned in the Koran.
Whereas the BBC dances all around the problems of Islam, and can’t even bring itself to utter the word ‘Muslims’ RT gets to the point and tells a truthful story which the PC BBC is completely unable to cover because of its bias.
‘Hate’ preacher something which the loonies of the left are unable to describe, or legitamise …
What about the loonies of the right?
“…hate preacher Anjem Choudary” : Jihadwatch (quoted by George R)
“Will hate preacher Hamza…” : Daily Mail (quoted by George R)
“It is time our lovable hate preacher was interviewed by the BBC”: David Lamb of this parish
“hate preacher Anjem Choudary will not be prosecuted …” : Daily Mail (quoted by George R)
“he is in fact an extremist hate preacher” : My Site (click to edit) of this parish
““Abu Hamza: civil engineer who turned hate preacher against West.” : Daily Telegraph (quoted by George R)
“Four of hate preacher’s sons have already served time behind bars.” : Daily Mail (quoted by George R)
So as I said you and others are unable to describe exactly what a ‘hate preacher’ actually is.
Where Muslims are concerned ALL UK media are extremely careful to follow party lines and descriptors. Take the EDL as an example which is not a political party and yet because mainstream politicos have labelled it ‘far right’ no one is allowed to deviate from the received script.
It’s called control of the media and propaganda – but that doesn’t make it truthful!
I rest my case
no one is allowed to deviate from the received script.
How exactly does this control work? Who writes the script, and who receives it? Is there some meeting where these things are all agreed? The Daily Mail gets together with the Guardian (both of which have used the phrase “hate preacher”) and they mutually agree on what terms to use?
Do they then send an email to Jihadwatch to get them to use the term too, and CC The Wall Street Journal in on it?
Likewise is there a steering committee which oks the term ‘far-right’ for the EDL and then promulgates its findings?
Or perhaps, taking an Occam’s Razor approach, it is because that is what they are? In both cases.
And just as an aside, why does this term all of a sudden cause you such trouble? It has been used many times on this site before. What was it about this particular instance that triggered your response?
Also curious to know why you ascribe its use only to “lefties”, unless you believe that The Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph, George R and Jihadwatch are all pinkos.
Roland Deschain: You must be keeping some very detailed records
I keep no records at all, but Google does a terrific job at it.
‘How exactly does this control work? Who writes the script, and who receives it?
Are you telling us you’ve never heard of the 28gate meeting, ‘James’, where the BBC line on global warming was co-ordinated across all its various news and entertainment departments in conjunction with its eco-socialist-alarmist friends?
You must be avin a larf.
That must have been a heck of a meeting. Not only did the agree the line on global warming, but on the line to take on an organisation that didn’t exist, as well as agreeing terms such as “hate preacher”.
Not only that, they managed to get everyone else, even if they weren’t at the meeting, to agree to it, even competitors.
I salute whoever it was that chaired that meeting. That is impressive chairing.
It was an example of how the BBC succeeded secretly (until it got found out) in establishing a narrative on one particular topic – and one having more economic, social and political impact than arguably any other you care to mention – across all its departments and in conjunction with leftist political and environmental activist groups.Having set and co-ordinated its own agenda on ‘climate change’ (the results are there for us to see every day), it can do it on anything – albeit within the confines of the organisation (leaving aside ability to influence others through the likes of Common Purpose, the UAF, Hope Not Hate, Hacked Off and the rest of the leftist network).
N.B. Your absence from the debates on 28gate on this site – and there have been quite a few – demonstrates you have no defence whatsoever of BBC agenda setting.
“My Site (click to edit) of this parish”
Ye gods, it’s a long time since the “My Site” epidemic. You must be keeping some very detailed records to have picked that up. Bordering on the obsessive.
“Don’t tell ‘im, Roland!”
Your point?
I’m always fascinated to know on what grounds the BBC deem it appropriate to give the plebs their say. (Unless off-topic, where off-topic is, like racism, in the eye of the beholder.)
For instance, a speech by Ed Miliband which ultimately is hot air in the Westminster bubble and of little real importance in our day-to-day lives, gets the nod. Whereas a decision by unelected European judges that the UK apparently may not jail even the most heinous murderers for the rest of their natural is not for discussion, when I would imagine not a few will have pretty strong views.
Could it be that the public might not take the Approved View?
I think that the limits of debate are entirely in the eye of the “Beebholder”.
As someone said the other day in connection to the ‘revelation’ that the BBC is overwhelmingly xenophilic and europhilic , Beeboids really think that anything the BBC institutionally disapproves of is either foaming lunacy or downright evil –
“Could it be that the public might not take the Approved View? “
Yeah – that’s the BBC not giving in to the ghastly populist instincts of Middle England tabloid readers. They’re so much better than that – so here’s a shallow, pointless ‘pop culture analysis’ article on which you can have your say.
Mark Mardell is trying out our favorite Humpty-Dumpty quote about use of language, and gets it wrong. I know what he’s trying to say, but he misuses it.
Here are a couple of riddles for you: When is a coup not a coup? And why is the White House not like Humpty Dumpty?
In Through the Looking Glass, Humpty tells Alice: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
The White House press secretary, Jay Carney, doesn’t have that luxury. If he called the Egyptian military’s intervention in the democratic process a “coup”, it would clearly mean the huge amount of aid the US gives to Egypt would have to be cut off.
Because that’s what it says, in black and white, in the US Code:
Humpty-Dumpty wasn’t talking about using another word for something, though. He was talking about redefining what a word meant to suit his own purposes. Mardell doesn’t get it, or just doesn’t care and makes a lazy reference simply because he wants to wag his finger at the US for continuing to support the Egyptian Army after removing Marvelous Morsi. Probably just about everyone here will know this as it’s been brought up a number of times, but it’s worth reminding ourselves of the full context of the Humpty Dumpty scene, just to see how Mardell messes it up. Humpty Dumpty was explaining to Alice about the concept of an “un-birthday present”, and adding up how many of them there are in a year.
Humpty Dumpty took the book and looked at it carefully. ‘That seems to be done right —’ he began.
‘You’re holding it upside down!’ Alice interrupted.
‘To be sure I was!’ Humpty Dumpty said gaily as she turned it round for him. ‘I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that seems to be done right — though I haven’t time to look it over thoroughly just now — and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents —’
‘Certainly,’ said Alice.
‘And only one for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!’
‘I don’t know what you mean by “glory”,’ Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘
‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”,’ Alice objected.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. ‘They’ve a temper, some of them — particularly verbs: they’re the proudest — adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs — however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!’
Sounds like a BBC editor’s meeting. But I digress. Mardell is acting as if the discussion is about calling a thing something else to avoid its reality, when in fact it’s about declaring that a word means something else if it suits. Not the same thing, and it’s a sad statement of reading comprehension for a highly-paid, titled editor to screw up something school children can grasp.
Mardell is concerned that the President is messing up an opportunity to influence Egypt. He doesn’t quite come out and say what that influence should be, but his point is that the President should do something already. He says the US is still powerful and can still control the situation, and is clearly baffled as to why the President hasn’t
given an inspiring speechdisplayed obvious leadership on the issue. But don’t worry, Mardell isn’t known as the BBC’s US President editor for nothing:There will be a review and the cash could still be pulled. The president himself has not ventured an opinion.
But Senator John McCain has declared that aid should be stopped, despite his misgivings about Mr Morsi.
“It is difficult for me to conclude that what happened was anything other than a coup in which the military played a decisive role,” he said.
“I do not want to suspend our critical assistance to Egypt, but I believe that is the right thing to do at this time.”
It may be that President Obama is weighing which of his options give him the most clout with the Egyptian military. But it is not clear they are listening.
The one consistent call from the White House has been for an end to the violence. Monday’s events in Cairo, whomever you believe, do not fit that bill.
The trouble is that the White House looks powerless, when it obviously has a great deal of power and, quite literally, investment in Egypt.
In the end, Mr Obama’s passivity may turn out to be level-headed diplomacy. But it looks bad to those who accuse him of prevaricating.
It doesn’t feel like leadership, and the number of harsh judgments on his foreign policy is growing.
It’s not that His judgment is wrong or that He’s screwed it up or that the
ditheringdeep contemplation of all facets instead of making a decision is poor leadership or poor foreign policy: it’s the appearance of it that’s the problem. Mardell is quite sure He’s going to get it right, of course, and is just unhappy that the President looks bad for the moment. “Level-headed diplomacy” is such a hallmark of His reign, isn’t it? >_>‘Now you talk like a reasonable child,’ said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. ‘I meant by “impenetrability” that we’ve had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you’d mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don’t mean to stop here all the rest of your life.’
‘That’s a great deal to make one word mean,’ Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
‘When I make a word do a lot of work like that,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘I always pay it extra.’
‘Oh!’ said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.
Naughty…after both Eds admit to having been linked to Ms. Flanders in the past, Guido suggests it was an “unfortunate Indy picture choice” for the Independent article…
http://order-order.com/2013/07/09/unfortunate-indy-picture-choice/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/i-did-go-out-with-bbc-economics-editor-stephanie-flanders-admits-ed-miliband-and-so-does-ed-balls-8696178.html
That’s disgusting news. But it might go some way to explaining her complete snooty, metropolitan Left-wing bias.
Which one’s the bike?
The George Zimmerman murder trial is wrapping up, and the BBC has been silent from start to finish. I wonder why that could be? I don’t mean it should be the top story or anything – God forbid something culturally significant should be more important than disaster pr0n and celebrity stuff – but surely it’s worth a news brief once a week considering how much the BBC hyped up the incident when it happened, and all the racialist stuff shoved in our faces. Yet…..a curious silence. Narrative not being supported, perhaps? If there is an acquittal, it’s going to come as a total shock to BBC audiences who were initially led to believe this was a racist killing in cold blood. The BBC hasn’t said a word about how the prosecution’s case has been diminished every day, even by their own witnesses, so everyone will wonder how an acquittal could possibly happen.
There may not be an acquittal, as the mostly white female jury could still feel historic racial guilt and be aware that an acquittal could lead to riots and racial strife.
“There may not be an acquittal”
But he could appeal, presumably?
Sure, but I’m just talking about the immediate result.
Yup – the last we heard about this from the BBC was Mardell’s special report promoting the white (not Hispanic) v black narrative and Vaidyanathan taking a line from Zimmerman’s 911 call out of context to make him sound racist. The facts in the case have not matched newsroom groupthink, which is driven by touchy-feely, Trayvon-is-beloved-Obama’s-unofficial-son emotion. So, they’re ignoring the courtroom details and will report the outcome in a way that matches their desired narrative.
Apologies if it has already been mentioned, but the prosecution witness who appeared via Skype last week kind of summed up the inept nature of the State’s case. The guy’s Skype address was broadcast to the nation, with predictable results… http://youtu.be/xIKppHDJSJc
just goes to prove the labour front bench have no standards
I’m not sure whether it points to a dismal lack of standards on the part of Messrs Millipede and Balls or on the part of Ms. Flanders.
The poor girl obviously didn’t get asked out much to have settled for such an utter brace of twerps, even without their very unfortunate surnames.
Did she ever go out with the other Milliband? Perhaps she did without realising. None of the rest of us can tell them apart either.
Ahh, but did she also ‘go out’ with McCluskey? Then she could claim to have f****d everyone who wants to f**k the rest of us!
Is INBBC aware of another of E.Miliband’s problems:-
“Ed Miliband Welcomes Ramadan at Dinner Hosted by Islamic ‘Charity’ With Ties to Hamas Terror Group”
http://islamversuseurope.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/ed-miliband-welcomes-ramadan-at-dinner.html
Cameron becomes more despicable by the minute. First, he jumps on the Murray bandwagon and now this act of sheer sycophancy. No doubt that the BBC will brush aside their usual hatred for Cameron and the Tories and fully endorse this sacred message. I despair.
INBBC’s Ramadan has started today:
“Frederic Kanoute supports disabled man’s Ramadan fast”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-23237551
For INBBC:-
Keeping the score on Islamic jihad during Ramadan, 2013:-
“RAMADAN BOMB-A-THON BLAST WOUNDS 8 SOLDIERS IN THAILAND”
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/07/ramadan-bomb-a-thon-blast-wounds-8-soldiers-in-thailand.html
The Islamic jihad tally for Ramadan can be checked here-
http://thereligionofpeace.com/