Yup, I see how bulging with comments Monday’s thread is so here’s a new one for you. Enjoy filling it!
ROYAL BABY OPEN THREAD….
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Guest Who Nov 14, 22:28
Midweek 13th November 2024
https://order-order.com/2024/11/14/guardians-self-deplatforming-post-420-times-more-popular-than-average-tweet/? - non-licence payer Nov 14, 22:01
Midweek 13th November 2024
Zephir, how times are changed. This was the sort of advice that was printed in the Socialist Worker. It is… - vlad Nov 14, 21:58
Midweek 13th November 2024
After woke Welby, next woke Francis maybe? (Any non-Catholics, take it from me: he’s just as bad.) - Nibor Nov 14, 21:56
Midweek 13th November 2024
Taffy, Make friends. I’m a moaner and complainer and haven’t paid the telly tax for 20 years, and other taxes. - vlad Nov 14, 21:55
Midweek 13th November 2024
I’ll be a Socialist for 1 night. Nah, too high a price. - Eddy Booth Nov 14, 21:19
Midweek 13th November 2024
He’s too obsessed with “the genocide in Palestine”. - vlad Nov 14, 20:52
Midweek 13th November 2024
Just now and again, I like Galloway. Here he is taking the p out of Amin Lammy. https://youtu.be/Tkt4aYmYfKM - digg Nov 14, 20:46
Midweek 13th November 2024
There is only so long that this dysfunctional load of twats trying to run the Country can keep on F****ing… - Docmarooned Nov 14, 20:32
Midweek 13th November 2024
What “awards” other than back slapping from her cronies. Awards for telling blatant lies and BBC Verify confirming the nonsense.…
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
Not strictly bias, but infuriating BBC arrogance.
Imagine a BBC without Alan Yentob.
Just what does this utter waste of space do to justify his £350,000+ salary?
He gets two salaries, one as creative director (an apparent non-job which he was being eased out of by previous DG Entwistle) but is now firmly back in place under the new DG .
Another as presenter of BBC1 series Imagine, tho in reality he is little more than a continuity announcer, introducing films made by other people and bought in by the BBC. See the docu on Woody Allen tonight as a prime example. A documentary made by a US company, with US presenters, and no BBC input whatsoever.
I’ve read that he also claims attention from the BBC, from a pension pot worse and reported £6.5 million. The man truly is a parasite, even by bloated BBC standards.
“introducing films made by other people and bought in by the BBC”…from film companies owned by Yentob and other top dogs, often as not.
Grr, he claims a PENSION.
sorry, RSI so using peach recognition prog when poss. 🙂
A cool deconstruction of the Divider-in-Chief’s ‘Trayvon speech’. ‘The only question…is whether it was the worst speech he’s ever given or simply the worst race-related speech.’ Mardell, read it & weep.
http://www.city-journal.org/2013/eon0722hm.html
Superb article.
The speech was intended to inspire His base to action. It was not actually meant to be one of those “healing” speeches, where He pretends to reach out to everyone, to speak for the nation. He’s got a lot of scandals to ignore, and keep swept under the rug. The media gatekeepers have been mostly doing a good job, but unpleasant news keeps trickling out. ObamaCare, the IRS, foreign policy, etc.
So it’s “never let a good crisis go to waste” time. Here’s a golden opportunity to use someone’s grave as a soap box and rally the troops. This is easy emotional stuff: gun violence, racism, and bears, oh, my! He really needs to get the machine moving again for the 2014 mid-terms, to take back the House (and/or not lose the Senate), and this is just about the only thing He has left. Any kind of action is preferable to the malaise.
Good day to release any kind of bad news, the Diana-worshipers are in full flood. A Royal Baby whoooeee.!!!Honestly, who gives a stuff?
Royal things used to make me feel proud when I was younger, but I can’t remember the last time I felt proud about Britain now.
What I would say is that the new breed of Royals
(William, Harry, Kate ) are a breath of fresh air. Pity they can’t by pass the ‘big eared’ git in the succession.
I can’t remember the last time I felt proud about Britain now.
That’s because you have allowed yourself to be blinded by the likes of Murdoch and the BBC. There’s plenty to be proud of in Britain, it’s just that you won’t see such things given much prominence by NI or promoted by the BBC.
This is still the best country in the world to live in – that’s why half the bloody world keeps trying to come here!
I like it.as do millions of others.
I don’t want president Dave or Gordon or god forbid Tony. I don’t care they are unelected. They show continuity and service. Yes they are paid well but we get back every penny in spades.. You cockneys can go boil your republican heads. Up in the wooly north we appreciate the crown.
The beeb have this love hate relationship with the monarchy. HRH is central to their so called Britishness. They have to lavish loads of time on the royals because they know they’d get slaughtered if they didnt.
They show their repressed handwringing lefty disgust in ‘tics’ like showing HRH sickbags at the jubilee . They deliberately downplay the size of royalist crowds and inflate stop the wars figures. They convinced us all that the jubilee would fail and yet millions celebrated .
Your scepticism is shared by the wolfie smith at the Beeb but is totally unrepresentative of the nation as a whole.
Approval ratings bordering on 90% would be the envy of any world head of state.
Half the US hates Obama half hated bush. 90% of Brits love her Madge. The queen has a higher US approval rating than Barry O and she doesn’t even rule there.
Well Bollox to the beeb and you can stick your nihilist mysanthropic right on grumpiness up your guardian.
Spirited stuff. Hurrah!
Classic from Peter Allen on Five Live this afternoon.
As they’ve kept telling us all day (all innocent like, natch), listeners have been texting in asking “why all the fuss, it’s only a baby”.
Ah but hang opines Peter, he will one day be head of state and…………..wait for it ………….it’s not every baby that gets a message off President Obama (said with such sycophantic pride you would not believe).
Oh if ever there was greater endorsement in the history of mankind……..
And if ever there was a more nailed on winner of the Order of the Brown Nose.
Had Barak Obama been born 40 years later…he too could have been Kates baby!
The man is Billy Liar and Mr Benn rolled into one…a spliff, perhaps?
Yes of course because if you remember Obama is Irish. ( Any angle,any bandwagon).
As in O’ Bama. What a surreal jaunt that was.
Personally, I welcome little Prince Trayvon to the world.
So not simply “the President of the United States”, but Him. It makes the Royal Spawn appear so special – elevated above other children, after all – for meriting His attention. Will it be forever mentioned in future coverage, even into adulthood? Not born under a new star or anything, but The Obamessiah gave His blessing!
Being a future King isn’t as cool or important as getting a shout out from the coolest President evah.
Free Speech for English Defence League.
BBC-NUJ’s policy of political opposition to English Defence League involves distorting and censoring the EDL’s message.
For example, in last Saturday’s attempt by the EDL to have a demonstration in Birmingham, the INBBC apartheid ‘Asian Network’ failed to mention the presence of the UAF opposition there, let alone its obstructive activities.
Because the BBC-NUJ is politically embedded with the UAF
and with Islamic opposition to the EDL, the BBC-NUJ reflects this strong political bias in its ‘reporting.’
As a small attempt to counter that, and to allow EDL free speech, here is a video clip of Tommy Robinson in Birmingham, which I have not seen elsewhere.
“Tommy Robinson Gives Sharia Lessons in Birmingham”
(20 min video clip)
http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/07/tommy-robinson-gives-sharia-lessons-in-birmingham/
We know BBC-NUJ is politically very hostile towards the English Defence League, and that this hostility is a reflection of NUJ policy towards the EDL.
The EDL is opposed to the Islamisation of Britain, and to Islamic jihad and Sharia law.
But is the BBC-NUJ and the political left opposed to Muslims who use Britain as a base for their Islamic jihad activities in Syria?:-
“How British women are joining the jihad in Syria”
( Channel 4 video clip).
http://www.channel4.com/news/syria-rebels-jihad-british-foreign-assad?
Just for information:
National Union of Journalists Meeting this Wednesday, on, ‘Reporting the Far Right’,
SPEAKERS:
Daniel Trilling, New Statesman/author of Bloody Nasty People: the rise of Britain’s far right;
Maurice Wren, chief executive
Refugee Council;
Brian Richardson, UAF.
Weds, 24 July, 7.00pm, NUJ headquarters, Headland House, 308-312 Gray’s Inn Road, WC1X 8DP (nearest tube, King’s Cross).
The kind of quality and accuracy that only 4 billion quid can buy…
http://order-order.com/2013/07/23/kevin-rudd-prime-minister-canada/
…it’s not like he only just made worldwide news recently by ousting his own rival to become PM again, so easy mistake to make. Aussies…Canadians…what’s the diff?…
i suppose kuffars all look the same to beeboids
The BBC seems to devote remarkably little attention to either Canada or Australia so the mistake is understandable.
Both too hideously white I suppose
New Zealand doesn’t exist.
Not for long – they’re suffering from mass enrichment too. Won’t be long before “islamophobic” (ie truthful) journos like Mark Steyn are exposed.
Diff btw Aussies and Canucks:
Canucks sound like Northern Yanks with a very slight Scottish accent (“oot,” “aboot”), and they end sentences with “eh,” eh?
Aussies sound like a bad Cockney impression (“saaand lawk a baaad Cotney imprishun”), and say “byeeewtee, myte!”
At least we Canucks don’t say “oy” all the time. 😆
At least the Christian Canucks don’t. The Jews in Canada–hmm, maybe. Oy vey ist mir!
Then there’s “La Belle Province” aka Quebec, but that’s another issue.
Careful you two; light-hearted banter, even consensual, can see uninvited 3rd parties sticking oars in and running to the latest ‘ism monitor. Or demanding facts to back up your humour.
A precedent oddly seldom applied to any BBC outing into the world of ‘analysis’ or ‘sources saying’.
Speaking of precedent, and those deemed unwelcome during the latest golf war, one has to wonder if there may be a time when comments from everyone, everywhere be mandatory without moderation lest the ban breach an ‘ism, which would trump a perception of offence.
Certainly a few BBC complaints heads would explode, but all will be well as they will just have to hire even more directors to say they have got it right for long enough so even the most patient eventually end up within the NHS and all will be resolved to the BBC’s satisfaction. Or crank out another unique exemption that means what is demanded of others does not apply to them.
I am reminded of the case of the female sports reporter who, despite resistance, insisted in gaining access to a male locker room ‘to do her job’, but once in then started kicking up about the atmosphere she found in there.
No winners. But the notion of a kamikaze individual doing all they can to get inside a place they loathe to cause havoc supported by a raft of rights is now well established.
I don’t see how the al-beeb would be remotely interested in pro-business down to Earth non eco-loon, Steven Harper. He’s everything al-beeb could hate.
Yep, and there’ll be another of those horrid, sensible conservative types installed in Oz soon.
BBC will be sooooo happy for them! 🙂
As we all know all too well, the highly questionable judgement and arrogance of Newsnight is breath-taking, and their desperation to see Obama arm the extremist-ridden rebels is also beyond doubt. If Gavin Esler and the team are so eager to get in there and arm the rebels, let’s hand them a compass and a map and leave them to it. I thought the congressman on tonight’s show did an excellent job of explaining why not to militarily go into another Muslim country. The BBC just cannot accept this; they are just desperate for the Jihad.
Surprisingly good “Analysis” on Radio 4 last night, featuring an unusually-independent minded philosopher called Jamie Whyte.
Goes right against the jazz-hands improv minset of the BBC when it comes to making laws…and hence the scandals in the NHS,tax authoritiesetc.
Glad it got through-but wonder how it did, at the same time!
Yes I was very surprised at that too.
Reporters were interviewing bystanders outside the hospital, I could be wrong but there doesn’t seem to be any, err, um, white English people living in London.
Wasn’t it nice to see the footman who put the notice up outside the palace was a muslim, the shape of things to come…..
we’ve got 37 years left before muslims become the majority.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3770/the_islamic_future_of_britain
I heard one commentator say ”that’s the Royal line of succession secure for 100 years”, but will the ethnic white British survive ? since 70% of babies born in London are Third Worlders. This is unsustainable. A nation can’t survive this onslaught / invasion.
them members of the religion of peace who wanted to commit mass murder at that edl rally treasonously called the Queen a “devil”. so i presume once they use democracy to impose sharia on us, the royal family will have to be evacuated to canada before the muslims can kill them.
as for the rest of us “Don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes”
I suppose you have evidence for that assertion? Because the ONS doesn’t record ethnicity of births, and has specifically warned against misinterpreting the stats it does keep.
Not that you ever let a lack of facts stop you, of course.
scott, dont let lack of facts stop you either, maybe you can provide some facts yourself to support your argument rather than just saying hes wrong
Actually, I have found some ONS data recording ethnicity, with the latest being for 2010, published in October 2012.
That data cannot, by any means, justify your assertion. Just like your “the police is 99.9% white” comment last weekend, I suspect you just made up a statistic to back up your own racist views.
If you have facts to back up your assertions, let’s see them. Break the habit of a lifetime and rely on facts – although on previous form, you’ll resort to name calling instead.
i never said 99.9% of police officers are white, it was someone else, i remember the post, and i think they were taking the piss as well.
stop wanting to get down and your hands and knees and giving a blow job to terrorists and you wont provoke a reaction from me
im not racist, like all lefties you just throw the racist tag around around to kill debate
scott, you should get your facts right, it wasnt me.
David Brims says:
July 21, 2013 at 4:28 pm
99.9 % of the police force is white, duh !
[Vote] 3 likes
he was taking the piss and you get on your leftist high horse. whats the abusive phrase you like to use? “sad little man”?. you want to have a good long look in the mirror
Calm down, Beebinator, or you’ll do yourself a mischief. Brims cited that as justification as why casting Idris Elba as a chief inspector was “contrived”. In this, as in other instances, he makes assertions that have no basis in fact. And if anybody challenges him, he or one of his fellow Biased BBC commenters resorts to personal abuse. Just as you are doing now.
Now, if David Brims wants to explain his “70% third worlders” comment and back it up with facts, we should let him. If he can’t, he should retract it.
I was replying to David Brims, who most certainly did say that 99.9% of the police were white (on that, as so many other things, he was wrong).
Not everything’s about you, and even if I had been replying to you there’s no call for that sort of language. Try and behave like a reasonable adult, for your own sake if no-one else’s.
scott, stop behaving like a spoilt 8 year old child who cant get their own way, not for your own sake, for everyone elses
Only being a recent intermittent contributor to these pages I cant comment on what went on before but since I have started to read here it appears the trolls or defenders of the BBC pick and choose what to defend. Page after page, comment after comment and nothing until a perceived ‘ism’ appears and then they are all over it like a cheap suit. Its pretty poor trolling to be honest.
Absolutely spot on. Countless examples of serious bias and they are nowhere to be seen, even when invited to comment.
This site contains countless examples of sweeping generalisations made by “preferred contributors”.
When invited to evidence these assertions they are either nowhere to be seen or they (and other “preferred contributors”) resort to personal attacks and abuse.
My comment applied particularly to you, Albaman.
28gate for starters? You’ve been asked to defend the BBC on it countless times and you can’t. The reason being it’s loaded with facts you can’t ‘deny’, just like any post on here asserting BBC bias on ‘climate change’.
Asking Albaman to comment on 28 gate or BBC bias on “Climate Change” is like shoving a crucifix under a vampire’s nose – guaranteed to see him off. Note that he hasn’t answered (for the umpteenth time) your question on 28 gate.
Quisling is an accurate description of you, so it is not name calling. I don’t understand why you don’t wear the name Quisling with pride.
With respect to Lufffaa, and I concede I am not an expert as I’ve only partly watched 2 of the recent episodes, but it does appear that the majority – if not all – the suspects are white. Does that high proportion of violent white suspect reflect the crime demographics of London, or does it appear a bit contrived.
Since all things are about race then and the chances of a black detective investigating predominately white criminals is unlikely, then the series is contrived. And contrived for a clear anti-white purpose. But again as a Quisling you should have no problem with it, nor take offence.
“With respect to Lufffaa……………….”.
What is your aim in using “Lufffaa” as opposed to Luther?
Old McPavlov had a dog, ee-ay-ee-ay-oh…
Lol
Ah, Scott.
On the ‘Priorities’ thread you wrote:
‘What is it about them [Andy S and David Brims] that makes you so afraid to let them know that they should answer straightforward questions?’
I then asked you:
‘Do you accept that the Primark Panorama, 28-Gate, Saville, Stuart Hall, the non-competitive recruitment of James Purnell, the phone-in scandals, Helen Boaden’s admission of ‘deep liberal bias’ on immigration, Lord McAlpine, £28m of gagging orders and the registering of BBC employees as companies to avoid paying tax mean that David Vance, Alan and the majority of posters on here have been absolutely right about the BBC all along?’
What is your answer?
I’d call it a day now, RCE. Don’t let your bedtime cocoa go cold for the sake of waiting for Scott. Just like Albaman, he can’t deal with indisputable evidence that the BBC is not only biased, but corrupt.
Yes, you ask it and ask it and ask it, like a petulant toddler unable to understand that there’s a reason the grown-ups are ignoring him.
That list includes issues which sites and journalists far better than Biased BBC have covered in more depth and more accuracy. It also includes issues which Biased BBC over inflates, adding conspiracy theory and unsubstantiated gossip with gay abandon in order that the otherwise impotent people who live on this site 24/7 get to feel slightly more important.
Both David Vance and Alan – as well as other blog posters, not to mention commenters – are unable to engage in actual debate. Both Vance and Alan have attempted to use IP banning and indiscriminate editing and deletion of comments when people have stood up to them. They, and you, claim the moral high ground while residing in a positio below the gutter.
“Both Vance and Alan have attempted to use IP banning and indiscriminate editing and deletion of comments when people have stood up to them. ”
Like the moderators at Comment Is Free in The Guardian, perchance ?
The Guardian has stated policies of behaviour, as do all the forums and blogs that I’ve moderated as part of my working life for the last 15+ years. Biased BBC has Alan’s capriciousness and lack of professionalism.
If you think that his behaviour is professional, you maybe deserve each other.
Yet another absolute non-response to a valid series of questions posed, vaguely citing ‘better opinions’, before launching into the old ad-hominem attacks.
No reasoned or demonstrably valid argument, no actual citing of authoritative opinions to the contrary, but plenty of personal attacks – from someone who clearly spends a large part of his waking hours monitoring this site, and then dismisses as impotent those who do so. Really well-thought out criticism there, then !
Par for the course for the ‘Defenders of the Faith’, I guess.
Don’t feed the flamer.
‘No reasoned or demonstrably valid argument….’
Whilst obeying new rules of engagement as regards the self-combusting day shift and colleagues, it is interesting to note the desperation creeping in to overwhelm any sense of irony or awareness of self delusion.
We’ve been treated to ‘a’ lawyer, ‘a’ journalist, and now have the Jedi masterdom of modding. On a says so basis, at least.
The BBC may try to repackage their draconian censorship in the same way Guardian CiF tries and fails to, but an expediting is still a ban, as is any referral or House Rule obliteration.
There is one rather key difference that seems to pass the hard of thinking by, and that is the BBC is funded, and imposes its censorship on those public who have in theory every right to hold it to account. The BBC however is unaccountable.
If that is ‘professional’ to some, then it’s the joint second oldest one.
The BBC has deployed on here the defenders it deserves. If they are content with the calibre & results derived, there may be less to worry about than feared.
“The BBC has deployed on here the defenders it deserves.” – Same old Guest Who. Who has the “BBC deployed on here” and what evidence of this deployment can you produce.
Grammar not your strong suit is it?
But in answer to your demanded answer, as the BBC would say,
There is holding to account, and there is Guest Who’s, shall we say ‘unique’, style of prose, where he tells everybody just why they are wrong and why he is right, in paragraphs that don’t actually clarify anything of the sort.
That’s not holding to account, that’s egotism. The BBC being licence fee-funded does not mean it has to pander to Guest Who’s ego.
That reply makes Albaman’s output seem almost rational. Especially the ones where he complains about off topic and the catty comments.
There was a time when I did have to compose a few paras for you to dig a deeper hole, but now it seems just having the temerity to have an alternative view is enough to see you set off. Irony-free hypocrisy in one neat package.
The BBC must be thrilled at the association, both literal & metaphorical.
Thank you.
Irony-free hypocrisy in one neat package.
I notice you don’t provide any refutation, GW, just personal attack. As anyone who’s been subject to your turgid prose in the past can attest, your sanctimoniousness goes hand in hand with your lack of a leg to stand on.
But by all means, carry on telling yourself, and anyone unfortunate enough to listen, that people not falling for your attempt to pass yourself off as intellectual is a failing on their part. We won’t think any less of you than we already do.
Keep digging PNG.
Seems you currently feel this is the only thread you and the all-inclusive ‘we’ you invoke feel safe on, so a service is at least still being provided.
Just saw a white man interviewed, but it was an anti-monarchist of course.
Scott
Tiresome.
Scott
Mark Easton 1.15, ” 30% of babies born in London are white British,” thus 70 % aren’t, duh !
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23416163
Scott, it’s from the BBC, so the statistic must be true.
Scott, do you think the BBC makes statistics up like ” 30% of babies born in London are white British” ?
Hoist by his own petard, so that’s game, set and match to me !
scott, i think you owe Mr Brims an apology.
My gut feeling is he won’t apologise because it takes great humility to admit you’re wrong and immature Scott just doesn’t have that attribute. I suspect he’ll do a Lord Lucan.
It appears someone at Biased BBC HQ has decided that my comments deserve pre-moderation. But Beebinator’s are apparently fine.
Which is, of course, completely in line with Biased BBC’s bizarre attitude to debate.
getting your facts wrong again scott, youre making a habbit of it.
mine was moderated, the one were you replied “Calm down, Beebinator, or you’ll do yourself a mischief. “
Scott – Do you accept that the Primark Panorama, 28-Gate, Saville, Stuart Hall, the non-competitive recruitment of James Purnell, the phone-in scandals, Helen Boaden’s admission of ‘deep liberal bias’ on immigration, Lord McAlpine, £28m of gagging orders and the registering of BBC employees as companies to avoid paying tax mean that David Vance, Alan and the majority of posters on here have been absolutely right about the BBC all along?
2 x 11 ‘likes’ for Scott, then 3 x 10. Looks like someone nipped out of the office for the lattes.
An apology or admittance of wrongdoing from a leftist is inconceivable.
What about an apology from David Brims? In the last couple of weeks, he’s come out with several racist statements, none of which are borne out by facts. When challenged, he gets abrasive and, rather than backing up his argument with well sourced information, reduces himself to making comments about those challenging him – swiftly followed up by others who swarm in to do the same.
In this instance, he was wrong. Again. But it’s the people the commenters on this site label as “leftists” who are told they should apologise, rather than the ones who fabricate nonsense to shore up their own mistaken beliefs.
I guess in the eyes of some of you, it’s more important to be racist than truthful.
‘In the last couple of weeks, he’s come out with several racist statements…’
Was David being critical of a race or a religion?
Some examples might help.
Read his comments in this thread for starters. Brims thinks that anyone who isn’t “White British” is a “Third Worlder”.
Brims seems to be obsessed with skin colour, and makes up statistics to try and justify his falsehoods. That isn’t to say his bigotries are exclusively about race, though.
“Well, Scott, my friend, I don’t think London is choc-a- bloc full of immigrants from Iceland, do you ? ”
Don’t think Mr Brims is claiming the folk of Iceland to be “3rd worlders”…they’re not “White British”
In fact, he tends to point at 3rd worlders to describe….well….3rd worlders…y’know….all factual n that.
To call him racist for basically observing that most (not all) but most 3rd world countries tend to have VERY different cultures to our own, and contain mainly folk of….ohhhh….how do I say this without being called “waaaaaysist”…erm….darker than pink….yeah, they’ll do…”darker than pink colour” is ridiculous.
He’s being factual, that’s all…if you don’t like it….tough.
Oh dear, dear. Brims said 70% of all London births were to “Third Worlders”, a figure he derived by subtracting a 30% “White British” figure from 100%. So he was suggesting that everyone who doesn’t self-describe as White British must be in his mythical 70% “Third Worlder” figure.
It’s really not that difficult to spot what he was doing, and where he was going very, very wrong. Do try to keep up.
Scott – Do you accept that the Primark Panorama, 28-Gate, Saville, Stuart Hall, the non-competitive recruitment of James Purnell, the phone-in scandals, Helen Boaden’s admission of ‘deep liberal bias’ on immigration, Lord McAlpine, £28m of gagging orders and the registering of BBC employees as companies to avoid paying tax mean that David Vance, Alan and the majority of posters on here have been absolutely right about the BBC all along?
So you think that anyone who isn’t classified as “White British” is a “Third Worlder”? Thank you for another insight into the simplistic mind of David Brims.
Well, Scott, my friend, I don’t think London is choc-a- bloc full of immigrants from Iceland, do you ?
No, they’d be “White Other” – whose quantity in the ONS statistics dwarfs those of any non-white ethnic grouping (26,000+ births compared to 14,500 classified as Black African).
So this would seem to be just one more occasion where the facts disprove your comments.
That’s right Scott, London is a completely all white city, pure as the driven snow, hardly any West Indian, Africans or muslims live there. The Last time I visited I didn’t see any !!
Did I say it was white only? Of course I didn’t. However, I quoted stats to disprove your initial point. Which, as has happened before, is the point at which you start getting especially huffy and try to change the subject.
Funny, that.
I’m bored.
Yep, just like a child gets “bored” when he does not get his own way.
Out of interest David what made you a racist? What life experiences makes you believe that “white” is superior?
Witnessing the incomparable brilliance of Andy Murray?
Do you accept that the Primark Panorama, 28-Gate, Saville, Stuart Hall, the non-competitive recruitment of James Purnell, the phone-in scandals, Helen Boaden’s admission of ‘deep liberal bias’ on immigration, Lord McAlpine, £28m of gagging orders and the registering of BBC employees as companies to avoid paying tax mean that David Vance, Alan and the majority of posters on here have been absolutely right about the BBC all along?
Scott isn’t isn’t answering that question. You’d think he’d find more interesting things to do with his time than obsessively surfing Google all day trying to find any statistic that would prove some of the contributors he stalks are wrong in what they say. The poor man must be suffering from some form of extreme O.C.D.
I think he should seek some professional medical advice. It can’t be healthy for a person to obsess over minor factual error so much he continually refers to them for weeks or months after.
Bless. Not taking shit from the likes of Brims or Andy S is now a mental disorder. HOW DARE PEOPLE DEBATE WITH FACTS. IT’S SO UNFAIR! PEOPLE WHO ANSWER FACT FREE COMMENTS WITH DISAGREEMENT ARE JUST STALKERS!
If I were more like some of Biased BBC’s more sensitive flowers, I’d be whining on about “ad hominem” attacks from the likes of Andy S long before now. Thankfully, I just choose to laugh at his inanity instead.
Incidentally, you asked the same question on a single thread at 9:32pm, 9:37pm, 9:38pm and 9:40pm.
With that sort of behaviour, anybody’d be forgiven for thinking you were a needy little attention-seeker who didn’t realise that others don’t consider your questions in the same high regard you seem to, and who is incapable of appreciating that people have lives outside of the web. I’m sure that impression must be misleading, though – isn’t it?
The Moral maze discussing equality and as a sub discussion equality of outcome – also known as Communism.
They even claim that despite wrecking British society equality of opportunity is further away than ever. They see this as a reason to wreck society even more. I see it as a total indictment of their failure of fantasy politics, and their inability to see what they’ve done.
Around 14,000 babies will be born in the UK this week, but it’s almost certain that none of them will have the same privileged start in life as the new royal baby. We’re all born equal; some, of course, are more equal than others. But does it matter? And what should we do about it? Today politicians of all shades have signed up very publicly to the principle of equality of opportunity, but the reality is that our nation is as divided as ever. It’s claimed that the richest 10% of the UK are more than 100 times as wealthy as the poorest 10%. For some the answer is not just to level the playing field, but to tip it in favour of the most disadvantaged; in the name of equality, positively to discriminate in favour of those who have been denied their chance in life by an accident of birth. Can you ever impose equality, or is the only just and fair answer to allow people to rise or fall on their own merit? If we really believed that inequality was unjust and morally indefensible, wouldn’t we be doing something to redistribute incomes and opportunity? Or is the real moral problem the fact that most people – and certainly, most middle class people – sign up to the principles of egalitarianism, but only want “equal chances” for everyone else’s children? When it comes to their own they’ll do everything they can to ensure they get a head start.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0376nd3
They even manage to get a dig in over the Royal baby! Shocking. The previous topic was ‘Are mixed communities a moral good?’ I can tell you that ! No they aren’t!
al beeb advocating communism? nothing new there. Churchill denounced the BBC as a communist operation which resulted in [him] leading the campaign to introduce commercial television into the UK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_controversies#1950s:_Independent_television_controversy
To be precise:
” Lord Moran (Sir Charles Watson), recorded that Churchill denounced the BBC as a communist operation which resulted in Churchill leading the campaign to introduce commercial television into the UK.”
Interesting that you excluded the first part of the sentence. Lord Moran was Churchill’s doctor.
“The arrival of ITV was greeted with derision by many when it began in 1955, ………………….”
“It was generally considered among the great and the good to be the end of civilisation as they knew it. The coming of commercial television in 1955 sent a collective shiver down the spine of the establishment. Lord Reith likened its arrival to the introduction of smallpox to Britain, while Winston Churchill memorably dismissed it as “a twopenny Punch and Judy Show”.
http://www.thestage.co.uk/features/2005/06/commercial-breakout-itvs-50th-birthday/
so why did MI5 have room 105 at broadcasting house until 1988 if it wasnt worried about communists at the bbc? has that threat gone away or do MI5 just do the same job from their own building?
Are you going to name those you consider to be communists?
Alan earlier this week claimed “BBC journalists are morally and professionally corrupt distorting and exploiting the democratic process to rig elections…or so they hope usng the BBC and its privileged position, authority and credibility as their personal soapbox.”
Strangely for Alan, when challenged to name these journalist he neither replied nor edited his initial comment.
If contributors to this site are going to make such assertions surely they should have the courage of their convictions and name the individuals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_Stonham
You still fail to name those you consider to be communists.
my comments are being moderated, how can i name them? such information would be classified under the official secrets act. suspect communists were given a green christmas tree stamp on their files. maybe in 50 years the government will declassify the documents
In what way would you naming those you consider to be communists be a breach of the Official Secrets Act?
your twisting the argument, i never said i could name people, i said
“al beeb advocating communism? nothing new there”
obviously the government considered the BBC a communist threat otherwise that little green stamp would never have been made
any people MI5 suspected, would be classified information under the official secrets act, maybe in 50 years, when we are all dead and the BBC long privatised, the government will tell us the names of the subversives it protected us from
OK, I understand now. It was a “communist operation” without any communists (or at least any that you are prepared to name).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_controversies#1930s_to_Cold_War:_MI5_vetting
MI5 and the BBC: Stamping the ‘Christmas Tree’ Files
http://www.bilderberg.org/mi5bbc.htm
Albaman, are you denying, notwithstanding all the evidence, that the government and security services considered the BBC a risk of being infiltrated by communists and stamped suspected communists with a green stamp on their file?
i’ll let you get the last word in, i wont reply, i’ll let ppl make their own mind up, im off for lunch and a pint
A “risk” is something that might happen.
“Suspected” is different from proven.
Despite repeated requests you have failed to name any person at the BBC, either now or in the past that you consider to be a communist.
Enjoy your beer but please check under the table in case any communists are lurking there.
Well the Cultural Studies academic Ben Harker certainly seems to think that there was an attempt (of which he approves of course) by various Communists to use the BBC as a propaganda platform
“The mid 1930’s expansion of regional BBC staff saw the influx and
promotion of permanent employees sympathetic to leftist agendas (John Pudney, Olive Shapley, D G Bridson) and the entrance into the BBC of individual communists (James
Miller / Ewan MacColl, A. L. Lloyd, Joan Littlewood) who established more tentative footholds as casual scriptwriters, actors and presenters….. the radio adaptation of Clifford Odets’ agitprop play Waiting for Lefty, a key text of the 1930s whose recorded radio adaptation was pulled by the BBC in February 1939, and communist A. L. Lloyd’s ‘The Voice of the Seaman’ (December 1938) which was critically acclaimed on its original broadcast but sidelined and never
repeated after complaints from shipping companies. Focussing on a small cluster of programmes also feted by communists, including ‘Cold Coal’ (September 1938),
‘Summer in Wales’ (August 1937), and ‘Eleven Thousand Whalermen’ (August 1939), I argue that such broadcasts were welcomed by communists as political interventions,
especially in their celebration of the political and cultural resources of the working class. These programmes were also, I argue, regarded as innovative creative acts which began
to mobilise the medium of radio’s full potential, pre-figuring the consciousness raising, counter
-hegemonic function that radical broadcasting might play in the context of the BBC under a popular front alternative to the National Government.”
Quite frankly Commercial television is utter shite. The BBC is dangerous in its political ideology in that it insists on perpetuating the big state, high tax, left wing theory that discriminates financially and, in my opinion, morally, against the majority.
Again a troll, picks and chooses what to debate/argue while ignoring page after page and comment after comment. Why do you do that? Why not respond in debate rather than try and pick off occasional topics and when you are debunked you stop and then head for another target some pages later?
Don’t entirely agree, Banquo – I reckon Sky’s drama series make the BBC’s efforts look amateurish (which they are – poor plots, weak scripts, dialogue and characterisation that’s so out of touch with real life it’s laughable, and appalling acting). The only exception I’ve seen over the last year was ‘Good Cops’, which was excellent.
Unless you were referring to just ITC/Channel 4 of course…..
That’s fair enough, I was referring to ITV/Channels 4 + 5. I will bow to those who watch more than me. 🙂
Sorry to chuck my tuppence worth in like a bit of a troll but I find Sky pretty unwatchable apart from sport coverage as the adverts are far too common and utterly annoying. I understand that commercial TV relies on advertising revenue but in some cases it really does destroy the viewing experience. What the answer is I can’t say but there needs to be a happy medium. You are right about the poor quality of most BBC drama though and it’s usually riddled with PCness
Completely agree about the adverts and find now I’m unable to watch commercial TV programmes at the time of broadcast, so I record them and fast forward through the ads.
Agree with Johnny here.
A one-hour show always used to be broadcast in three parts, with commercial breaks fairly evenly spaced.
Now we have End of Part 1 about five minutes in to the show, and a ridiculously short Part 4 right at the end.
Also, an ad break now includes sponsor messages and programme plugs.
On the other hand, we have BBC drama, which has no commercial breaks, but is itself one long commercial for the Labour Party.
All parents should prevent their children watching TV. It is the biggest factor in the decline of our nation’s ability to properly educate them . No ifs or buts about it.
And that goes for unsupervised Internet use as well.
Parents abdication of responsibility for the welfare of their children in this matter is very odd considering how little real freedom they allow them to interact with the real outside world.
I watched lots of telly when I was a kid, never harmed my education (selective private, Cambridge) — in fact it enhanced my general knowledge immeasurably. But then that was in the days when Open University programmes were on BBC 2 during the afternoon.
BBC : ‘US politician admits sex chats again
Flanked by his wife, New York mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner admits yet again sending lewd messages to a woman, but refuses to quit the race.’
No mention of in the on-line headline and short blurb of his party allegiance, so I’m guessing….. Democrat?
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/07/new_york_city_mayoral_candidat.html
‘New York City mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner admits to more lewd photos, texts. NEW YORK — DEMOCRATIC* New York City mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner admitted on Tuesday to sending additional explicit photos and texts’
* My emphasis, certainly not the BBC’s
😳 ‘Carlos Danger’. 😳
As if the world hadn’t seen enough of Anthony’s Weiner already.
Get your own ‘sext pseudonym’ here…
http://tinyurl.com/m6apxgy
‘Raphael Verboten’ – giggitty.
Marcelino Catastrophe
That’s right!
Studley Large-One!!
OK, I made that one up…….
“Leandro Violence” :0
Honestly can’t see that being an attraction to women I might try to sext.
When playing the old porn star name game, i.e. name of first pet and mothers maiden name, a girl I worked with had everyone beat with Misty O’Keefe. We all gave up after that!
Public service broadcasting?
BBC 5 Live seems to pride itself on the on air banter.
But is it all innocent jokey and lighthearted?
This morning chucklehead Nicky Campbell manages to slip in an advert for his ITV show….
‘When’s our Long Lost Family being reunited?’
Nice one Nicky.
Makes up for the fact that you insist that you
‘are not a BBC employee’
remember you said that when you got all narky when challenged about receiving the hefty BBC Salford relocation bung?
let me guess, he is not an employee as he is self employed for tax purposes? Another one of the greedy hypocites that has turned themselves into a company to avoid the higher levels of tax he would have to pay as an employee? Of course, nothing wrong with it and it is not illegal. But that does not stop him and the BBC deliberately mixing up turnover with profit and expecting corporations to pay tax on the former, instead of and in complete disregard for the latter and savagely attacking any company that pays less than what the beeboids think is a “fair” share of tax.
Just a point of information: personal service companies do NOT avoid higher levels of tax once the income has been put through the company and paid out (mainly) as dividends. PSCs avoid payment of national insurance – both employer’s and employee’ s – since dividends are not subject to NI.
Since our rulers insist on differentiating between moneys paid over to them from wages as “tax” or “national insurance contributions” then it seems to me that Nicky is not avoiding tax at all.
Furthermore, you could argue that since part of of the money raised through NI contributions go to support the NHS then Nicky – by being paid through a PSC – is deliberately setting out to starve the NHS of funding. Given the BBC’s position concerning the holiness of the NHS this should be a career-threatening choice by Nicky and the BBC’s other sub-contractors: apparently not.
In any event, he’s a prize hypocrite up there with Lady Hodge but tax avoider? No.
Ill bet he pays a lot less in tax as a PCS than he would if he was paid PAYE and paid his 45% + NI.
In an old thread there was a discussion of PSCs in which I set out an example to demonstrate that the tax “saved” through PSCs was effectively the NI avoided. Accordingly, Nicky – a scrote and hypocrite of the first water if ever there was one – is only avoiding the payment of NI: he is paying the rest in corporation tax and income tax levied on dividends.
Mind you, I wouldn’t put it past him – or the rest of the financial experts at the BBC and elsewhere – to consider themselves very clever and actually believe that a PSC allows them to avoid tax. Of course, since NI contributions are a tax in everything but name, a PSC does facilitate the avoidance of payments to the Treasury.
As you no doubt appreciate, the politicians could do away with this anomaly tomorrow if they wanted to. Manifestly, they don’t want to. As you’ll see if you read the thread cited, the reasons for this are not difficult to uncover.
Oxfam whingeing this morning that donations were drying up, then trying to say that not enough bric-a-brac was being handed in to their High Street “shops”. They failed to mention that a). There’s an awful lot of competition in what’s left of the High Streets, and b). many folk are utterly pissed off with charity fat cats making off with the money intended for needy targets, ans are refraining from donating. Poor Oxfam. Poor WWF, poor RSPCA, poor Greenpeace….
More and more people are choosing to only donate to smaller local charities that they know and trust and which do not employ executives on six figure salaries with massive expense accounts, or waste money on political campaigning.
This is very true and I hope it continues. The big charity gravy train is well overdue a derailment.
I note that Oxfam’s advertisement for more donations was treated as part of the national news on Radio 4 this morning. Is this the start of another Third Sector/BBC/Guardian campaign (cf the attempted defenestration of Lynton Crosby) to embarrass the government into (mis)directing more of the taxpayers’ cash direct to the BBC’s favourite charities?
I stopped donating to and shopping in Oxfam when I found out how much they get from the EU and the UK government. That’s my tax money to start with (which I resent), so they’re not getting any of my disposable as well.
Oxfam seem-yet again-to have a brilliant new shop front, and extensive refurbishment on our local high street.
I will not give them a penny-they obviously have plenty money to be rebranding themselves every couple of years.
I only use local, one-off charity shops and hospices/lifeboats these days-I`m not paying for Barnardos etc to do their shops up and pay each other obscene salaries to suck up to Labour in all its guises.
I exclusively donate/help local charities only now. I insist on knowing where the money is going and see how it helps the intended recipients and I get to know the staff and volunteers who make it all work.
Nearly all of the big name charities are bogus. Largely funded by the taxpaper, they are advocacy groups used by the government to push its own (frequently unpopular) policies. They also provide employment to leftists and libtards who can’t find gainful employment in the real world, which is partly why the ‘charity’ sector was expanded by the last Labour regime. An excellent description of this can be found in a report from the Institute of Economic Affairs:
http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/sock-puppets-how-the-government-lobbies-itself-and-why
Keep going, Old Goat, you’ve nearly got the full list of attendees at the BBC’s 28gate meeting…
You mean the one with all the “climate experts” as attendees, the list of which, for some reason, they wanted to keep secret? That one?
None of them gets anything from me directly, but my taxes sure are a different issue.
BBC Headline: Primary place shortfall of 120,000, claims Labour
“The squeeze on primary places stems from a rising birth-rate and increased immigration. ”
no mention that the “squeeze” was caused by Labour’s open door policy that flooded our country with 3.2 million foreigners while it was in power
Has Labour’s open-door immigration policy wrecked Britain for ever?
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/haveyoursay/382786/Has-Labour-s-open-door-immigration-policy-wrecked-Britain-for-ever
2010 – year zero.
All this stuff…just…sort of…happened.
No need for blame anyway, it’s all good.
Until 2010 came along, or if Thatcher was involved.
Yes, to underline the point, it appears to be BBC-NUJ policy to-
a.) advocate open-door, mass immigration into Britain (as does Labour Party);
b.) to deny the consequent problems in, e.g. shortage of primary school places, are at all connected with Labour Party’s mass immigration policies!
As an illustration, note this uneducated report by BBC-NUJ, which censors out all reference to Labour Party, and to its mass immigration policy.
The politically myopic Ms Burns:-
“Primary place shortfall of 120,000, claims Labour”
By Judith Burns,
She’s ‘BBC News education reporter’ (who can’t/won’t see political connection to Labour’s mass immigration).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23424682
‘Express’:
“Labour calls for immigration cut down after letting in 3.2 million foreigners.
“Labour shamelessly called for an immigration crackdown yesterday – despite allowing 3.2 million foreigners to flood into Britain while it was in power.”
(March, 2013.)
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/382693/Labour-calls-for-immigration-cut-down-after-letting-in-3-2-million-foreigners
Can’t find any ref on the Beeb to this:
David Cameron: ‘Immigration is constant drain on public services’
What’s the point of the chief Rabbi?
He apparently speaks on behalf of all the Jews – bad luck on the atheist ones!
A little like calling someone with no religion a Christian or Muslim. A much an oxymoron as a giant dwarf !
Atheist Jews? I’m missing something here.
The Chief Rabbi represents the “United Synagogues of GB ” only. The Jews are a broard church ( see what I did there ) orthodox, reform, liberal. He is not an offical spokesman but does seem to be sort after when a none Jewish organisation wants a Jewish perspective.
Always with the ” AWAITING MODERATION “. No wonder we have a persecution complex.
Hitler offed ethnic jews. He didnt care whether they believed or not. It was the ethnicity that mattered.
Plenty of jews don’t believe in Judaism anymore. Stephen fry for a start. He is an ethnic Jew but his hatred of Judaism and his distrust of what he refers to as Zionism seems to have no bounds .
Can`t imagine that they`ll be able to replace the mighty Jonathan Sacks.
Didn`t agree with all he said, but his intellect is rare in public service….sadly, we were left with old ShariaShill (dear Rowan) who was a disaster through this first bit of the 21stC.
I don’t think I have ever heard a Nicky Campbell BBC phone-in debate without knowing exactly which side Nicky supports.
This morning it is all about domestic violence and of course something must be done. You know something the government and police must do. There must be some new law.
Our Nicky could hardly support anything different to that state centered solution – could he?
I paraphrase only very slightly…..
‘It would be a wonderful and fitting tribute if this new law were named after your daughter!’
No point in having any debate then.
The BBC man has decided for us.
I’m guessing the discussion was entirely asymmetric, with only one group as perpetrator and the other as victim.
I might be wrong, but I’ll bet there were no male victims interviewed.
Am I missing something?
Hasn`t domestic violence plummeted in the last few years…one of the few crimes of violence that has?
Yet-to quote the likes of Erin Pizzeys descendents-if one woman is getting bad body language or refused money for a new hat…then that`ll be abuse and MUST be stamped out.
And keep us funded, keep our pass onto Womans Hour until we decide there`s no problem…Twelth of Never.
Any BBC types able to tell us about the rise in unfounded/malicious allegations of abuse against innocent blokes then?…a rising scandal-and surely worthy of an “inquiry” by the BBC?
Oh sorry-wrong kind of victims…you`ll not be needing to know!
Victims are increasingly easy to come by when you continually expand the definition of ‘abuse’…
http://tinyurl.com/mh3yskl
http://tinyurl.com/k7quq3x
These are genuine. Not. Kidding.
They may be genuine but what connection do they have to the BBC?
Just following on from a previous comment, slight tangent but still connected. Conversational drift.
Are you policing the open threads now for strict relevance, Mr. Compliance.
BBC promoting West Indian patois again……
Their short link to a story today:
‘Fresh appeal for abandoned baby mum’
This is form of phrasing is becoming a habit.
Do you remember BBC 5 Live going big with this story….?
Sport, evil capitalism and Isam all mixed up – how could they not get excited?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23347131
‘Papiss Cisse has pulled out of Newcastle’s pre-season tour to Portugal after refusing to wear club sponsor Wonga’s logo on religious grounds.’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22857014
‘It is understood the 28-year-old striker wants to remain at the club, but is worried his Muslim beliefs would be compromised if he were seen to promote the company. ‘
Well look at this….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-23424012
‘Footballer Papiss Cisse ‘let Muslims down’ in casino visit’
Funny I’ve not heard a dickybird on 5 Live.
Do correct me if I’m ‘Wronga’
Seems appropriate… http://tinyurl.com/29lgdu5
Maybe it was a different time… and Wear (before the day shift get excited that it was mentioned somewhere)?
Supplementary.
“What are the odds of that?
£40,000-a-week Muslim Premier league star who refused to wear shirt sponsored by loan firm Wonga is spotted GAMBLING in casino”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2374711/Muslim-footballer-Papiss-Cisse-refuses-wear-Newcastle-Wonga-shirt-pictured-GAMBLING-casino.html
Gone a bit chilly round here hasn`t it?
Nice tumbleweed eh?
Mr Cisse appears to be happy to accept his wages from this sponsor – have the beeb posed his tough question?
A few days ago there was a ‘horror smash’ in Bolton when two racing cars collided with another car and some pedestrians. Today, BBC Radio Manchester reported that ‘three men’ had been charged with a multitude of driving offences. No names. Their names are on the Manchester Evening News website –
Mohammed Vohra, 20, of Mancroft Avenue, Bolton, has been charged with perverting the course of justice.
Mohammed Usman Patel, 20, of Leech Street, Bolton, has been charged with perverting the course of justice, causing serious injury by dangerous driving, driving while disqualified and driving without insurance.
Furqaan Mohmed, 19, of Gibbon Street, Bolton, has been charged with two counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving.
The Bolton News also carries their names yet nothing from the BBC. Why so shy about revealing their names? They’re out there, why don’t you report it? Why the kidology?
You can be sure that if Nick Griffin was racing Tommy Robinson through the streets of Bolton we’d know all about it … courtesy of BBC Radio Manchester.
That BBC page is now showing as 404 – Page Not Found. Maybe all mention of this case must be censored by the BBC.
It’s on the BBC News website although I was specifically referring to BBC Radio Manchester which called them ‘men’ and didn’t give their names during the news roundup. I though I’d clarify that before Albumen and his bumchums get involved.
It wasn’t as if they were stretched for time, they managed to catalogue the driving offences. They did it twice too, once at ten and then again half an hour later. Like I said, their names are out there and have been on the Manchester Evening News website for a couple of hours. The BBC obviously did not fancy revealing their names. Maybe, it’s something to do with ‘the holy month of Ramadan’ – two of them were called Mohammed. lol. We can’t have people associating Mohammed with crime, can we?
the reason why their names were not mentioned is because of what al beeb would term “community cohesion”
They did it to their own ‘community’.
http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/10565065.Prayers_for_victims_of__racing__horror_crash_in_St_Helens_Road/?ref=mr
Insha’Allah
In contrast they were very quick to include the name of Mohammed X (can’t remember his second name) – who helped apprehend a fleeing robber in central London (Charlotte Street?) – in a news item on PM the other night.
Amazing inconsistency for such a world-beating broadcasting organisation.
Completely off topic – if you’re not a fan of bossy, priggish authoritarians…
http://order-order.com/2013/07/24/should-guido-sue-claire-perry/
Vote quickly, poll closes at noon!
2,276 votes yes 86.21%
364 votes no 13.79%
Result!
http://order-order.com/2013/07/24/poll-result-86-of-readers-say-sue-claire-perry-guido-has-instructed-lawyers-to-commence-proceedings/
gotta love democracy in action. now if only al beeb would give us a vote on whether or not to privatise the beeb and scrap the telly tax
If the beeb gave us such a vote, their vast army of brainwashed viewers would vote to keep the BBC as is. And even if they failed to win that vote, they would rig it. Like they did with so many TV competitions and even the name of a new Blue Peter pet.
For a real hoot, read this satirical piece about the BBC by Bill Quango MP
Ed Miliband set on reform, but not on break with the BBC
here is the link:
http://www.cityunslicker.com/2013/07/miliband-reviews-labours-historic-links.html
It says it all!
Poor Stephanie Flanders, whatever’s a token BBC economics editor to do when the news doesn’t favour the stance she and the beeb have been trying to shovel down our throats since the coalition got in:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23424527
Apparently, cutting local authority spending by 25% (note that the article uses ‘real’ cuts rather than nominal ones, a weasely tactic in its own right) has no impact on the services delivered. Whilst this is doubtless news to those who frequent westminster, to the rest of us its all a bit pedestrian.
As spending has gone down, people are happier with local authority performance; this is ‘impressive’ to our intrepid editoress, but again any normal person would of course be happy to be spending less on services that are often far less than ‘essential’.
She suggests that the right are surprised by the amount of fat in local government spending (i.e. there is even more than they thought), whilst the left put this down to good stewardship by local authorities in minimising the impact of the drastic cuts. The latter statement is a gem of doublethink when you analyse it: the clear inference to be drawn is that labour local authorities have been mismanaging their money, but rather than call a shovel a shovel, plucky Stephanie manages to convince us that its evidence of good management skills in the face of those nasty right wing bullies taking lunch money from the disabled.
Which gets us the core slander of the article: the coalition has achieved the seeming miracle of improvements during austerity by pushing over disabled people and stealing their wallets. Never mind the fact that the bulk of the people claiming disability were merely labelled as such under the labour government to make unemployment rates look better; now, as the coalition tackles this issue by actually making sure that people who claim disability are truly disabled, its morphed by the BBC into a statement about the cuts hurting the most vulnerable in society.
Perhaps more relevant to the article’s core argument however is how Stephanie has managed to confuse central government cuts on disability payments to local authority cuts. This is an attempt at sleight of hand that really is impressive in its chutzpah. At the same time, to further obfuscate the issue, we are told that the NHS also shows improvements in productivity at a time of cuts. I’m really not sure why this is thrown into this smorgasbord of an article, but I assume its so we make the link that local government cuts are evil because they affect the NHS.
The parting conclusion is also hilarious in a tragic way, considering this is coming from a credentialed economist: Stephanie muses, if there is so much ‘hidden capacity’ [i.e. wasteful spending built up during labour’s last tenure] in local government, perhaps there is something similar in the private sector. This is astonishing naivete; does Stephanie really believe that the private sector can afford to waste money like the public sector does? Of course not, but to suggest otherwise would highlight that public spending is the worst way of delivering services, a reality that is anathema to the BBC.
‘She suggests that the right are surprised by the amount of fat in local government spending….’
Errr…………no – the non-jobs were there for all to see.
‘……if there is so much ‘hidden capacity’ [i.e. wasteful spending built up during labour’s last tenure] in local government, perhaps there is something similar in the private sector.’
Ha ha ha ha. Oh, no, hee hee hee hee hee. Please stop. Beyond parody, BBC. Way – nay WAAAAAAY – out of touch.
I would suggest that before passing comment you read the actual article rather than the biased paraphrased version provided by Gunn.
The parting conclusion actually says:
“But we economists might come away with a more positive thought: if there was this much hidden capacity lurking in local government – who knows, maybe we’re seriously underestimating the rest of the economy’s potential as well.” – Rather different from the wording used by Gunn.
There would appear to be much hidden capacity at the BBC judging from the payouts thrown around with gay abandon.
But then the BBC is above ordinary economic imperatives. It is literally in a world of it’sd own devising.
I have said it before the business model of the BBC stinks.
Your comments are quite disingenuous. I’ll address your claim that my analysis of the conclusion was misleading:
“if there was this much hidden capacity lurking in local government”
This is clearly a euphemism. When she talks about ‘hidden capacity’, what is actually meant is wasteful spending.
“– who knows, maybe we’re seriously underestimating the rest of the economy’s potential as well”
The rest of the economy is:
central government spending + the private sector.
I doubt very much that a leftist like Flanders is really promoting the idea that central government has ‘hidden capacity’, as the major plank in the BBC’s attack on the coalition is the idea that the so-called ‘cuts’ they’re making will harm the nation.
Which leaves the private sector.
Now, when Flanders states that she might be underestimating the private sector’s potential, what does she actually mean? Note that this statement is in the context of the local government ‘hidden capacity’. I think its fairly self-evident that she is claiming an equivalent ‘hidden capacity’ in the private sector. Why she does this is to draw attention away from the public sector being essentially corrupt, and to make it seem that public and private sectors play an equal role in the overall economy, when in fact the best way to understand the public/private split is a parasite (the government) feeding off a host (the private sector).
That was certainly my interpretation of the Flanders article when reading it before coming on this site. (I have to admit to having some sympathy for Albaman though as he seems to be tasked with defending the indefensible!)
“Now, when Flanders states that she might be underestimating the private sector’s potential, what does she actually mean?”
Basically, Flanders is asking for a lot more taxes on the private sector.
She seems incapable of understanding that the entire public sector is funded by the “left over” (taxed) profit of the private sector. Whether that be direct through taxation, or delayed through later taxation to repay government debt + interest. Without private profits to tax, there would be no public sector at all.
The more that the private sector is taxed, the less well it performs and overall taxation reduces.
“Now, when Flanders states that she might be underestimating the private sector’s potential, what does she actually mean?”
But she did not day that. This is the bBBC problem – you are quoting something that was not said in the article.
As I said initially – read the original article not Gunn’s biased paraphrasing of it.
Gunn good analysis. Thanks for the Flanders link too. One hopes that the likes of Flanders, Peston, Evans and other astronomically paid BBC economists are not also damaging the UK economy by receiving their renumeration as ‘self employees’ and doing even more damage to the UK economy, by such tax avoidance.
‘…maybe we’re seriously underestimating the rest of the economy’s potential as well.’
The rest of the economy being precisely what, do you think, Albaman, once you take away the public sector?
Go back and read the actual article – she said “local government” not “public sector”.
You really are a troll Albaman.
The definition of the economy is usually a variant of:
public spending + private spending
Public spending = local government spending + central government spending
When Flanders says ‘the rest of the economy’ she is therefore referring to
Central government spending + private spending
Now, lets consider the options:
i. she is stating that she and economists like her are underestimating the potential of central government spending.
ii. she is underestimating the potential of private spending
iii. a mix of i. and ii.
Now, using our intelligence, we can deduce that being a beeboid who is staunchly against cuts, Flanders is unlikely to be referring to option i or iii, as ‘hidden capacity’ is a euphemism for wasted spending – something that she would never admit for central government.
So why didn’t she simply say the private sector’s potential is likely underestimated in her article?
For plausible deniability, and so that mouthbreathing idiots like you could use semantic diversions as a way of rebutting valid criticisms of her article.
A succinct exercise in verbal reasoning. Nice one.
I think contributors to this site are being optimistic expecting a leftie like Albaman to understand economics. He’ll be asking Montie Don next how to he can increase the produce from the Money Tree in Ed Balls’ back garden.
talking of trolls.. when I visit this site nowadays whole threads often seem to be taken up by pointless “you said this – oh no i di’nt!.. can people just stop feeding the trolls for god sake? Ignore them, it’s easy. Treat their comments as so much white space. Do not reply.
If someone here makes a gross, dumb or unintended error eg ‘the communists have killed 100 billion people’ instead of 100 million then anyone sensible here needs to just point out the error and move on. Why on earth do comments stray into pained discussions about BBC related nitpicking minutiae with the likes of….Dez, Scott, Albaman, blah blah? It’s not like they’ll have any kind of epiphany. Nor will any of us anti-Beeb lot change our minds from their standpoint. That standpoint is pretty much always summed up by pointing out a mote and missing the giant f__k off beam. I don’t think it is a case of having reasoned debate with the ‘leftist’ viewpoint any more. It’s time to stop pretending there’s some middle ground.
I’m happy to acknowledge that, as a racist sexist homophobic islamophobic right-wing nutjob quite likely to vote edl, bnp,ukip…(takes breath) libertarian, Rand loving isreal and usa supporting anti-green tinfoil hat wearing reactionary evil occidental empire loving nazi – I’m happy to acknowledge I have nothing more to learn from the likes of the aforementioned trolls. If and or when society goes tits up it’ll just be a case of which side wins, and who gets to put whom up against the wall for a firing squad. I see no point in debating with the snivelling libtard tw-ts in the meantime.
ps I’m not really quite so right-wing as I indicated , but society has moved so leftwards over the last 30 years that I’m like gengis bloody khan now.
Mum, is that you?
I think that there is a debate to be had between “conservatives” and “liberals” which will (hopefully) never end, because it is a debate about what it is to be a human being, but as I get older I increasingly view the Left as nutjobs who are not the slightest bit interested in reality (or at least any reality other than themselves) and so I have some sympathy with what you are saying, but to shut down the possibility that even nutjobs may sometimes spot some truth is a dangerous path.
Besides you sharpen your blade against dull rocks, and Leftists always want to shut down debate because they know that in a free debate they always lose, because ultimately their hatred of reality is hatred of themselves.
They try to project their bile onto others but it just blows back into their faces.
Shutting down debate – ie the liberal left on default mode, isn’t what I really had in mind. The right (or further right than ConLabLib perhaps) – has already been denied access to the mainstream media except for the odd Telegraph article . We have already lost there.
I’m just saying do not address their nitpicking comments on this site as they seem purely designed to hijack and disrupt the flow. Yes they are trying to shut down what they think is a ‘non-orthodox’ point of view. Is BBC bias a ‘settled science’ like good old global warming? Maybe there’s room for reasoned arguments -in a broader or ‘meta’ sense about how and why BBC output is seen by the right as outrageous bias.
Maybe many on the left think they are actually centre-ground moderates, I suspect they are lying hypocritical scumbags myself. For all the thousands of comments I’ve read here over the years outlining BBC bias the opposition commonly picks up on the tiny exception, a slightly off paraphrase, a misattributed quote. It gets into a slanging match and it just doesnt help in the goal of this site – which is hopefully to free us all from the licence fee.
Basically, answer serious points if they have some merit. But don’t start arguing with a kid when it tugs at your sleeve demanding sweets-that’s who the usual trolling suspects remind me of anyway.
I suspect this was the same in 1930’s Germany when Goebbels took control of the State Broadcasting and media then sent his trolls to shut down debate and criticism.
I’m not sure if this has been raised on this site, I’m sure someone will let me know if it has, but seeing as I’m not sure here goes !
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3948/britain_falls_out_of_love_with_the_bbc
http://order-order.com/2013/07/10/yougov-poll-public-falls-out-of-love-with-bbc/
From 10th of this month a poll which shows the public ‘falling out of love with the BBC’ quite dramatic figures.
It comes on the back on another question posed as to why the BBC has become incapable of producing decent drama any more. If you want to buy a box set, then it’s most likely going to be HBO game of thrones, walking dead, Supernatural, House, Heros, Lost. The list goes on & on but it doesn’t include any BBC favourites.
Comedy died sometime ago when Communist Alexi Sayle joined with the ‘alternative’ comedy set, now drama has gone the same way. Those enjoyable shows like Dads Army, Only Fools & Horses, Allo Allo, One foot in the grave will never have successors because the talent needed to make them isn’t wanted by the BBC and repeats of many of them like it aint half hot Mum cannot be broadcast because of the paralysing political correctness.
So now drama has gone the same way with the BBC playing to the lowest common denominator with shows like Strictly come dancing which appeal to mass audiences and don’t challenge or offend.
Because the BBC has taken the decision that it must not offend Muslims, then it can’t offend anyone else either, and so we end up with bland nonsense which is completely unmemorable.
It’s not going to get better either, because there’s no one to kick the BBC into life again. It would be nice to think the licence fee would be scrapped, or even reduced, but that’s never going to happen with leftie Dave in charge. So several more years of the same old rose tinted grey sludge being produced at enormous expense to the nation.
Great !
The BBC are a bit slow on updating this story?
Come on BBC why so vague? Let’s have some detail!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23418483
Christ!
” More than a dozen British tourists have appeared in court on a Greek holiday island after a mass brawl in which one Briton was pinned down and stabbed to death ‘execution-style’.
The youths, all of whom are black, were taken to stand before the prosecutor on Crete today following the death of 19-year-old Tyrell Matthews-Burton, from Leyton, east London, who was stabbed through the heart.”
Diverse pictures here…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2374871/British-teenager-Tyrell-Burton-stabbed-death-outside-bar-Greek-holiday-island-Crete.html
…that’s in reply to A.D. above @ 2:47 pm
There’s plenty of detail left out by the BBC, for the purposes of journalistic ̶c̶o̶w̶a̶r̶d̶i̶c̶e̶ responsibility, of course.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23418483
I saw the victim and wondered whether the rest looked like him and whether they’d taken one of their daft post-code battles to the streets of Crete. Looks like my hunch was right.
London…
Sending Diversity to a holiday resort near you!
Now then, where are all those race agitators who were all over the coat tails of the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case…
Every photo-caption in the Mail’s article emphasises that they are ‘British’ or ‘Britons’, but to me they look Jamaican and they behaved like Jamaicans.
Meanwhile, the bBBC tells us more about the place they visited than it does about the ‘men’ themselves.
So even if they were born and raised in Britain, they cannot be British due to their physical appearance? Are the white youths in British towns who get into similar altercations not British, then? Are these black youths really the result of Labour’s policy of unlimited immigration for political purposes?
I am sure David Brims will have a (racist) view on this.
If you read the daily mail article, which goes into a lot more detail than the BBC one, there are statements to the effect that it was a gang attack, and the killing was done ‘execution style’.
This points to the killing being yardie gang related once you factor in the apparent ethnicity of the men involved.
I wouldn’t say that this was a consequence of Labour’s policies, but by the same token one can’t simply label this as british culture – it’d be like labelling mafia killings as ‘american culture’.
So whilst yes, these men are british, the behaviour they displayed isn’t really the same as the usual drunken fights you hear about – the impression I got when reading the daily mail piece was that this killing was deliberate and possibly stylised rather than a bar brawl gotten out of hand.
Nobody labeled it British culture. The other issue is whether or not they are British due to their appearance.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and behaves like a duck, it probably is a duck.
Similarly if it looks like a Jamaican, sounds like a Jamaican and behaves like a Jamaican … it must be multiculti-British?
“So even if they were born and raised in Britain, they cannot be British”
It depend how you are using the word British. England for example is not a nation of immigrants, unlike the USA.
“due to their physical appearance?”
I am assuming by that you mean racial origins. Again it depends how you are using the word British.
“Are the white youths in British towns who get into similar altercations not British, then?”
It depends if they are British or not, and again, in what sense you are using British.
Are these black youths really the result of Labour’s policy of unlimited immigration for political purposes?
Not only the Labour Party, but the Labour Party especially yes. It has been an issues since the Fifties in the UK, and it is even more of an issue now.
I am pretty liberal on immigration but I do not look to the USA for my example, because it is a different set up, and anybody who denies that is a fool.
“England for example is not a nation of immigrants,”
actually we are, england was colonised by the angles, saxons and jutes
Not too sure about that. I seem to remember that recent geneological sampling still shows Ancient Britons as being predominant. Here’s a bit of info on it, but I’m sure there’s more to be found if you go Googling:
http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene_2.html
Many historians now believe subsequent invaders from mainland Europe had little genetic impact on the British.
The notion that large-scale migrations caused drastic change in early Britain has been widely discredited, according to Simon James, an archaeologist at Leicester University, England.
“The gene pool of the island has changed, but more slowly and far less completely than implied by the old invasion model,” James writes in an article for the website BBC History.
For the English, their defining period was the arrival of Germanic tribes known collectively as the Anglo-Saxons. Some researchers suggest this invasion consisted of as few as 10,000 to 25,000 people—not enough to displace existing inhabitants.
That’s true, but until about 1945 most of that immigration was White European (e.g. Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans, Huguenots, Irish, French, Polish, Jewish) outside of a few places like London, Bristol, Liverpool, Cardiff which were port cities.
i always thought the germanic tribes came, and the ancient britons fled to scotland and ireland. i was never really taught british history at school except when it came to how evil the british empire was and the flag was the butchers apron
Doubtful. More likely a mixture of Anglo Saxons and Romano British Celts. The Anglo Saxons appear to have been far more aggressive and imposed themselves on an exisiting settled population. If the newcomers came without women the inevitable happened and the result was the people that still inhabit most of England. There were then very few immigrants until the late 19th century. This scenario is anathema to the liberal idiots who maintain the fiction of endless waves of immigrants despite there being no evidence whatsoever. Note to those who disagree. Please do not mention the Hugenots. Find some other immigrant wave. Try the 14th century Eskimo invasions.
In any case even if there was complete population replacement by the Anglo-Saxons (which is contrary to the genetic evidence) that was the creation of England. It happened well over a thousand years ago. The population of Pakistan is three times that of England. If you replaced the English population in a few generations with a new settlement from Pakistan then England would cease to be England in any meaningful sense, unless of course assimilation to English culture was required, which of course is precisely what multiculturalism is against.
Personally I am rather fond of England, and view those who want to uphold it values as admirable, unlike the hate filled nihilists of the Left, who leave behind them nothing but a trail of destruction.
The purblind multiculturalists, with their ‘always been a nation of immigrants blah blah’, have a relationship with hard science akin to a werewolf’s love of daylight. Richard the Lionheart having one Saracen bodyguard, or Cardiff City having a Somali goalkeeper during the 1899-1900 season is all the ‘proof’ they require to justify a criminally insane policy of mass immigration. Providing they don’t have to live next door to the consequences, & have ‘safe houses’ on the continent should utopia turn to ashes.
I always recommend ‘Blood of the Isles’, (2006), by Brian Sykes, Prof. of Human Genetics at Oxford Univ. They don’t want to know, of course, as it busts their left liberal ‘narrative’ wide open. Sykes’ book would make ‘enriching’ reading for Bonnie Greer, particularly after her smirking appearance on Question Time (but no time for inconvenient answers), when she said that there were no indigenous people in Britain. Bonnie’s qualification for this quantum leap in genetic comprehension? She studied drama in Chicago. And by the BBC’s standards of scientific exposition, that makes her seriously over-qualified.
According to the Left, the worlds entire black and muslim population is British !
As a member of the EU, I don’t suppose Greece has the death penalty, by any chance?
They aren’t going to make any more ‘Loofaa’, a very odd programme, were all the police are black and all the criminals are white. Wishful thinking on the part of the BBC, perhaps ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2375571/Idris-Elba-leaves-Luther-LA-Londons-growling-detective-loses-plot-loses-coat-forever.html
Talking of preposterous contrived programmes, I’ve got a brilliant idea for a cop show.
A Hasidic jewish detective fighting crime within the Amish community in Tower Hamlets.
Can’t think of a title for it, any ideas ? how about ‘Yentob.’ ?
We could encrypt the name a little …
Title: “Botty”
“Lana Botney [anag.] an Irish-Jewish lesbian detective, bravely fights homophobic, sexist and racist crime in the hideously White City of London and the Tory Party.
[Shurely it musht be “… the hideous White City in London and the Labour Party”? – Bill, Editor]
and when not fighting crime, she fights climate change
“Jew Drops from the Tower.”
“Jewish cop investigates kiddy fiddling by the residents of a London Hamlet by some erm…”men”…
He is promptly thrown off a tower.”
I might pitch it to the Beeb myself, they will love it.
I thought Jew drops were sweets?
How about the Egyptian politician turned detective – Inspector Morsi ?
A comedy panel show featuring stories from Israel – ‘Have I Got Jews For You’.
It would keep Galloway and Tonge (and most LibDems) off the panel! Scumbags.
David, I can’t help it but your wonderful pitch for a cop show made me think of this clip from a 70’s classic..
Is writing “Luther” beyond your intellect?
When he writes “Loofaa”, he is simply trying to render a Black London accent, in the same way someone might have put “Cockney sparrer” for “Cockney sparrow” in the past, or might write “bairrrn” in a novel to show a Scottish trilled pronunciation of the ‘r’ in “bairn”. It’s that simple.
I may be wrong, but intellect, other than the unique brand you appear to feel wise to deploy, is nothing to do with it.
And as a keen student of precedent, may I ask you to share (as if you need any excuse; I can only presume you’re on some form of volume quota system) all your exchanges with the BBC when any have used the airwaves to skew a proper name slightly less than properly for various reasons.
Ordinarily it would be no surprise to find most thread posts originated by some form of moderator, but it is quite quaint to see you the most dominant presence across all threads, and usually off topic banging out one line demands or acting as some bonkers self-appointed hall monitor.
The BBC ECU director slot is within your grasp. Shame it will coincide with a shift in what you can hide behind to practice your ‘craft’.
Sean Thomas at The Telegraph…
Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, Borgen… this is the golden age of TV series. Except at the lifeless BBC
So where, in all this, are the great BBC TV dramas? Answer, nowhere. The only adult British dramas you will find on those Bangkok DVD stalls (which are now, very tellingly, dominated by TV series, when they used to sell movies) are Downton Abbey and Broadchurch. Both ITV. The BBC has nothing to show, apart from maybe Luther. Doctor Who is for kids.
The BBC, in defence of its feeble drama output, used to argue that the Americans had more money: but the BBC is the richest broadcasting corporation in the world, so that didn’t fly. BBC apologists then argued that America has bigger audiences, allowing for greater experiment and artistic invention – but then we saw The Killing, which came from Denmark, population six million.
The truth is: there really is no defence. British TV, which used to be the best in the world, is, at a time of surging invention and dramatic renaissance, practically invisible: rendered lifeless and inert by bourgeois timidity, and bien pensant groupthink. But at least we still make nice programmes about sparrows.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100227955/breaking-bad-game-of-thrones-borgen-this-is-the-golden-age-of-tv-series-except-at-the-lifeless-bbc/
There are so many high quality American imports; Criminal Minds, The Wire, Boardwalk Empire etc. its not just the acting and the production values, its the lack of ‘soap’ and PC within those dramas. Everyone has favourites and mine may be disliked by others but with the majority of American programmes the BBC mind set is absent.
The memsahib made the comparison between ER and Casualty, the latter is a soap opera set in a hospital, ER being a drama, the latter has every single PC issue rammed down the throats of the public, ER covered issues but they were secondary to the drama.
Somebody sometime ago on The Spectator made the comment that all submissions to the BBC must show how they will promote diversity, hence in a simple family programme like Dr Who, the International Space Station becomes the Indian Space Station. During Russell Davies tenure every episode had a gay character.
Would they would ignore diversity for the sake of decent programmes and then sites like this would be unnecessary when it comes to their fiction output.
And the BBC seems now to have a policy: Don’t buy American series just in case the locals notice how good they are.
This seems to have been an official policy for many years. Back in the late 90s I used to really enjoy watching “Seinfeld” which had been a roaring success on the other side of the Atlantic. So what did the Beeb do with it ? They put it on at either 11:30pm or midnight on BBC2 on a day of the week that changed with the phase of the moon. Anyone who enjoyed the show had to check the Ceefax listings daily so they could program their video. Meanwhile they would put Lenny Henry and all his mates usual dire homemade “comedy” offerings on at prime time on BBC1.
It is wonderful watching these US series which actually have some variety to the characters. For instance men aren’t always portrayed as bumbling idiots compared with women. Having said that, there’s still some areas which are verboten. I’m watching Dexter at the moment and have got up to series 5 so far. It’s set in Miami yet there has not been one black serial killer portrayed so far.
Compare and contrast this pure opinion piece from Jonny Dymond about Detroit’s future and potential with a sober, unemotional – and far more informative – investigative report from the Detroit News. First, Dymond’s “journalism” on display:
Will the real Detroit city please get up off its knees?
Right away you know it’s opinion-mongering time. Anyone who wants news and to be properly, usefully informed or to learn anything may as well stop reading at this point. For those who want to see the dopiness, read on.
Long, long ago it was the archetypal American city, a place of astonishing industry and wealth, of energy and diversity, the birthplace of mass manufacturing, a northern refuge for southern blacks to come and join America’s prosperous middle class.
It’s story-telling time, folks. But before we begin, Dymond amazingly gives us more honesty about Detroit in a single sentence than pretty much the rest of his colleagues’ output combined.
As the factories left, and the middle class fled, and crime rocketed and the urban fabric fell into terrible disrepair, it became a byword for urban failure, for the misdeeds of one-party Democratic rule, for the corruption of big unions cosying up to old-style city government.
What, no “white flight”? No racists abandoning the blacks? And why is this one piece, which you’ll see is essentially a paean to the great, hardworking people of Detroit, out of all the BBC’s coverage, which not only mentions the Democrats but admits that it’s been one-party rule for a long time. It’s a couched admission, of course, framed as a mere label with which Detroit has been unfortunately stuck, and not really the cold finger of blame pointed at the Democrats. The gesture towards blame is tempered quite a bit by the preceding talking points of the factories closing and the tax-payers leaving. So it’s not really all the Dems’ fault, eh? Dymond’s not willing to dwell on the issue of one-party rule and the dangers of a bloated public sector. That’s not the story he’s here to tell today. He’s here to praise the hardworking people of Detroit, not to bury them. Which hard-working people? Public sector workers, of course. Maybe he’s not doing it on purpose. It’s possible those were the only working people he was able to find.
Dymond then quotes the new bankruptcy manager of the the city, asking how this could have gone on for so long, and where was the outrage 20 years ago. He’s not impressed.
Thump, thump, thump came the rhetorical questions, sounding suspiciously like a mallet hitting nails into the lid of a coffin. This. Cannot. Go. On.
Out in the city, life went on as if pretty much nothing had happened.
The grand boulevards carried, as always, little traffic. Beggars and half-crazies wandered the sidewalks. Downtown – gleaming and revived – bustled with its newfound buzz. And the rest of the sprawling degraded city, square mile after square mile of it, baked in the heat.
In the city’s south-west, a bus rattled its way around the streets.
The fan in the front of the bus buzzed away. The Youth Transportation Pilot, a charitable programme that moves children safely around a none-too-safe city, didn’t run to air conditioning.
Dymond then seeks the hope he knows is out there in the real world. He finds a retired public sector worker who now runs another public sector program, and a bus driver. They’re aware of how bad it is, yet remain optimistic and proud of their city. Things will get better, Dymond tells us.
There’s a lot of that attitude around this feisty American town.
It’s worth remembering, in amongst the ruins, that the story of Detroit was once the story of America. Only the brave or the foolish would count this city out, quite yet. Will the real Detroit city please get up off its knees?
What’s the point of this, really? Don’t listen to the mean old elite money-men, trust the workers, the real people? Why is this even worthy of publishing?
Now for a dose of reality from a local paper, the Detroit News:
Half of Detroit property owners don’t pay taxes
Uh-oh, Jonny.
The News reviewed more than 200,000 pages of tax documents and found that 47 percent of the city’s taxable parcels are delinquent on their 2011 bills. Some $246.5 million intaxes and fees went uncollected, about half of which was due Detroit and the rest to other entities, including Wayne County, Detroit Public Schools and the library.
Delinquency is so pervasive that 77 blocks had only one owner who paid taxes last year, The News found. Many of those who don’t pay question why they should in a city that struggles to light its streets or keep police on them.
“Why pay taxes?” asked Fred Phillips, who owes more than $2,600 on his home on an east-side block where five owners paid 2011 taxes. “Why should I send them taxes when they aren’t supplying services? It is sickening. … Every time I see the tax bill come, I think about the times we called and nobody came.”
This week, a state-appointed review team concluded the city can’t fix its financial problems. Any emergency manager appointed by Gov. Rick Snyder would have to grapple with a broken property tax system. The city’s share of uncollected taxes last year was $131 million — an amount equal to 12 percent of Detroit’s general fund budget.
A four-month News investigation found:
Detroit has the highest property taxes among big cities nationwide and relies on assessments that are seriously inflated. Many houses are assessed at more than 10 times their market price, according to new research from two Michigan professors.
In other words, the Detroit city bosses were seriously screwing over the poor black people who still live there. How about that for a byword, Jonny?
Detroit relies on a shrinking sliver of businesses and neighborhoods to pay the bulk of the bills. The three casinos, General Motors Corp., DTE Energy, Chrysler Group LLC and Marathon Petroleum Corp. paid 19 percent of collected property taxes. Five city neighborhoods, most of them downtown and along the river, paid 15 percent of the city’s taxes and represent only 2 percent of the city’s total parcels. In all, only 41 percent of the city’s parcels produced tax revenues last year because of delinquencies and a large number of tax-exempt land.
Hey, Jonny, are all your feisty workers paying their property taxes? I bet he didn’t ask. Reality gets worse:
In Michigan, counties are required by law to foreclose when taxes aren’t paid for three years. So the owners of 143,600 properties who didn’t pay their full bill last year still have time to avoid foreclosure. Nearly 12,200 of those paid a portion of their bill but are still considered delinquent.
But the delinquency rate in the city shows the severity of Detroit’s challenges. Several other large Michigan cities, including Warren, Southfield, Grand Rapids and Dearborn, received taxes from more than 85 percent of their homeowners last year.
What’s going on here? Don’t tell me all those racists who fled the city for the suburbs are paying their taxes. For shame.
Property owners increasingly are re-buying their land in tax-foreclosure auctions and legally erasing their debts. Last year, 600 properties were re-purchased by their owners, triple the number in 2010. That cost the city nearly $6 million in unpaid taxes.
“It was a business decision,” said landlord Lamont Hunter, who said the $45,400 he owed in taxes and fees were too high on four of his foreclosed rentals that he bought back at auction for $5,801 total.
“Each of these houses I bought back is in bad, poor areas I wouldn’t live in. I am better off to bid.”
So the whole thing is corrupt, and no end in sight on restoring any kind of sanity to the property system. Instead of a silly emotional piece, this is reality. Nothing Dymond said was worth remembering, or touched on anything important. I often find that local news gets real, and does serious, important investigative reporting, while multi-billion dollar international behemoths who send foreigners to traipse around looking for good stories to tell don’t provide much of value at all. Unless you just want opinion pieces and story-telling.
Sorry, hit “post” button half way through. The rest of what I meant to say is there now.
On the subject of the Royal baby – I was not very surprised last night to see on BBC news that out of all the people they could have interviewed, they chose some old bloke who was grumpy that his newspaper had ’17 pages of pictures of babies, but I couldn’t care less’…
Reminds me of the Queen’s jubilee – there were 3 million people on the banks of the Thames, and to give ‘balance’, the B-BBC interviewed half a dozen unwashed royalists for half an hour.
The bBBC continues in its role as self-appointed publicist for the whingeing Scousers’ revenge campaign.
Today’s non-news is that the Hillsborough whingers don’t like the new head of the Crown Prosecution Service, therefore it is “an absolute disgrace” that she has been appointed. Out of the bBBC’s article, the Scousers are given 400 words while the CPS is allowed just one sentence.
However, I predict that tonight’s bBBC Northwest ‘news’ will be even more biased than that.
Islam Not BBC (INBBC).
INBBC is not concerned with global Muslim persecution and murders of Christians, but is very concerned with any possible anti-Muslim criminality in UK, after Islamic jihad murder of British soldier.
For INBBC:
“Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians”
-new book by Raymond Ibrahim.
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/crucified-again-venn-institute-interviews-raymond-ibrahim/
But this is INBBC’s pro-Islam role:-
Mr Casciani does NOT ask the question:-
‘Are Muslim hate crimes rising?’
He asks the predictable question:
“Are anti-Muslim hate crimes rising?”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23436960
INBBC’s Casciani does NOT mention the following:-
“Muslim group that fabricated evidence of ‘wave of attacks on Muslims’ in wake of London jihad murder loses funding”
[Opening extract]:-
“The concept of ‘Islamophobia’ is a tool designed to intimidate people into thinking there is something wrong with resisting jihad and Islamic supremacism. In order to deflect attention away from jihad activity and try to portray Muslims as victims, so as to shame non-Muslims into not investigating or even being suspicious of further jihad activity, Islamic supremacist groups have resorted to making it up.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/06/muslim-group-fabricated-evidence-of-wave-of-attacks-on-muslims-in-wake-of-london-jihad-murder-loses-.html
On its ‘UK News’ page online (bottom right), INBBC has:-
‘Analysis’-
“Anti-Muslim hate crimes
Have they risen since the killing of Fusilier Lee Rigby?”
Next week, will INBBC have:
‘Muslim sex gang attacks on English white girls
Have they risen since the killing of Christine Downes?’
In their own words…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/now-you-see-it.html
‘..part of Marketing and Audiences and has a key role to play in making the BBC appear more open and accessible.’
Refreshingly honest, if perhaps not going to help Lords Hall Hall & Patten convince anyone in their new mission to explain how Aunty has now changed.
And in other ‘news’…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/fatigue.html
‘Then, gnomically, in the next item – World Service Annual Review – we get “Peter Horrocks also updated the Board on a couple of other matters”. So that’s pretty open.’
I think the author means the BBC is acting anything like a public, and publically-accountable body. Still.
The rest of the piece, again quoting staff, is… noteworthy.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/three-men-guilty-grooming-exploiting-5315799
Yet again it isn’t reported, and there’s no mention of there being a problem with Pakistani Muslim men.
Earlier in the day I commented that BBC Radio Manchester censored the names of the three charged with driving offences in Bolton. During the mid afternoon news bulletins they did the same thing again but this time regarding the ‘grooming’ case. No names, just those ‘men’ again. What a joke.
The baby is to be named George.
Now keep out BBC and Quisling Cameron: we want this baby to be Christened. That’s right, Christened.
Maybe the BBC will dip into its archives for when they made programmes worth watching and bring Blackadder back to the screen. Hugh Laurie’s masterful Prince George with his ‘hair perched on top of his head like a rather attractive loaf of bread’ Was wonderful to watch.
someone might have a problem with a christening because of cultural sensitivities and environmental damage caused by wasting all that water
i dont know how islam will react to prince charles when he gets the top job, being the defender of their faith, well i do know, they’ll issue a fatwa and want to chop his head off but in a more barbaric manner than what happened to King Charles I
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/3454271/Prince-Charles-to-be-known-as-Defender-of-Faith.html
Wonder if this will make BBC news?
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/three-men-guilty-grooming-exploiting-5315799
Robert and Scott Jackson….sounds Mozzie to me!
“Three brothers, Shamin Uddin, Giash Uddin and Shahab Uddin, …and two other brothers, Robert Jackson and Scott Jackson, were on trial over the allegations.”
If you look back three hours you’ll find this has already been posted
Why hasn’t the BBC said calling the baby George is racist.
He should have been called Trayvon, Stephen Nelson Muhammed.
What about “Zimmy”?
So much to recommend it to a ‘broad inclusive spectrum’: hints of Bob Dylan and George Z and it sounds like dhimmi into the bargain.
The way things are going when George becomes king, we will be living in a Mad Max World.
Or in a Islamic Caliphate.
“Buck House sold to Qatar. The King lives in a small flat. The only people who marry are gay. DOMINIC SANDBROOK mischievously asks… What kind of Britain will George reign over? ”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2377131/Prince-George-Alexander-Louis-What-kind-Britain-Royal-baby-reign-over.html
Travyon, Stephen, Nelson, Muhammed, OBAMA*
Some good local colour about Egypt and the Middle East.
But I bet this topic never gets on to From Our Own Correspodent – let alone anything from Jeremy Bowen and his team :
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-holy-anti-semitic-month-of-ramadan/
Violent Brits and Crete murder.
Updated, uncensored information (with photos) for BBC-NUJ, from ‘Daily Mail’:-
“Hauled to court still drenched in blood, the British tourists arrested after London teenager was ‘executed’ in Crete street”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2374871/Hauled-court-drenched-blood-British-tourists-arrested-London-teenager-executed-Crete-street.html
BBC-NUJ has:-
“Crete stabbing: Eighteen young British men arrested”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23418483
What do all of these young thugs have in common, George?
”What do all of these young thugs have in common, George? ”
Yes, it’s completely bewildering, what could it be, Hmm….
Hideous train crash in Spain
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23442018
The Beeb’s sober article even has a handy timeline of major Spanish train crashes.
“Spanish train crashes
August 2006: Inter-city train derails in Villada, in the province of Palencia, killing six people and injuring dozens more.
July 2006: At least 43 people killed in a metro train crash in the eastern Spanish city of Valencia.
June 2003: At least 19 people killed and some 40 injured in a head-on train collision near Chinchilla in Albacete province.
March 2002: Two express trains collide outside Tarragona, in Catalonia, killing four people and injuring more than 80”
Spot anything missing? Even the Guardian mentions it “The government said it was working on the hypothesis the derailment was an accident – though the scene will stir memories of 2004’s Madrid train bombing, carried out by Islamists, that killed 191 people”
BBC Website: ‘The father of a Ukrainian man charged with the “terrorist-related” murder of an 82-year-old in Birmingham has said the news left him in “complete shock”.’
So it is definitely a ‘murder’ not a ‘killing’.
Allegedly committed by a man?
No, by a ‘Ukrainian’.
And terrorist?
Yes, if in inverted commas.
BBC up to the minute and accurate.
Thank goodness BBC 5 Live’s matronising, politically correct, dumbed-down, obvious-nod-to-Mum’s-Net show about pregnancy now appears to have run it’s full term.
“Bump Club” always used to make me cringe – even at the mere mention of the title.
What next for the BBC?
A show following the lives of the long term unemployed? “Slump Club”
Let’s hope the BBC aren’t reading that – I wouldn’t put it past them!
Q2 GDP up 0.6%.
But Labour says lalalalalalala.
I see the BBC are desperate to play down the economic recovery. Just had switch over from BBC News 24 or else my TV would be in the garden! The BBC were never like this with Labour (even when the recession hit, the BBC never cited Labour as a contributing factor)
Enjoying the Ring on Radio 3. But the BBC is trying to rehabilitate Wagner in the most bizarre way. According to the BBC even though he was Hitler’s favorite composer it’s ok to enjoy Wagner’s music because the Commies in Russia thought Wagner was a hero!
Parents not to blame for their childrens’ obesity.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23404682
Its funny how childhood obesity wasn’t a problem until the last 20-30 years, and that when women could (and did) cook from raw ingredients, their families were unlikely to be fat.
But, we’re told by the BBC that its not the parents’ fault, some children just eat too much.
This is a classic example of the values that liberals promote coming back to bite them (in this case, a combination of the insistence that women are fulfilled only by having a career, and that girls should look down on what is traditionally considered ‘women’s work’ such as cooking, which together result in latch key kids that get fed processed crap because their mothers’ are too tired from a full day at the office to bother preparing quality food).
Stories like this one are the fuel for ridiculous government policies such as taxes on fatty or sugary food, or schools banning packed lunches in favour of children being forced to eat from school canteens (which will of course follow whatever the latest government fad is on the food pyramid).
In a sense though, I have to admire the way the left promulgates bigger government – they really have the whole thing down to an art now:
i. Promote vice on the basis that its ‘liberating’ for people
ii. React in horror to the consequences of vice, but never admit that its the cause of the problem – instead, blame nebulous factors
iii. Install governmental solutions to address the consequences, but continue to maintain that the underlying vice is a good thing
iv. ???
v. Profit as the state grows ever bigger and more and more arcane laws are created that help nobody, treat people like idiots, and enlarge overall dependency on government
Very well put. A problem for “liberal” / Left progressives in general is the old freedom versus equality argument. As you make people more free (e.g. to eat snack food rather than the prescribed school lunches of the mid-20th century) so you make them less equal (as some kids will have too many crisps, chips, burgers, etc, and gain weight). There is no obvious solution to this because freedom and equality are both deemed to be ‘Good Things’ in the Whig / liberal world view.
A friend of mine has often argued that society should let people be free and pay for the consequences, as this is always better than authoritarianism. I argue that this means that vomit on pavements, obesity from junk food and health damage from excess drinking and smoking are, by his logic, the price we pay for freedom; he is honest enough to agree. So let’s assume he is right for the moment: the question today is, can the UK – and in particular the BBC’s beloved NHS – afford this luxury of self-indulgence? The BBC needs to keep asking this question. The logic of the NHS is benign authoritarianism (“eat your five-a-day!”, “quit smoking”, “limit alcohol intake”) which sits uneasily with the BBC’s taste for transgressive individualism.