I have to agree with Grant Shapps just for a change!
The BBC’s coverage of the Government’s welfare reforms has sought to paint them as ‘Armageddon’ for the nation, a senior minister said yesterday. Tory Party chairman Grant Shapps accused BBC bosses of letting their ‘personal views take hold’, covering the Coalition’s attempts to rein in the welfare bill as though the world were ending. He spoke out amid a row over the way the BBC Trust censured respected presenter John Humphrys for a programme exposing the truth about the bloated welfare state.
The Trust condemned the TV show as a breach of its impartiality rules after it discussed the ‘dependency culture’ in Mr Humphrys’ home city of Cardiff, where he found some claimants prefer life on benefits to working. But Mr Shapps said BBC officials should have ‘applauded’ the Today anchorman and condemned other coverage by the BBC as biased against the Government.
Where Shapps gets it wrong, however, is when he goes to say that “The BBC is not a newspaper and needs to remember it’s a state broadcaster who should be providing an objective analysis of events”
And that’s the issue. WHY do we need “a state broadcaster” in the first place? Why does the BBC have to parasite off our taxes by forcing us to pay for it? The BBC cannot be objective or impartial, none of us can. So let us all be honest, accept the BBC is biased and will remain so, and deny it the entirely anachronistic right to take our cash to fund its bias. Yes?
Yesterday the slimy weasel Shapps was asked if fellow slime ball Cameron should apologise for the remarks he made following the outrageous false allegations the Sunday Times made about Tory treasurer David Cameron.
Shapps twisted & turned every which way to avoid an affirmative answer showing to me that he is a man without honour, and a stranger to doing the right thing.
When you have a friend & colleague in politics when they are wronged to such an extent by the PM that the judge makes mention of it then the right thing to have done would have been to stand up & admit that wrong & apologise.
Sometimes it is more honourable to do the right thing and say the hardest word, than to defend the indefensible.
It shows me that Shapps is a man who cannot be trusted. Whatever he says must be regarded with a health dose of scepticism, because this is a man who would drop his own family in it if he thought there was political gain to be made.
In terms of what he said about the BBC – well it’s affecting his political capital, but we can’t trust what he said as being truthful and honest. That kind of man wouldn’t just talk about the problem, he would be doing something about it, and so far as we can see they aren’t.
So more hot air & lies to placate party members who are wiser than the fools the selected to represent them.
Grant Shapps… also known as Michael Green. Also known as Sebastian Fox. Check his entry on Wikipedia and look at the section marked ‘Alternative identify practice’ (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grant_Shapps). Or watch this video (time and patience needed as it’s a bit ponderous!) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA2kRXAQ6NI
Do you think authors shouldn’t use pseudonyms?
I disagree entirely. I know you’re not but you sound like the perfect BBC fast rebuttal deflection unit. What you write about is exactly the way the BBC reported the news that a national newspaper had lost a case for defaming a Conservative politician OR we have a story about irresponsible bias for negative coverage of Tory welfare reforms…what ISN’T any story whatsoever is whether Cameron should apologise or not yet this became the story.
P.S. What do you think would have been news if Peter Crudass HAD NOT been removed from his Party treasurer role after being accused?
The P.S. is the trouble – Tories are scared (and probably rightly) of the coverage BBC give and the power of influence it has. If they try and stand up to BBC they would probably be destroyed so powerful is the influence of the BBC over the majority of voters
Yes I agree, this is the answer to those that slate Cameron (or whomever) for not openly attacking the Beeb too much: there are millions who rely on it; myriad radio stations, local TV, hospital radio, ‘wonderful wildlife programmes, documentaries etc…THIS is the problem.
The attack should be focused on the main international news gathering arm and it’s clear bias.
” If they try and stand up to BBC they would probably be destroyed”
The BBC will do that any way, no matter how much Cameron sucks up to them. No the Tories have nothing to lose by going tooth and nail for the BBC ,if the BBC’s response is to more openly attack the Tories then that will make their (the Tories) case for them.
What’s more those in the BBC not wedded to the ‘received truth’, like those currently calling the tune , might balk at the risk of having their future sacrificed on some one else’s altar and decide rapprochement is a better way forward than all out conflict.
A high risk strategy yes. But the alternative for the conservatives ,as we see daily, is more of the same, but worse
I disagree it absolutely is an issue! It is extremely rare for a senior member of the judiciary to criticise someone who is not a party to proceedings and Cameron behaved in the basest fashion, condemning Cruddas without hearing his side of the story, or even having read the Sunday Times article itself.
This would be unacceptable in the workplace, and would probably result in a successful constructive dismissal claim, but in a Prime Minister, well it’s inexcusable.
It begs the question whether he is making policy announcements by listening to one half of the views while not bothering to hear the other !
Cruddas last night was incandescent and emotional. He has been extremely badly treated by Cameron. Unlike Cameron, a posh boy who had everything handed to him on a plate, Cruddas worked for his wealth and deserves recognition for that.
Camerons refusal to apologise for his appalling inexcusable behaviour shows him for the man he is, and in my eyes unfit to hold high political office.
We all make mistakes or do things that perhaps in hindsight we should not have, the way we make that right is in the first place by way of apology. Cameron it seems in incapable or unwilling to put his mistakes right, and in a senior Politician that is an extremely dangerous character flaw.
Rubbish! Complete and utter pants: Cameron acted in exactly the way he should have acted! Read what Cameron said: “This is not the way we raise money in the Conservative party. It shouldn’t have happened. It’s quite right that Peter Cruddas has resigned. I will make sure there is a proper party inquiry to make sure this can’t happen again.”
AND more importantly what Cruddas said: “I deeply regret any impression of impropriety arising from my bluster in that conversation.”
I suggest you read the BBC etc at the time, including Miliband and Labour calls for an inquiry etc: here’s the Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/mar/25/david-cameron-peter-cruddas-pressure
“This is not the way we raise money in the Conservative party. It shouldn’t have happened. It’s quite right that Peter Cruddas has resigned. I will make sure there is a proper party inquiry to make sure this can’t happen again.”
Except it never happened in the first place! Why have an investigation into something now proven to be false?
According to you the judge who heard all the evidence is wrong. I have a choice as to whom I believe, and on this occasion I have a poster on a website or a man used to sitting hearing a lot of evidence and coming to an appropriate conclusion. I think I know which one I’m going to believe & on this occasion it isn’t you!
LOL, you’re confirming my point: this deflection is pathetic, is Thoughtful a shared log-in? Because all of a sudden there’s not a lot of thought. I haven’t mentioned the judge of even hinted or suggested anything about the judge so your unthoughtful “According to you the judge who heard all the evidence is wrong” is more pants. The judge mentioned Cameron in highlighting the general humiliation to justify the level of damages awarded. IF this should be reported it should be so in balance and in context of the plethora of general dissing of Crudass. What Cameron did at the time was in tune and correct AS evidenced by Crudass’s own words! The BBC gave the impression yesterday that he had won a court action against David Cameron: it was disgraceful bias and utterly poor journalism.
“it was disgraceful bias and utterly poor journalism.”
In other words standard BBC fare. I wonder why the Labour Party is such a fan of this corrupt and authoritarian gravy train for middle class Leftists?
Wow that sounds like a senior school frustrated rant!
I watched the news article and I didn’t take away the impression that Cruddas had won a victory against Cameron, it was against the Sunday times.
Cruddas himself made the points of the disgraceful way Cameron had behaved, so unless Cruddas is now being touted as having a left wing biased I can’t see your point.
Whatever…I never have acted my age 😉
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2382295/Judge-attacks-David-Cameron-humiliating-Tory-Peter-Cruddas-cash-access-smear.html
I don’t think many people believe the Daily Mail has a left wing bias, but they seem to be running on the same line as I am.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
“…yet this became the story” from my first comment.
Re the PS, the BBC would have gone after Cruddas and the Tories with a vengeance. Cruddas would have eventually had to resign. A year or so later Cruddas would have had his court decision and the BBC would not apologise for its behaviour. Even after Cruddas’s quick resignation, the BBC website generated headlines of
Tory Peter Cruddas sold access to PM, Sunday Times alleges
Labour calls for independent inquiry into Cruddas boast
Labour call for explanation after donor access claims
David Miliband: ‘Idea policy is for sale is grotesque’
Cash for access: Political party funding talks ‘to start soon’
Ed Miliband: Cruddas claims ‘very disturbing’
Cash for Cameron
Labour calls for independent inquiry into Cruddas boast
Cash for Cameron: Guess who came to dinner
Cash for Cameron: Murdoch’s glee?
Lobbyist wants police investigation into Tory donor row
David Cameron to name all donors dining at No 10
Lobbyist Mark Adams on Peter Cruddas and
cash for access
Ed Miliband attacks David Cameron’s judgement over Tory donations
Cash for access: Ed Miliband calls for public inquiry
Tories had ‘veneer of compliance’ on donors
‘Cash for access’: Donors who dined with PM
named
Peter Cruddas secretly taped making Tory Union claims
Newspaper review: Government woes dominate papers
Miliband: Party donations ‘should be slashed’
Excellent reposte…should be rubbed in their faces.
“P.S. What do you think would have been news if Peter Crudass HAD NOT been removed from his Party treasurer role after being accused?”
Isn’t that the crux of the matter? If weak Dave hadn’t disowned him immediately he would have had the baying hounds of ZaNuLieBor, led by FaTWatson and amplified by Al JaBeeBa, at him all of time. Look what they are trying to do with Lynton Crosby.
And they wonder why they are held in such contempt. This contempt is serious and growing. Leaves space for a demagogue.
Many people believe the country would benefit from a demagogue !
The BBC licence is up for review, (December 2016).
We all have our BBC bias beef, whether it be about interviewers or correspondents ‘lefty’ bias, climate change, the denial of social cohesion muslim problems, immigration or whatever.
If one wants to more than just vent ones spleen on this site and actually achieve results, the most assured way of getting action is to lobby your MP and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about each and every specific perceived bias article you come across.
I have just complained to my MP about the recent blatant BBC dabbling in the Lynton Crosby bias, (and sent a copy to the Secretary of Culture, Media and Sport).
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-culture-media-sport
If one believes the BBC has become so blatantly out of control and ripe for change of the hefty annual tax of £145.50 a year that pays for so much waste, pay offs for executives and a lavish employees lifestyle with scandals and skeletons leaking from every cupboard opened, then I feel the time has come for real reform.
This tax collector even practices tax avoidance with self employed arrangements for some of their grossly paid stars and others whose main income is the BBC .
Privatisation of some of the good bits to add to their current private earnings would be good and closing down of the bad bits is well overdue to bring this out of control organisation to more accountability and bring our taxes down.
If we all work together in letting our MPs and the Secretary for Culture, Media and Sport know about the great concerns we have, as shown by this website, on the way our taxes are being spent, I feel we can have great influence on the forthcoming licence review.
Well said, DV. What I just simply cannot understand is the complete unaccountability of this mafia style behemoth. Revolting sex scandals, inept ‘investigations’ wrongly accusing peers of abuse, huge pay-offs, incompetence, bullying and open admissions of massive Left-wing bias. And yet, ministers do NOTHING! So we have an organization that is now out of control and that pontificates from the moral high ground whilst falling way below any types of standards that you and I have to adhere to. The BBC is in no position to investigate anybody or anything and should be privatized. One big anti-British parasite.
Oi …Vance…NO!
No, I won`t have that-your third line from the end says that the BBC “parasites off” our taxes.
No sir…taxes are moribund, decaying entities-no life, no purpose just dead weights, and open a vein for HMRC.
The BBC “saprophytes off” our taxes!…not parasites off…OK?
But-if you want to split the difference…we could use the words “leech” “pimp” off…or indeed that the BBC garottes, strangles or poisons anything that might compete with its nasty little monoculture of “news, analysis and comment”.
Other than that Mr Vance-fine by me!
Hey what’s up, check out my site