Nigel Farage stated that the BBC used him as a ‘get out’ clause…they have had him on a show…therefore that proves they are not anti-UKIP or pro Europe….box ticked.
He also said this:
Sure, there may have been criticisms about its abject failure to report the rise of Euroscepticism or reflect the public’s concerns about immigration in the past. But now the BBC is, it tells us, “pleased our coverage has been deemed ‘remarkable’ and ‘impressive'”.
Unfortunately for the BBC, and those who have to pay the licence fee and all those extraordinary wages nowt has changed.
On Thursday Daniel Hannan in the Telegraph wrote this:
The Europhile CBI continues to be wrong about almost everything
Friday morning in ‘Wake Up To Money’ , entirely by coincidence I’m sure, we had the CBI’s Katja Hall on to be given free rein to promote European integration…we must not leave! The BBC fed her the questions and she fed us the Party line.
Katja Hall, Chief policy director fo the CBI, who previoulsy….
Prior to joining the CBI, Katja worked at the BBC on employee relations, change management and reward.
Like minds eh?
A small world…even smaller if they get their way and submerge all the nations under the EU empire’s jack boot.
So that’s Europe being dealt with with a renewed vigour and transparency by the BBC.
As for immigration…well Victoria Derbyshire leapt into action to repair the wrongful impression that the BBC is in any way pro-mass immigration and will examine seriously and in depth the issues that arise from such policies.
Last week there was a Home Office report which suggests half the population of England and Wales has felt the impact of immigration…Derbyshire is apparently basing her investigation upon the concerns raised in that report.
So what did we get from the BBC?
Off the BBC trekked to darkest Birmingham where we had a white Brit on….who was…er…pro immigration.
Then more voices…..
We were told that government measures alienate immigrants.
Immigrants do jobs lazy Britons won’t.
There is no recognition of the contribution made by immigrants.
Immigrants are ‘ghettoised’…not by choice…they’d love to be out there amongst the natives.
Oh yes….Birmingham is under pressure not because of the mass immigration but because of the government cuts….says the BBC reporter.
Then onto darkest Wales…..we are told there may be some concerns about integration…but just give it time, it will get better.
Then 5 minutes from the end we finally got a sceptic….though moderately so….his main concern is that he can’t get his kids into the school of his choice…but….you have to look at both sides and not look for scapegoats.
So, yes, the BBC has mentioned immigration…but not exactly the penetrating investigation of the sometimes devastating effects that mass immigration has on a community….nearly all the voices were pro immigration and seemed more concerned with the effects on immigrants themselves, which was hardly the point of the government report.
Still, the BBC has ticked another box, ‘The Get Out’ clause is up and running.
‘Remarkable and impressive’ coverage indeed.
“Prior to joining the CBI, Katja worked at the BBC on employee relations, change management and reward” – meaning she took over O’Brien’s old job, operating the rat cage in Room 101.
the bbc biased narrative from vicky and co at 5 live on immigration is well prepared down to a tee.you can bet 100% that reporter in birmingham had plenty of people who was not in favour of mass immigration and would not put on air but she chose to find somebody probably selling copys of the socalist workers party outside some university who dont even live in birmingham who is in the pro mass immigration camp to put on air with vicky on 5 live to give there views,this deception by radio 5 live is sick inducing,the vast majority of people in england are not in favour of mass immigration,thats a fact that vicky and 5 live just dont want you to hear.
You guessed right…the main one was a ‘community worker’.
O’bama?
Oh, you mean just like Obama the clown was. The mob have travelled here after all which explains the corruption in government.
Look guys, I know the biased view given to the sheeple has a corrosive effect on their ability to seethe truth.
However, it’s up to the sheeple to see the way ahead, use the democracy that is still available to them, and kick out the shower of shit currently inflicting the problems upon them.
Until the sheeple awake, there WILL BE no change.
I’m currently watching the ITV analysis of NHS problems and overloading.
Plenty of talk about denial of social care forcing folk to use A and E Depts. Is anyone wondering about additional population creating extra demand…? Nahhh…
Classic Alan.
The image at the top of this page comes from an organisation whose concerns include:
“Should BBC Scotland be making Job Cuts at the most important time in Scottish History?”
and
“Should more women, voluntary organisations and minority groups be encouraged to participate in debates?”
Bound to go down well with the regulars here!!!
P.S. You may have breached copyright by using it without permission. Just a thought!!
Nothing to say about BBC bias?
Was that what the post was about?
Haven’t you read it? Just like the pretty pictures huh? As I said, disappointed in you Albaman. So much promise.
No need for the sarcasm Alan – someone might ban you.
I did read it and an honest critique would be that it lacks structure, clarity and a conclusion based on the facts presented in the article.
You appear too approve of Mr Gove so perhaps you should take his advice about writing – sometimes less is more.
Still avoiding whether there is BBC bias.
You know, when you decide you’re going to criticise someone over their grammar, and the construction of an essay, it’s as well to make sure that you’re squeaky clean yourself.
Appear too approve??
Well who can take anyone seriously when they use an adverb instead of an infinitive verb ?
‘decide you’re going to criticise someone over their grammar, and the construction of an essay’
There’s a lot of it about.
More prevalent when there’s an imperative to fill space, but no substance to fill it with.
While addressing actual BBC failures in accuracy or integrity remain no-go, no answer areas, of course.
If the site admin pulled a BBC HYS modding purge on this thread, posts and replies, it may rival some of Helen Baoden’s classic ‘The Editor’ outings, where the ‘referred until we can close this FUBAR’ often outnumbered posts left. Which of course could also then be retroactively ‘tidied up’ by the kapos months later if ‘off narrative’.
I think they’re doing a bang up job of helping highlight comparative censorship practices of an entity we’re forced to pay for, mind.
Albaman, do you think that the BBC has any bias in its news gathering, reporting and programming?
Classic Flokking.
The overnights are in, and my in-box is packed with off topic whinges, distractions & denial of service activity by a literal team of names so banned they completely dominate and overwhelm any attempt at pursuing sensible discussion of BBC inaccuracy or lack of integrity.
Say what you will about the BBC, but when they ban someone, they stay banned… and no endless subsequent opportunities to repost endlessly as some kind of Hydra tag-team.
Can’t BBBC admin. slap a blanket ‘waste of time’ notice on them as does the BBC based on % of abuses or OT’s… Irrespective of how the odd one may manage to be polite (love the logic of that one when trotted out – try abusing a BBC employee just once, anywhere. I never have, or would, despite deliberate provocation to garner an excuse to pull the plug) or relevant.
Of course the BBC expedites, without compunction or independent appeal, merely for being held to account and asked questions it doesn’t fancy answering, especially with a chance of appearing on official record.
The BBC is also uniquely funded to do this, and is a national broadcaster. Quite why the Flokkers here can’t grasp this crucial difference and avoid any attempt at accepting the comparison is a mystery.
I used to find highlighting their paucity of coherence served to show up who the BBC gets defended by well, but a drive-by snipe, or ‘I’m reporting you for being beastly/petty legal infractions’ that then leaves an orphan reply is tricky to wade through. And they seem to have the budget and manpower to try and see this denial of service clutter prevails. Pity.
Have to say I wouldn’t like to see a blanket ban on the likes of Albaman, unless they are seeking to disrupt rather than discuss. It does us good to defend our point of view rather than support it unthinkingly, as appears to be the case with most supporters of the BBC.
Albaman occasionally makes a reasonable point that gives pause for thought. Before I decide he/she is wrong. 🙂
I second that – he’s very entertaining and such a good ally.
The other thing is that BBC bias is always in the past. They were biased but now they’re totally neutral. Oh yes.
How exactly? What’s changed? Have the people who produced reports even the BBC now admits were biased actually been fired? How about hiring a few ‘diversity coordinators’ from the conservative community? Or holding a ‘conservative history month’? Or even advertising jobs in the Telegraph? Just what has the BBC done to address this?
Meanwhile, in so far as this website was up and running for much of the time this reporting was being produced, I guess that shines a new light on all those flokkers who were desperate to point out that we were all tin-foil hatted loons.
Classic Guest Who. A tone so sardonic it’s evident he loathes the modern world. Sentences of bewildering obscurity, loaded with redundant long words and strangely devoid of main verbs. And under the laughable delusion that dissenting commenters must be part of a grand conspiracy.
‘laughable delusion’
Next you’ll be telling me that you don’t read what I write and are in no way moved to comment upon it… along with a few others.
Must be doing something worthwhile if my dissent on the the tactics of dissenters unsettles you so. Especially beyond the point of irony failure.
Ta for the English critique, though. One takes it you feel that having a grasp of the language that suits your standards is a requirement to show love for the modern world? A world, one presumes, you control? And if my sardonic observations are aimed at this, and hitting it… well, tough.
The notion of constrained use of English as a barrier to having or sharing an opinion is an interesting precedent. May see a rough passage through compliance if they see where you are leading.
I do confess to erring on the cryptic. Though it can be effective when it moves one of you to write what you want me to write when I haven’t. Which must frustrate. Sorry about that, but telling people how they think or should communicate is a BBC trait; one I don’t hold with, as you evidently do.
So, as always, good share. Hope it stays up, as does this reply. Even if both are OT. On a BBC thread both wouldn’t even get this far.
“Must be doing something worthwhile if my dissent on the the tactics of dissenters unsettles you so.”
Indeed. Keep up the good work and baffle them with those long words. You know they prefer ones of one syllable.
Indupid…
Indubidab…
Induebiabi…
…
…
OK.
🙂
Every sane person knows that the majority of native Brits are worried by immigration. Just how can the BBC be so stupid as to think otherwise?
They don’t think otherwise. They just think they know better.
They don’t think otherwise. But the longer they can keep immigration off the agenda by using accusations of racism and epithets like “far right”, the nearer they come to seeing their vision of a “multicultural” (ie: not white) Britain fulfilled. It’s just a delaying tactic, that’s all.
It’s worked well so far, with the collusion of people who should know better.
However correct you may be Joshaw, and I agree with your ideas, the simple fact is that the political landscape IS changing. The media has succeeded so far in demonising dissenting parties like the BNP, but they have yet to find a way to kill off ukip’s aspirations and attractions to a growing number of UK voters.
There is a watershed moment approaching in 2014 Euros and 2015 GE at which the cry will be : a vote for ukip lets in Labour.
Some will fall for this bullshit, many will not, and the results are yet to be measured.
I for one am done with all of our 3 traditional choices forever.
Also in France Marine Le Pen will provide some interesting evidence.
Sorry to be a Jeremiah here, but I gather there is a lot of dirt on Farage waiting to be flung. The BBC, in cahoots with the Guardian, will be waiting for the right time to fling it. For the moment it suits them to harm the Tories but if the anti-EU vote looks like getting out of hand, the BBC will act to destroy UKIP.
You may well be correct, sir.
However, time will tell
Pity Murdoch has no Fox in this fight. Its time Russbridger had some dirt flung at him in return. In the States, Fox seems to be the only opposition to a One-Party Media.
I agree that the political landscape is changing, but only around the edges. I’ll be voting for UKIP, make no mistake, but I’m concerned that we seem to be putting an awful lot of faith in one man.
What else is there? There’s little interest elsewhere in changing the BBC and, in due course, the UK’s altered demographic will make itself felt.
We’re moving shortly, and the stability of our new neighbourhood will be a prime consideration. As for my grandchildren – they should emigrate.
All I can say is Yes, Yes and Yes to all your points.
The emigration issue is not so simple tho’. Many of what I would have considered ” safe” places appear to be following our self imposed dhimitude.
However, consider your own move carefully, there are obvious places to avoid, but then money comes into play.
It’s always the old old story:
Life is a shit sandwich, the more bread you’ve got, the less shit you eat.
At tne moment I have moved about as far west as I can get, it’s rural, it’s peaceful. Many wish their area was like it.
I wish you good luck.
Farage made a good point about the BBC’s habitual tokenism. Time after time we’ve seen the Albamans of this world claim the BBC ‘can’t possibly be biased’ because its canteen manager in Salford once bought a copy of the Daily Telegraph, a man who worked as a driver on the Antiques Roadshow once voted Conservative in a local council election (by mistake) and the DG’s mother in law is rumoured to have admired John Major’s taste in shoes.
It is hard to find a way of expressing sufficient contempt for such Jesuitical claptrap without lapsing into obscenities.
It’s more than tokenism, I think. What Farage hit on is the BBC’s penchant for making one person (or one group) the public face of one side of certain issues. Viz, Tommy Robinson or maybe Delingpole, or previously Melanie Phillips. It’s possible that Stephen Nolan and the BBC NI crew try to use David Vance in a similar way.
Discredit the individual, discredit their cause at a stroke. Or, just feature somebody as the face of an opposing viewpoint whom the BBC already knows has a reputation, and that viewpoint loses the debate before it begins. As leader of a party growing in strength, Farage rightly gets regular air time just for that, aside from the pet issue of the EU. But at the same time, right or wrong, his party is also generally viewed as a single-issue party, so discrediting him amounts to the same thing.
The BBC needs to regularly feature a wider variety of people on the other side of certain issues, not simply have the same people on more often, just as they have many different voices on at various times in support of unions or social housing or other favored viewpoints. But that might give the audience the impression that their opinion isn’t quite the extremist fringe noise the BBC wants them to believe, so it’s quite the conundrum for BBC producers.
The attitude you well describe is the result of years of ensuring only the like minded can join the BBC hive.
From this flows everything so that the hive is literally unable to comprehend an opposing view . The hive registers the view but dismisses it instinctively as misguided or perverse. It is this that is so infuriating because it is so obvious. That and the wilful refusal to recognize reality.
One example. The liberal is an enthusiastic supporter of “community cohesion”. Now this may well be desirable but the liberal goes much further. It becomes and end in itself and sets itself in stone as an absolute good.
That it may not be achievable never occurs to the liberal. That a fractured community is the result of liberal policies is a reality the liberal cannot admit . To do so would bring down the whole rotten liberal fantasy.
The liberal then takes refuge in a mistaken believe in the inevitability of events.
The “right side of history” .To help this along the liberal has to alter the past- the endless waves on non existent immigrants .
That refusal to face reality is the most dangerous of liberal delusions.
I’m a supporter of “community cohesion”. Who wouldn’t be? Nobody wants strife or unhappiness. But I think the Left and the BBC are doing it wrong, and in fact act as divisive, corrosive influences which encourage destruction and balkanization, and cause resentment and disharmony instead.
“encourage destruction and balkanization, and cause resentment and disharmony”
Which if you read the ideologists of the Left is entirely deliberate. They justify this destruction by invoking the possibility of a utopia, but all this reduces down to is hatred of reality and love of destruction as an end in itself.
Bias is, and always will be, a matter of perception. Your perception of the BBC is based upon your beliefs and values. The contention of many regulars here that the BBC (and other public bodies, schools, hospitals etc) are solely staffed by “lefties” is the absurdity.
Would you be claiming bias if the BBC was staffed solely by the likes of Hitchins, Littlejohn and Phillips; if its news content was indistinguishable from that of Fox News and its dramatic content only that approved by the likes of Gove?
Whether you like it or not the BBC still attracts massive audiences and despite what you “righties” maintain it remains a respected broadcaster.
“Whether you like it or not the BBC still attracts massive audiences and despite what you “righties” maintain it remains a respected broadcaster. ”
In that case, people who are happy with the BBC have nothing to worry about. So, Albaman, why are you here?
I’d say it’s for shits and giggles. Alan and Guest Who alone are worth the price of admission. (0p appropriately enough)
‘..price of admission. (0p appropriately enough)’
Bargain. And there to be engaged with, for free, by choice.
Engagement in theory being on topic and on matters of BBC inaccuracy and lack of integrity, which in a compelled £145.50pa media monopoly is serious, but can also have its lighter sides.
As to the other aspect mentioned… the reaction of some to BBC strays from the path of most trustedness does suggest a loss of contin… confidence in certain quarters.
Noting I am as guilty as some in straying from the point of the site they ironically purport to hold so dear, let me at least share a URL:
http://order-order.com/2013/07/10/how-union-funded-transparency-website-smears-tory-mps/
Sounds like a starting point for Newnsight researchers.
‘Transparency’ is of course a very important word along the whispering if forgetful corridors of BBC power. One wonders if their subordinates in news editorial will be as diligent in noticing discrepancies in accounts by often quoted sources, especially those they may hold dearer than others.
‘Bias is, and always will be, a matter of perception’, so essentially there can be no reality. In that case your views are merely perception, which should render you to silence as it would be arrogant to consider your perceptions more valid than anyone else’s.
Also whilst it is well known that Hitler was criticised for being too harsh to the Jews, there were those who felt he was too soft. Since we are unable to establish a reality of what Hitler thought about the Jews, as we are merely dealing with perceptions, and it is clear he received criticism ‘from-both-sides [as per the Quisling Broadcasting Corporation defence]’ then does Albaman conclude that it is wrong to label Hitler as anti-semitic.
Finally, if you and the Quisling Broadcasting Corporation are so convinced that its output – and not historic institutional presence – generates the audience figures, then the failure to switch to a non-poll tax and pay-as-you-go form of funding is a display of massive moral dereliction. Especially from an organisation that is oh so right-on about fairness.
“does Albaman conclude that it is wrong to label Hitler as anti-semitic”. Well, Albaman and the BBC would probably prefer to say that Hitler was a bit “Jewish claims” which is the phrase they consider equivalent to “antisemitic” but somehow shorter …..
Hey, Albaman, I perceive bias in the BBC’s coverage of ‘climate change’.
Can you put me right and prove how balanced it is?
Most agree that the climate is changing and some of that change is down to our actions.
It is only “rightie” sites like this that dispute the science and interestingly most of these sites can’t tell the difference between climate and weather.
Sorry who is this ‘most’ ?? and sorry who claims every rain fall, every fire, every drought as a sign on the end times sceptics? or hysterics like you ?
That seems to be a long-winded way of saying “no”.
‘That seems to be a long-winded way of saying “no”.’
Two paras, too.
Dark looks over the debrief shandies tonight.
Oh, the night shift will have a meeting and cook up a response.
It will probably involve a secret meeting of renowned climate specialist experts.
Who they? I hear you ask.
Oh we cant tell you.
It’s secret, pardon? An FOI request don’t be silly we don’t answer them.
What do you mean some geek will track the attendees list back to the source? Nahhh…cant be done, Boaden told me that.
Ok here’s my tuppence worth. I think you will find that nobody disputes the fact that the climate changes but some of us do dispute the cause being all down to CO2 and the motives of those that implement the UN agenda 21. I think the main reason a lot of us are skeptical though is the amount of money that is being made at the expense of the taxpayer and the consumer. When such large amounts of money are thrown at a technology that in effect doesn’t work (wind farms cannot be economically sound without crippling subsidies) and even more money to be made by speculators with little risk and costed to the taxpayer and consumer for thousands of diesel generators to act as backup for the useless wind technology (how green is that?) It seems our energy strategy has been dreamt up by lunatics. ( I could mention water as well but that’s another topic.)
The fact that Germany is building 12 coal generated electricity plants (I guess they know the game is up) and China Brazil India etc are not bankrupting their economies with this carbon tax nonsense just makes us in the UK look all the more stupid as we cripple our industry with these ridiculous energy prices and carbon taxes.
Does this make me a rightie or a healthy skeptic.
‘It is only “rightie” sites like this that dispute the science’.
The science, believe it or not, dear Albaman, is like any other science and is open to all scientists with differing opinions and findings, a fact the BBC and warmists like yourself deliberately deny, yet is easily verifiable through the simple click of a mouse.
As for ‘the climate is changing’ – well, yes, it always has and it always will, but that was a re-branding of runaway global warming, wasn’t it, when the alarmists started to realise their hysterical predictions were just a crock of shite.
So escape your BBC bubble and get with the real world evidence rather than the laughable climate models still endorsed by the BBC and its 28gate enviro-socialist advisers (oh how your beloved BBC lied through its teeth!). Here’s one small example to get you started:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/07/10/global-warming-gets-sneaky-and-changes-plans-global-warming-was-supposed-to-heat-up-the-mid-troposphere-but-after-17-years-of-no-warming-it-decided-that-it-didnt-want-to-do-that-any-more/
Happy days!
‘BBC still attracts massive audiences’? oh look it’s that populism that the dysfunctional BBC sock puppets so moan about other channels pandering too ? pmsl !!!!!!
Only perception? What about the known cases of lying or hiding facts or censoring key bits out of statements, or editing a speech to make it appear more on-message than it actually was, or insulting people with a sexual innuendo? That’s far beyond a mere matter of interpretation or perception. No way can you dismiss everything as perception.
“Would you be claiming bias if the BBC was staffed solely by the likes of Hitchins, Littlejohn and Phillips; if its news content was indistinguishable from that of Fox News and its dramatic content only that approved by the likes of Gove?”
Erm, now let me think….
YES.
Bias is bias, no matter what direction it comes from, the difference between Fox & The BBC is one is a privately run company that reflects the viewers who pay for it…the BBC is a public body, that is supposed to show balance and reflect views from everyone who pays for it, not just it’s little favorites.
Shutting down debates that come from a right wing perspective, because it does not suit the BBC’s narrative is a joke.
If, and I laugh loudly at the thought, the BBC were right leaning, it would be you Alby, who were running his very own “Biased BBC” blog, and you know something?…I’d view it, and I’d ADMIT the bias existed.
“Would you be claiming bias if the BBC was staffed solely by the likes of” people of whom you approve?
Albaman gives the game away. He approves of the BBC because it takes a political line he approves of, and he assumes that its opponents simply want it to deliver a different political line.
This is projection. The opponents of the BBC want plurality. Albaman is simply revealing his inner Stalinist.
It is not a ‘contention’ that the BBC is staffed by Lefties – it is a fact. If you had ever had any professional editorial connection with the organisation (and I have) you would have no doubt. Please stop wasting our time by trying to pretend otherwise.
Beyond that transparent fact, the question of whether that permeates its broadcasting is what concerns us. That at least is a point one might argue. But here you re on equally unstable ground.
The fact is that the BBC isn’t staffed by that tiny handful of Right wing journalists you name, is it? And its output bears absolutely no relationship to anything produced by any allegedly Right wing medium.
On the contrary, both thematically and tonally, its coverage resembles the Guardian – so much so that an intelligent observer would conclude they are effectively the same organisation. Why? Because it is staffed by people of the same persuasion.
Unless, of course, you are seriously trying to sell us the idea that the likes of Humphreys, Paxman, Dimbleby, Derbyshire et al are closet Tories.
Have a look at the chapter “Who Are These People?” in Robin Aitken’s 2013 book “Can We Still Trust The BBC?” (pages 99-115) for many instances of Left-wing people in senior BBC roles: Will Hutton, Marr, Toynbee, Rawnsley, Naughtie, Lance Price, Bill Bush, Birt, Ben Bradshaw, James Purnell et al. He does think that things have improved since the first edition of the book, mentioning Andrew Neil, Justin Webb and Evan Davies on pages 114-115 as having redressed the balance somewhat.
‘…Andrew Neil, Justin Webb and Evan Davies on pages 114-115 as having redressed the balance somewhat.’
Guessing ‘somewhat’ in ‘addressing balance’ terms still involves a degree of relative equivalence?
Because 30% of 3 out of 20,000 (Cue… see what I homaged there?… a howl from the archive bunnies. If possibly no actual numbers this time) still seems a smidge skewed.
Guest Who,
Apparently, you are suffering from a low verb count. I’m afraid the NHS does not offer treatment for this growing problem. Only the other day I heard of a terrible case where the persons involved not only suffered from a low verb count, but low nouns, low adjectives and low everything else, and they all work for the BBC. They are the people who are supposed to be reporting the George Zimmerman trial. Perhaps BUPA can help.
No need. With mild dyslexia I need only pop out and take a healing stroll through my verb garden for a short thyme.
Many people do suffer mildly from this and Spoonerism. The other day, in the context of possible mass non-payment of the £145.50 BBC poll tax, I heard someone shout “Buck the Fee-Bee-Cee!”
Evan Davies and Justin Webb have redressed the balance?
You must be joking.
They are both extreme social liberals even if Evan D. has a possible belief in the necessity of profit.
I think Aitken’s point was that Webb had been a BBC Europe correspondent who was not slavishly in favour of the EU and had been respectful of US culture and politics (contrast Mardell) in his time as reporter there, while Evan Davies did at least bring rigour to economic interviews with all politicians.
I found the Aitken book a good read, written by an insider who knows the BBC well, but my instinct is that, for understandable reasons, he actually understates the case for BBC bias and is over-optimistic about any changes that Anthony Hall might achieve.
We must not kid ourselves, the BBC is incapable of reform. It must made void, so to speak. It is anachronistic, created in a by-gone era. No longer fit for purpose, biased, morally and financially corrupt. It must be done away with, I don’t know how, but maybe its ‘licence’ to broadcast should be put up for sale somehow, not as one entity but in each of its parts. And now with political devolution let’s have broadcasting devolution too.
And so, an end to the BBC.
‘Prior to joining the CBI, Katja worked at the BBC on………change management’.
Shurely an oxymoron.
I imagine the “Get Out Clause” that the BBC would rather we enact, may be that to get Feltham YOI closed down.
Why else would poor Sarah Montague be so exercised about her boys taking one hell of a beating therein. Why-batons were drawn 25…I repeat 25 times this last penal year!
Sarah rather hoped that it was troubled, vulnerable children that got treated so-turns out(sadly for her) that they were all adults.
Still-didn`t stop Sarah fretting about her being terrified if one of her kids was in there…presumably a long stay creche place whilst she flew out of Heathrow…and our latter -day Elizabeth Fry gave us her cut glass posh concerns from out of a Costa cup, shaped in the form of a megaphone.
Now at least Fry actually went into prisns to do her do-gooding. I`m guessing that such nosegay holding would be way below her BBC paygrade…so we pay the butlers and placemen to come upstairs to get a shrill grilling about the poor boys from Dowager Monty.
Laughable and pitiful…the BBC chickens always think of themselves as bacon rashers as they pour scorn on the pigs sent before them…they really think we give a damn about Qatadas lads and their halal requirements at Feltham, now the great man has gone.
How much do we pay that prim and pointless sow?
AT LAST !
Funny how we’ve been saying this for ages that the mainstream eventually catches up, reminds me of the Schopenhauer quote
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
Call for BBC Trust chairman Lord Patten to quit
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23263072
The people who have changed their mind and now say that Chris Pattern should quit do so for the entirely cynical reason that they think this is the best way of ensuring that things stay exactly the same.
Seems standard BBC/BBC Glee Club SOP: months if not years of internalised denial, bluster, cover-up and attempted ‘it was another time’, but when the lid can’t be clamped down any more, moves afoot to throw another under a bus.
Thing is, their version of this is rather unique, and I am unsure the country will be able to afford his hush-up pay-off.
Maybe stand by for zero programming in 2014 as what little budget left after all other ‘investments’ the BBC has made, the Good Lord’s immediate and ongoing deal will suck up the rest.
As it will be index-linked, we will of course be expected also stump up the pay hike to cover it when Labour wave through the fee rise for getting them back in.
Has the BBC ever come up with a list of data (Craig style) to “prove” that any of their political programs is always balanced? They are forever telling us that they must be balanced and neutral because “they get complaints from both sides”. But to this day, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a shred of evidence to prove or disprove any allegation of bias. I have never seen them explain how they monitor for bias.
So if they can’t or won’t come up with evidence, or documented standards, clearly then they absolutely no procedures in place to test & monitor their output for bias. Ego, how the hell can they ever claim that they’re impartial?!
Would you trust any figures they came out with anyway?
After 28gate, I wouldn’t trust them with anything.
The best way of discovering the bias of the BBC is to listen to or watch it programmes. If you want to find out the interests of middle class Labour voting public sector workers just turn on the BBC.
nigel will put the boot in the bbc when the time comes,people will see the nasty bbc at work,just mention jimmy savile and the over payments that should kill the bbc at one stroke