This Open Thread is sponsored by the Chris Bryant appreciation society. Off you go….. now then, DID Captain Underpants make a boo-boo or not yesterday? Hard to tell from BBC coverage…
TUESDAY OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- JohnC Dec 21, 12:16
Weekend 21st December 2024
Hot on the heels of Bowen criticism for out of touch with reality the BBC are when his third question… - markh Dec 21, 11:59
Weekend 21st December 2024
‘Sikh family distraught as man’s beard is cut without his consent’ shrieks the BBC webshite. For God’s sake BBC if… - Sluff Dec 21, 11:54
Weekend 21st December 2024
How about having a ‘white working class boys underperforming at school’ week? At least that way, the time spent on… - harry142857 Dec 21, 11:51
Weekend 21st December 2024
BBC news channel 231 on Freeview at 11.00. The “alleged” suspect doest fit ye classic terrorist (my word, not theirs)… - Deborah Dec 21, 11:38
Weekend 21st December 2024
I am just trying to understand the sort of man being painted by the Daily Mail who was in the… - MarkyMark Dec 21, 11:36
Weekend 21st December 2024
“Béatrice Zavarro, Dominique Pelicot’s lawyer, says schools have a responsibility to have better sex education.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2vlx20dm4o ………………………………………………………………………………………….. How Emmanuel Macron’s… - MarkyMark Dec 21, 11:34
Weekend 21st December 2024
“This is the Ozo running club, formed by Igbo people to celebrate the culture of one of the largest of… - Up2snuff Dec 21, 11:34
Weekend 21st December 2024
BBC Website Watch #1 – only five? I can add a sixth, if I may ….. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2vlx20dm4o “Five unanswered questions… - Eddy Booth Dec 21, 11:21
Weekend 21st December 2024
“Jogging memories: Why some Nigerians in London set up their own running club” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98d4dre9ydo err is it because they don’t…
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
Has anybody ever told Alan that less is more?
I followed bbbc for a long long time, but Alan’s spam-like policy to posting stories resulted in me finding pastures new. I return occasionally to read some of the good stuff both written and commented on here, but when I see 6, 7 or 8 stories from Alan, in a single day, my heart sinks and I just think what’s the point in me trying to keep up with this?
Bye then !!
Lloyd …
don’t let the door catch you, … you still here?
‘what’s the point in me trying to keep up with this’
Just lost 15′ seconds I’ll never get back reading that.
Darn this cursed polymath tendency.
Lloyd has a point. The blog could use some new writers.
‘Lloyd has a point’
Guessing this is based on your beliefs?
Always a winner to sway folk when backed by nothing else.
‘The blog could use some new writers’
Interesting opinion. Gunning for a slot?
These things tend to be by invitation, but you could always apply. Maybe best to spend some time, get a feel for things, maybe chip in as a poster first, then give pitching for the role a go based on the work you’ve amassed and how it has been received?
You’ve got one like already so you’re well on your way.
ps: Have you tried this approach to any paid media, such as, say, the BBC?
If so, how they responded to this feisty approach would be interesting to learn about, so do share.
What a load of nonsense you write. What would ‘beliefs’ have to do with it? You’re probably inferring something that isn’t there. The blog has had basically one writer for some time now. Surely even a child could see that it might use a fresh voice or two in addition. One suspects that Alan’s constant stream of posts is at least in part an effort to make up for the fact that he’s on his own. The same amount of posts by different people might not seem so overwhelming. The blog used to have several regular contributors, and the different voices on different issues made for a more varied experience. There is nothing wrong with suggesting that Alan could use some help. It can’t be easy putting all this together on a daily basis.
As for the rest of your tortured prose, it’s irrelevant drivel. Why bring up the BBC? What does paid media have to do with this?
If you want to be reasonable instead of vicious, either say, “No, you’re wrong, I don’t think Alan needs any help,” or “A new voice wouldn’t go amiss. Perhaps David Vance could ask around.” Your reflexive attack position is risible.
‘What a load of nonsense you write’.
No, I don’t.
‘Your reflexive attack position is risible.’
No, it isn’t.
See how this can work. Or not?
As to the rest, there’s a style that seems oddly familiar, in complement to a level of accuracy that would make a Newsnight production team blush.
New name, old pack drill?
listen mate do us all a favour, just fuck off
that was for outside edge
check hotspot to see if he is out!
Anyone else noticed, since the latest report on (yet more reports) the BBC’s left wing bias, we have adopted a whole new swathe of trolls?
1st time posters, claiming to have been here for ages, telling everyone else what they should do.
Obviously looking for places that left-wing poncy arsed BBC bias is pointed out, and then attempt to discredit the posters/subjects.
Wonder if any of the other blogs that highlight BBC bias are receiving the same level of trolly interest?
Just a thought.
Outside Edge is just one of our regular Beeboid apologists posting under another name. They can change names but seem unable to change their writing style and sneering tone. It’s just a game to them. Pity they are too cowardly to post under their own names instead of continually changing them. They think they are being clever. Let them continue if it makes them happy but we don’t need to waste our time and thread space answering their childish garble.
DON’T GIVE BEEBOID TROLLS THE TIME OF DAY! They thrive on wasting your time.
No give them free reign to post their Lefty crap, it is very easily countered.
Outside Edge – many blogs have a single poster but you seem to have found the open threads where lots of us provide comments. Unlike the BBC none of the posters get paid – they can do what they like – if you don’t like it why don’t you set up a similar blog yourself?
Most of the best stuff is in the comments so Lloyd (or whatever Nicked Emus is calling himself today) misses the point – Biased BBC is a place where people can share and discuss their experience of the BBC.
Jump in then ,submit one yourself .But remember this forum is about ,not for BBC bias -we have the BBC for that
You don’t have to read them, you know.
Always wonder why the open thread is so disproportionately congested compared to all the other subjects! Maybe that says something about this site. Who runs it anyway? For that matter who funds it? Since the bbc is still there spewing bias perhaps it’s just an arm of our wily state broadcaster.
What a waste of space.
‘Always wonder why the open thread is so disproportionately congested’
Given the number of denial of service attrition attempts currently, from new and seasoned vets, you may be able to identify one possible reason if you try hard.
Nobody funds it, unless there’s a pledge drive, during which readers contribute voluntarily. Open threads have more traffic because they’re open and not limited to one topic. It’s always been the case for this blog. This isn’t a difficult concept.
“Nobody funds it………”.
Paid for by “fairy dust” then?
Albaman, can’t you read? Or do the words “pledge drive” and “contribute” mean something else on your planet? And you know perfectly well that “Whist” was implying outside funding by nefarious persons. I don’t think even you believe that’s the case.
‘What a waste of space’
Of course, if you say so.
[Stands back; fingers crossed]
‘… a director of the left wing think-tank Demos’.
Wow. The droids were exposed in the sunday press for being selective with their think-tank tags. The memo has now gone round telling them to all be a little less blatant (though if you rub an onion skin over the invisible ink below Tony’s sig you can see, ‘but carry on shilling for Labour’.
A corporate body covered with gurgling pustules and they dab a little bit of Max Factor Flesh Colour on one of them and they think that’s it.
Droids; don’t effin bother.
In other news Horseface has grown some bum-fluff. Made page forty-three of the Daily Mail.
Bryant’s leader must be sitting in a buddhistic trance staring down at a plate of green peas.
Lets face it, Bryant’s contribution yesterday was an unmitigated disaster, but at one level the brothers could look upon it as something of a success.
Ordinary Joe Soap, out there in the street will have heard what he said, and with the help of our illustrious state broadcaster will have registered some of the points he made and may even have been able to relate to some aspects.
After all our illustrious state broadcaster did cover this story on last night’s news, but played down or spun the most disastrous aspects in such a way as to minimise the fallout.
So, the net result from the brothers’ perspective is that they are back in the news again, and therefore somehow relevant in the minds of Mr Joe Soap and his like even if the underlying content detail is somewhat more suspect. Joe Soap and his like will not focus on that, or so the brothers and the state broadcaster hope.
Bryant is lucky he’s in the Labour Party because if he were a Tory or a Republican his car crash interviews and responses to questions would be broadcast over and over again.
I nearly put in a complaint to the BBC on Sunday morning having heard several minutes of Bryant’s leak on Broadcasting House of what he was going to say the next day. I am glad I didn’t because he managed to dig a very large hole all by himself.
Meanwhile, what is the latest news on the kidnapped 13 year old? She has been found, is safe, and men have been arrested. Is that the end of the story or is the BBC holding something back?
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/10603890.Racist_attack_on_Blackburn_police_officer/
observation …
13 year old girl …. uh oh!
concerns for welfare from mother uh oh!
runaway … uh oh!
gang of aggressive muslim men … UH OH!
hmmm
no comments allowed tick
very light on facts tick
a ahem “northern” newspaper by any chance?
how did those abhorrent creatures from the “religion of paeds” get away with it for so long?
“He was given a conditional discharge for 12 months and ordered to pay £40 costs.”
I thought ‘racially aggravated’ offences were supposed to receive more severe punishment, but it seems thats only the case when the perps are the indigenous!
and if the perps belong to the “professional victims” club?
Expect this story to vanish down the memory hole very quickly. The victim appears to be Roma and the accused .. well plumbers. Thus we have PC victim group vs PC victim goup. A difficult one for our very PC Police 🙂
Toby Young has written an article for the Jewish Chronicle about anti-Israeli bias in the British media. It drew this response from a parent at the West London Free School where Young is chairman of the governors:
Daughter of a Holocaust survivor, ex-BBC journalist: “saw bias from the inside”.
Isn’t anybody going to make a remark about this Jewish woman having “bacon” in her name? There has to be a joke in there somewhere.
Be nice as the poor lass might be related to Richard Bacon.
Might even being getting porked by him
What a pig of a day that would be.
(gets coat wanders off)
Remember how Lee Rigby was merely “killed” rather than murdered? That the term “murdered” couldn’t be used as that hasn’t been determined in a court of law yet? No such reticence by the BBC in this report:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23679132
Doubtless A Journalist and A Lawyer will be on to explain the difference.
🙂
One suspects they may for a while be on A. Notherblog.
I’ll stand in for them then
No but yeah, but no but yeah, but no-its all in your heads the daily mail put it there. the BBC are incapable of doing anything wrong, so that must be the truth
Does that cover it?
I will pick that one up.
It is wrong and the headline is technically prejudicial. You don’t know he was murdered. Murder is not a synonym for killed, it is the verdict of a court. The sub should know that.
It is a pretty crappy headline anyway. Who is Ajmol Alom? Not a headline name.
Tx. What is also interesting is that, since I looked last, his photo has changed.
I don’t recall the suit before. Why the change I wonder?
Still, the tragedy is made worse as ‘Ajmol Alom was a keen boxer and had won medals, his family said’.
Not only a suit, since this morning he has turned into a “star pupil” who used to “prayer 5 times a day” and was thinking to go to “a very good university to study medicine”. Don’t get me wrong: this is a terrible thing to happen to anyone and all sympathies to his family to the loss. But the contrast with the BBC’s treatment of the killing/murder of a non-ethnic minority is disgusting and exploitative.
How long before Ajmol’s mum gets her peerage? Or is that dependant on the colour of his killers.
The Guardian has this this morning:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/13/murder-star-pupil-stabbed-ajmol-alom?
It’s an odd piece, part reporting, part patronising and part proselytising.
They seem to want to mention facts, even add legitimate testimony/opinion, but then veer off into total speculation.
I stalled between:
‘..expected to receive outstanding exam grades in just over a week’s time’
…and..
‘”The exam results will come out next Thursday and he will have very good results,”
These are at the start and frame the narrative, but as a small point how does the head know what the results will be?
As a main point to push, are they inferring some kid on low grades is less of a loss if taken in such a way?
As with many high profile crime ‘news’ stories that start with a huge fanfare, I think I’ll flag this one to see what results down the line, and how the media who were all over it initially, with ‘analysis’, respond. Or not.
“Most of the kids that live around here are good, but a few of his friends that were with him are the kind that attract trouble.”
hmmmmmm….those pesky ‘street gang’ chaps ALWAYS seem to get the innocent one . The one ‘not involved with gangs’ who was hanging out with his mates who just happen to ‘attract trouble’ . mistakenidentity..wrongplacewrongtime……’ewas agoodboyreally…blah blah …saintstephen …blah blah blah
The media have been using “the star pupil”, “promising student” for every ethnic minority murder victim since the death of Stephen Lawrence. It’s a cliché that’s guaranteed to be used nowadays.
The phrase is used for most kids irrespective of colour or background. Most kids do have promise and hope.
BTW what is your real name, troll?:-)
A fair point. On the principle of ‘de mortuis nil nisi bonum’ or ‘speak no ill of the dead’, the media does say positive things about people who die young from any background.
Andy is my real name. What’s yours, Troll, or shall I call you Mr. True?
If it’s a fact, it can obviously be included, and if it goes to the current lack of explanation as to what might have lead him to be in such a conflict (though being a star pupil may be one too , these days, sadly) it has value.
However, there is a danger that defaulting to certain over-used phrases by spokespersons and their parrot-recording media interviewers can actually detract from victims’ stories being accorded the attention they deserve. Which serves justice and their memories poorly.
I regret that, while possibly sincere still, any homage which is introduced with ‘our thoughts and prayers go to..’ sounds pretty much pro forma.
This isn’t the first time the BBC has done this, you know. They previously did the same thing in a headline about the trial for the guy who possibly accidentally was standing in the middle of a Woolwich street, cleaning his fingers with a butcher knife, all innocent-like, when Gunner Rigby ran onto it. Seventeen times. Backwards, with nearly decapitating force.
And they did it here, as well as in this article about that nail-bomb in the vicinity of a mosque, where the BBC describes Rigby as having been “murdered”.
And, oops, they’ve done it again.
Have you written a letter of complaint, possibly even in your professional capacity, to the BBC about this clear epidemic of law-breaking? This is, after all, a serious issue.
“Lee Rigby murder trial date set” is fine. That is what it is – a trial to determine if the accused are guilty of murder
“Lee Rigby funeral: Drum parade for murdered soldier” Wrong. We don’t know he was murdered.
“Woman charged with terror offences over Woolwich murder videos” Wrong also.
Not sure two cases constitutes an epidemic and as an aside journalism isn’t a profession; at best it is a trade, probably just a job.
But not in all cases an honest one
Three cases, you mean. You can’t now dismiss the one Ian cited above which started this discussion. I imagine we could find more with a bit of effort.
As for your aside, even if we’re now downgrading journalism to being a trade or just a job (please inform Sen. Durbin!), would you say there’s an expertise gained after a period of training and experience? An expertise which makes your opinion on this matter more valuable than ours, which would in turn make your complaint to the BBC far more relevant to them.
Well, what do you know? The only effort it took was to hit “Next” on the search page where I found the above.
Multi-faith ceremony for murdered Drummer Lee Rigby
Woolwich murder: Family to receive MoD financial support
Woolwich murder: Second man charged
This last one calls it a murder, even while reporting that a second person has been charged with murder. Call it border-line, to be generous.
Is it an epidemic yet? A rash? A non-issue only worth scolding about (which others have done, professing to be journalists and lawyers – I’m not saying that’s what you’re doing here) when an obscure amateur blog does it?
“Lee Rigby funeral: Drum parade for murdered soldier” Wrong. We don’t know he was murdered.
wrong
it would be disrespectful to the victim of a brutal violent crime not to describe him as murdered simply because of some legal technicality used by a defendant that was originally introduced in order to escape the death penalty
there are only 2 defenses open to the defendants. Insanity and diminished responsibility and even if they are acquitted of murder of them grounds, the victim is still referred to as murdered. Even if they are acquitted, lee rigby was still a murder victim
maybe journalism is just a job to someone who just writes the jokes for christmas crackers
Cobblers.
So if you can’t call a murder a murder what do you write in the case of a rape or a burglary for example?
The alleged victim believed that someone had intercourse with them and reckoned it was unlawful as their consent was lacking?
And – the house in question was entered by someone who did not at that moment have permission to be there and somehow or other the owner’s laptop disappeared?
That’s pretty much my thinking as well. Calling it “murder” doesn’t place blame on anyone. It’s obviously not an accident, nor an argument which merely got out of hand, leading to an unintentionally deadly blow. Murder just means it was done on purpose, and not in self-defense, and there can’t be any doubt about that aspect of it. It doesn’t prejudice anyone or anything any more than calling it a murder trial once the accused has been charged does, which is apparently okay and doesn’t prejudice anyone.
I’m sure I’m too ignorant and stupid to grasp the legal nuances here, but common sense is being defied in a big way.
‘Common sense being defied’
Totally agree. Barristers making a fortune by splitting hairs.
Anyone who can think there’s any doubt about murder or killed ought to be sectioned under the mental health legislation.
“UK: MUSLIM CHARGED FOR INCITING JIHAD TERRORISM GLOATED OVER JIHAD MURDER: ‘MUSLIM LAUGHS AT BRITISH SOLDIER KILLING'”
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/08/uk-muslim-charged-for-inciting-jihad-terrorism-gloated-over-jihad-murder-muslim-laughs-at-british-soldier-killing.html
Typical BBC double standards. They make me sick!!
I went through the complaints procedure earlier to complain to the BBC online about this topic. Having typed three paragraphs after thinking about what I was saying, I clicked next and then remembered that I had not saved the text so I hit the back button, Big bloody mistake. If you do this you loose what you have written. Needless to say I couldn’t be bothered to do it again as in my heart I know that it’s a complete waste of time due to the beebs attitude.
‘I hit the back button, Big bloody mistake. If you do this you lose what you have written’
Ouch.
Still, as they say at Tesco… and the BBC… ‘every little bit helps’.
It would be easy to ensure saving as you go along (and you do have to ‘go along’ a lot… every daft line requires a new page refresh… for some reason) but if there’s a chance for a bit of attrition-based culling thanks to the system, well, people are not complaining not to complain, so the incentive is low.
Are you able to write your text in MS Word, and save until you are ready, then copy and paste into complaint window ?
saves a lot of aggro, byt!
Ooops, I just wrote pretty much the same thing without noticing your message Dysgwr…
Soz bud.
I know I have done that before when posting a long post on a blog but I just didn’t think to do it this time. I sort of lost the will to carry on with it once I’d lost it knowing that I was wasting my time anyway.
Wel, da iawn ti, beth bynnag!
And come on the Jacks!
Next time you write a letter of complaint, just do it in word/notepad, then copy n paste it into the BBC’s complaints “box” or, if the option exists, just attach the .doc or .txt document.
Easiest thing all round,
I’d also find it soothing that I wouldn’t have to look at a BBC advert while I am complaining to the bastids!
Highlight the text you’ve typed so far by right-click and drag. Once highlighted, right-click and copy. What you’ve copied stays ready for pasting if you accidentally delete, so keep doing it as you go along – say after every sentence. Works on most sites without a problem.
So we learn today that rail fares are going up in January next at inflation +1%. Given that this has been policy during Labour and Conservative years why all the fuss today? No doubt we will have a load fuss in January when the fares actually go up. Just like January 2013, August 2012 etc.
The BBC must put a damper on all the positive economic news starting to come through.
the murderers of lee rigby were not charged with killing him, they were charged with murdering him.
BBC – apologists for islamic savages
On Bacon today we have unbelievable sympathy and concern for the two girls caught trying to smuggle large amounts of cocaine out of Peru. The usual excuse, “we didn’t know what was in the bag” with the added bullshit “we were forced to do it” No real condemnation of the crime No surprise here though considering Bacons track record.
LOL, indeed.
He knows the price of his snort must have just gone up!
The tone of voice on Today programme (Wednesday) was similar – very hard to be more specific – but certainly the inflection sounded as though the girls had hardly done anything wrong.
Bacons also just called for ‘our first Black prime minister’
British born black people even now form a tiny proportion of the population, the majority are foreigners, recent arrivals. There is no reason why we should expect to have a black Prime Minister ever, without discrimination in their favour.
Globalists adore black people, for some reason it seems more than any other ethnic group! Could it be because of their big eyes and ‘watermelon smiles’?
All part of the agenda and not just the BBC, nearly every facet of the media pushes minority groups over Mr White (I say Mr White as women are also given more prominence)
Just watch any advert or BBC promo film, always a greater than representative percentage of minorities are included and nearly always they’re portrayed as the clever and enlightened ones.
Since the b’stards at the BBC gave up exclusive rights of Formula One I’ve been watching it live on the German channel RTL, interestingly its the complete opposite all the adverts and promos have no token minorities at all, I somehow feel more at home….
“Just watch any advert or BBC promo film, always a greater than representative percentage of minorities are included and nearly always they’re portrayed as the clever and enlightened ones.”
Usually black though, occasionally Asian since Mohammedans have been promoted as ‘victims’; prior to that Auntie wanst so fond of Asians, and even now do not see them as lovable as Africans. Many Asians are employed in reporting roles but feature less frequently as the heroes of drama.
I’ve been noticing black and Asian characters seem to be the first people seen in an increasing number of adverts. White faces seem to be included as an afterthought. It’s as though whites are being considered second class citizens in advertising nowadays. I realise it’s subtle multi-culti propaganda to get viewers believing there are more black and Asian people in this country, but it seems the advertising standards authorities seem to allow this kind of brainwashing ( I’m including BBC made programme trailers and information shorts in this as well ). ALL seem to be very well populated with ethnic minorities far beyond their real comparative numbers in this country.
You really are a sad racist troll.
Well come on then, Loyal and True, define race for us. Do you think it is merely a social construct? Do you think Pakistani Muslims are a different race from White Britons? Do you deny racial differences? Is Robert Mugabe free to refer to the “pink noses” of the British with distaste?
“Do you think Pakistani Muslims are a different race from White Britons?”
Irrelevant question as “Muslim” refers to religion not race. Islam is the Religion and the people that follow it are Muslims.
Try telling that to the BBC they don’t seem to have got it
The clue was in the full definition of “pakistani muslims” I maybe jeumping to a wrong conclusion there, but I think that they were refering to the Pakistani origin of the Muslims referred to.
I would then suggest that the race is different to white Britons.
In which case the comparison should have been between “Pakistani Muslims ” and something like British Christians as opposed to “White Britons”.
Loyal and True used the word “racist”, so I was wondering what he meant by it, that’s all – no need to snap at me! My answers to my four questions would be: no, no, no and yes.
So it’s racist now to make observations that are uncomfortable for race warriors?
Unauthorised thoughts now is it?
It seems the left will do anything to shut people up with statements they are uncomfortable with.
Loyal and True – you really are an offensive, fascist bastard!
That’s the first time I’ve posted an outright abusive message, but it seems appropriate in your case True you leftie troll.
It’s easy to smoke out the race hustling trolls who infest this site.
So, Mr True, if, in your multi-cultural Nirvana we are supposed to be colour blind, what do you say to programme makers who obviously say we need a few black or Asian faces in this drama/film/advert? Do you think they just cast roles on a first come, first served basis, or do they specifically hire ethnic minority actors to highlight “diversity”?
I’m sure the excuse will be they do that to because it reflects the racial make-up of this country. Even if that is true then by the standards of the race hustlers in this country they are being racist themselves in acknowledging different races living here.
It’s NOT racist to be aware that there are physical differences between the races.
I am not criticising the actors used. I am questioning the motivations of the programme makers. Where’s the racism in that?
They’re the real racists since they’re judging someone’s quality on their skin colour.
Exactly. I’d find it pretty patronizing if I was black.
I find it offensive because I’m white!
They portray us as shifty, underhand, racist, violent, misogynistic, devious, drunk, wife beating, kiddy fiddling and thick as two short planks.
Imagine the liberal shit storm if it were the other way around.
Chop
You just described yourself but forgot to add homophobic misogynist, bigot and utterly obnoxious.
Bless. But I admire your self awareness.
That’s you that is nah,nah,nah-Bless
Silly post! Ad hom attack , the last resort of those who have no rational argument.
How utterly predictable from the white hating lefty whack-a-mole tosser.
Remember not to piss on your sheets tonight dear, in fear of all the “waaaaaaaaaaaysists” under the bed blossom.
Oh come on chop, you dont need to sink to the name calling beloved of the Globalist brainwashed.
It’s a fair point Aerfen…they just do my head in, that’s all.
Somewhere in Britain, there is a bridge missing it’s troll…he’s here all the bloody time, goes by the name of will.duncan.
Scott, you given yourself away with your favourite patronising word “Bless”.
By the way, you seem to see prejudice in every one else except yourself. How enlightened is it to be “Heterophobic”?
Skin colour is an unsatisfactory criterion because, although readily visible, it may or may not be an indicator of true racial difference. Having a dark skin does not per se exclude a person from the category Europid or make them a Negrid. A Sicilian farmer will likely have a darker skin than a Swedish office worker but both would count as Europids.
It is the common cry to want a black (or woman)…. – to which my answer is I want the best prime minister (or whatever the call of the day is) rather than one judged by the colour of their skin.
Exactly Deborah.
Voting (or NOT voting) for someone because of their ethnicity is racist and stupid.
And you only have to look at that clown in the White House to see the mess that results.
The trouble is that the liberal bigot media……prime example Al Beebazeera….and the Left generally, cannot get their tiny brains around the fact that it is just as indefensible and retarded for a black voter, or indeed one of their lefty lickspittles, to select a candidate simply because he is black as it is for some tobacco-chewing, banjo-playing redneck (or BNP supporter) to vote for a candidate simply because he is white.
You hear the frequent call for “more ethnic minority candidates” and Liebour especially love their “women-only” shortlists.
Those proposing either are oblivious of the message they are actually sending, i.e. that they believe that the beneficiaries of their affirmative action wouldn’t be chosen if selection was purely on merit. In other words, they think that if we simply chose the best person for the job, politics would become “hideously white”.
This demonstrates a degree of racism and condescension that if you or I came out with it, would be screeched at from the rooftops by the very people who are proposing it now.
Too true. It’s just as offensive for lefties who believe in “Affirmative Action” to think ethnic minorities need a helping hand from leftist whites in order for them to achieve gainful employment. It’s patronising, condescending and racist in itself.
All women shortlists gave us the very feminine-looking Jacqueline Dromey MP, wife of some Labour MP man … oh, sorry, wait a minute, old age catching up on me! Correction: it was Jack Dromey and some Labour MP woman, “whose name eludes me for the moment”.
Aerfen,
“Bacons also just called for ‘our first Black prime minister’”
No he didn’t. You are lying through your teeth. It was a light hearted discussion with someone from “The Beard Liberation Front”. Listen for yourself:
http://bbc.in/13lq2CA
about 30 mins in.
Since Bacon never “called for ‘our first Black prime minister'” the rest of you post is based on nothing more than your own lie.
Meanwhile the BBC is running this as a legitimate story –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23683727
Are they even trying any more?
Looking at the twittosphere outside the ban all non-hive drones version they exist in, their FB page and the response on such as Guido, the reaction may not be as funny as they think they were being.
It has been noted that this may actually be the first time they have covered some story without stuffing it up, but also they still seem much more interested in their own navel fluff than actual ‘news’. The thought must be the name gets changed to ‘Night to reflect the only thing one can reliably accord it, namely when it screens.
Glancing (as yer do) through the piece, our Emily may be less than thrilled the subs plucked this gem out as a a line break…
Maitlis ‘working on moustache’
Hardly going to help her reputation much.
Droids droning about their favourite subject.
Themselves.
“I like Paxman’s beard,” added comedian Jenny Eclair. “Looks like he might ride a Harley come the weekend.”
Note to the BBC: Please define “comedian”
Yours,
Not laughing “Chop” of Watford.
The self-regarding BBC making its own news again.
(Yawwwwwn………………..zzzzzzzzzzzz)
For once, I am grateful to the bBBC, for helping me get to sleep quickly last night. Radio 4 FM, at half-past-midnight, had ‘Book of the Week, trailed as being ‘the music of London’. I guess it was no surprise that last night’s episode started ‘As the Windrush docked at Tilbury in 1948, it brought calypso …’
Click.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
The liberal lefties would have you believe that there is no such thing as the pub piano and the singalong, these days. All music is of Black origin apparently.
After many many years of fruitless waiting, I still wait to watch the inaugural Music Of White Origin music awards.
I refuse to watch the racist MOBOs until there is a racial balance with MOWOs.
Well, for balance, the BBC does have The Proms which is all music by white…..oh, wait…..that Gospel thing…..the upcoming “World Routes” Prom…..the Celebration of Charlie Parker…..
I guess some things require inclusiveness, while others require you to include yourself or be called a racist.
They can call me what they but I don’t want to live in a multi-racial society. Particularly, because the question was never put to the British people as to whether we wanted to become multi- racial/multicultural. Obviously those who created the mess we now have knew that if they asked us we would say NO. So the liberal/left and their all powerful mouth piece the BBC, hid the truth , suppressed debate , made pariahs of those who tried to voice a different opinion, denigrated Britishness, demonised Englishness. So much for democracy in Britain.
Not multi-racial, or not multi-cultural? There’s a difference, even though the Ministry of Truth has suppressed it. Would you object to living amongst people of other races if they held many of the same values you do (i.e. not third-world caveman stuff or violent behavior)?
Quite correct, Dave. Unfortunately media organisations like the BBC deliberately blur the lines between “multi-culturalism” and “multi-ethnicity”. Mary Beard is a prime example when she describes the Roman Empire as multi-cultural when she actually means multi-ethnic.
I, personally, have no problem with a multi-ethnic society which shares the same values. I just see multi-culturalism as enforced subjugation of the indigenous culture in favour of a pot pouree of different values leading to a fractured society.
I am sure that the White Police Association would agree with you, along with the Society of White Lawyers, and all the other organisations that would be banned for being racist.
“All music is of Black origin apparently.”
Except, strangely, the Blues, which so far as I can find out has never been a category at the MOBOs.
Sir Arthur Strebe-Grebling,
“…Book of the Week, trailed as being ‘the music of London’. I guess it was no surprise that last night’s episode started ‘As the Windrush docked at Tilbury in 1948, it brought calypso …’
Click”
Actually the book is: “Sounds Like London – 100 Years of Black Music in the Capital” by Lloyd Bradley. And yes it had black people in it. OH THE HORROR.
Black people? I pay my license fee for people of different skin colour to come along and ruin it. Outrageous 😉
More enrichment coming to BBC2, The Incredible Spice Men, “Tony Singh and Cyrus Todiwala want to transform the way people cook British dishes at home”
The Indian chef’s take on British favorites such as Roast Chicken, The Full English, Fish and Chips and even Afternoon Tea with the WRVS to give them a spicy Asian slant.
Is nothing sacred?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0394f74
So……..Whole roast chicken in a keema sauce……egg pilau with chopped fried bacon………fish pakora with tandoori fried aloo…..scone with kulfi ice cream and mango chutney.
There you go, BBC, done the fucking job for you and saved you half a million quid.
Now stop arsing around trying to destroy my culinary heritage and get back to what you’re supposed to be doing with my licence fee.
what about faggot and peas samosa,irish tandoori stew,finished with aloo good bye bugger off our food.
Are you sure you’re allowed to say faggot?
They serve enough of them at the BBC canteen.
All those Hairy Biker and Great British Menu shows don’t balance this out, even a little?
BBC-Democrat: censoring FORT HOOD jihad mass murder case still.
Why the censorship? Is it because of this:-
‘JihadWatch’:-
“Fort Hood jihad mass murderer: ‘I don’t think what I did was wrong because it was for the greater cause of helping my Muslim brothers.'”
[Opening excerpt]:-
“In everything Hasan says about his murders, he links them to his Islamic faith. Yet anyone who dared to suggest that perhaps the texts and teachings of the Islamic faith should be examined so as to understand his motives and goals more fully would be denounced as ‘Islamophobic.'”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/08/fort-hood-jihad-mass-murderer-i-dont-think-what-i-did-was-wrong-because-it-was-for-the-greater-cause.html
Dez and Scott will say this isn’t true, simply because jihadwatch said it. They and the rest of the defenders of the indefensible can continue to claim these murderers don’t use their religion as an inspiration, but not even the murderers themselves believe him anymore.
the left wing attack dogs who come in this blog to bellyache and moan would love to silence and control alans editorial output,dont let them mate.
Apologies if this has been brought up elsewhere:
How the biased BBC linked my free-market views to homophobia: Researcher says he was asked to debate against gay rights campaigner
A senior researcher at a respected think tank has revealed that he commissioned a study into the BBC’s left-wing bias after one of its staff assumed he must be homophobic – because he believes in free markets.
Ryan Bourne, of the Centre for Policy Studies, said he was ‘astonished’ when a researcher at the BBC World Service asked him to debate against veteran gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell simply because he works for an organisation associated with the Centre-Right.
Mr Bourne, head of economic research at the CPS, said the approach appeared to reveal a ‘deep-seated, unthinking bias’, so he commissioned the study into whether the corporation’s news output is politically skewed despite its duty to remain impartial.
So, what woke him up?
He said he was contacted by a researcher for the BBC World Service radio programme Newshour for a debate to be aired on May 17, the International Day Against Homophobia.
The programme wanted someone willing to argue against Mr Tatchell, 61, who has campaigned for gay rights for decades through his organisation OutRage!.
Mr Bourne told the Daily Mail: ‘They said, “This might not be up your street but we were wondering whether, as a free marketeer, you would debate Peter Tatchell on our programme about whether enough is being done to combat homophobia across Europe”.
‘I was astonished. It made no sense at all. The researcher seemed to assume that because I believe in a free market economy I must also be homophobic. It seemed to reveal a deep-seated, unthinking bias against right-of-centre points of view. I am not homophobic at all.’
This wasn’t done by directive from the top; there is no editorial policy forcing the BBC researcher to do this. The bias happens naturally because they all think this way. The researcher didn’t decide on his/her own to ask a free-market advocate to argue against homosexual rights, and the head producer wouldn’t have blindly gone along with the researcher’s choice of guest without agreeing with the premise that an advocate for non-Left economic policies must by default hold all other unapproved thoughts as well. They all think this way, and it’s a problem.
Defenders of the indefensible will claim they don’t have to address this because it appeared in the Daily Mail.
It has.
But the role of pre-vetting by BBC ‘researchers’ is a topic well worth repeating.
Being raised in the Daily Mail is of course irrelevant. It is for the BBC to challenge whether it happened or did not as the witness and editorial seem satisfied that it did.
Guessing it did.
There have been other instances, MPs & Telegraph journos spring to mind, where folk have had odd calls to try and get them to feed a stereotype and when reluctant dropped.
Be interesting to find out who was subsequently located, deemed suitable, and the result… especially to the cause of light over heat.
Looking forward to the next in-depth BBC reporting from the Balcombe “Peace Camp”:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/8/13/balcombe-parish-chairman-tells-protestors-to-frack-off.html#comments
Elitist BBC-NUJ only gave super-rich, black, liberal Oprah Winfrey’s version of events in that Zurich shop, not the white wage-earning sales assistant’s version -for which we have to turn to the democratic ‘Daily Mail’:-
“‘Oprah’s a liar’: Sales assistant in Swiss racist handbag row denies telling TV host that she could not view item because she couldn’t afford it.
“Sale assistant said she feels ‘powerless’ after the racism accusations.
“Oprah Winfrey claimed assistant refused to show her a handbag because it was ‘too expensive.’
“Speaking anonymously, shop worker said claims were ‘absurd.'”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2389798/Oprah-Winfrey-branded-liar-Swiss-sales-assistant-racist-handbag-row.html
Oprah has a new film released this month. No such thing as bad publicity.
Why should The Mighty Oprah concern herself with the livelihood of a lowly shop assistant (annual wage less than the price of an Oprah handbag).
Sometimes even the super rich (not a criticism – she earned it) hear what they want to hear. You don’t have to be rich or even hear it, only once, in a shop with background noise and a shop assistant speaking English as a third (or even 4th language) to mishear.
KissThisGuy.com has a list of songs where lyrics are commonly misheard. That is, songs that were recorded and heard multiple times.
The BBC, as a matter of proper journalism, should have interviewed the shop assistant.
I guess being black (and a rich celebrity) trumps being working class for the BBC. I expect Winfrey, who has a reputation for being gracious will eventually admit that a mishearing was possible. I have no such expectations of the BBC.
A sad tale to conclude the day…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23679132
‘if you work in Broadcasting House, you can’t park – so train and tube fares are likely to rise by at least 4%.’
Hearts are bleeding. Some still can’t drive to work. The horror.
As non licence-fee payer now I may be less exasperated at where the money goes when market rate talents cave in inevitably and yet more money goes any way but programming, but it does highlight the daft notion of a non-essential public sector service strike and ‘negotiation’.
A £4Bpa no questions asked pot must look awfully nice to any with a money tree mentality.
Surely no beeboid would drive – even an electric vehicle which indirectly would lead to a marginal increase in CO2 output from the majority of vehilces being slowed by the increased traffic volume – surely they all use public transport all of the time with the lead coming from the top. Wonder what the taxi bill will be this year?
Public transport?!? 😮
Never. They all cycle . Er, don’t they?
NO! Maria Eagle. on the BBC News last night said 9.1%. She was never challenged about this misrepresentation (lie).
No “misrepresentation (lie)” about it:
“The retail prices index measure of inflation was 3.1 per cent in July, which means fares will rise by an average of 4.1 per cent. But train companies, which are under fire for running late, overcrowded trains, can raise some fares by 5 percentage points more than this.”
“Maria Eagle, Labour’s shadow transport secretary, said: ‘At a time when wages are stagnant or falling, it is completely out of touch for ministers to allow fares to go up by as much as 9.1 per cent again.’”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2392427/Rail-users-face-price-hike-200-year-branded-bad-economy.html#ixzz2bw2jEQcD
‘….can raise some fares by 5 percentage points more than this.’
Note: not will raise. Let’s wait and see if it happens, eh?
But then, Labour weren’t ‘out of touch’ when doing the same, were they? Just like mass immigration – ‘nowt to do wi’ us guv’.
Some fairs can rise by 9.1%- some
suggesting that that is the average rise or even a representative figure is indeed misrepresentation
Where did she (or the BBC) suggest that 9.1% “is the average rise or even a representative figure”?
She didn’t – however you know very little about psychology. People remember figures better than words because figures are unusual. People also FEAR price increases so again this helps reinforce that fear by associating a number to it.
What Eagle says is completely truthful and correct. However, the entire position taken by the Labour party is loathsome and utterly cynical and their fans in the BBC evade asking the simplest of questions and actively collaborate to pump out the Labour messag.
This RPI+1 policy for train fares, and the fact that prices can be varied as long as the avarege incerase stays within this ceiling is exactly the same policy as that of the previous labour administration. It is a Labour policy.
Has any BBC droid pointed this out?
Thought not.
Seeing as I was the last poster on the other thread I’ll post it again here !
WOW I AMAZED ! For the first time ever a complaint has been upheld !!!
It’s taken a long time and it had to be resubmitted a few times but in the end !!
So here’s what it was about .
We raised your concerns with the relevant editorial staff at ‘The World at One’ and they believe that there are clearly links between the English Defence League and extremism. The Government has banned marches and processions by the EDL because the police considered that they would result in serious public disorder. Hundreds of arrests have been made at EDL demonstrations and research by Chatham House found that those who agreed with the EDL held beliefs that were more extreme than most of the population.
That said, given the very brief nature of the reference to the EDL in this introduction, we acknowledge that it would have been better to have described them as a group that protests against ‘radical Islam’ instead.
So will we now see a change in the way the BBC describes the EDL? Not as an extremist far right group, but a group which protests against radical Islam?
I’m not holding my breath!
Don’t hold your breath, Thoughtful, but a very, very rare victory (and the more surprising given the subject matter) however small and short-lived it might be, so nice one.
‘….research by Chatham House found that those who agreed with the EDL held beliefs that were more extreme than most of the population.’
Erm, that wouldn’t be right wing extremism by any chance? You know, the only kind of extremism?
I think I’ll Google ‘Chatham House’, ‘extremism’ and ‘UAF’ now.
Oh, on second thoughts…..
Unfortunately it’s another lie by the BBC .
Here is what Chatham House actually say about the EDL supporters:
Half the supporters of the far right English Defence League (EDL) are respectable managers and white collar workers, a report has revealed… The report by Chatham House warns ministers and those combating extremism need to reassess who they target.
A survey by Chatham House has found that people attracted to groups such as the English Defence League (EDL) are more likely than average to be full time employed and come from a range of different professions.
In terms of the UAF, there were no results at all.
Is there a link to the CH report?
On the basis you outline there appears clear reason to feel the BBC is playing fast and loose with what it put(s) in, and leaves out of their story, and this may be grounds for a challenge.
Now, they may well wheel out the FOI exemption again, but doing that an awful lot, especially when confronted with half-stories if not information at best, can start to wear out their already tissue thin journalistic credibility.
Cherry picking in lieu of reporting is maybe their SOP, but it does not make it right.
I think the paper referred to can be downloaded here. I haven’t had time (or, frankly, the inclination) to read it in detail but found this paragraph:
“In fact supporters are spread quite evenly across society, with 53 per cent working in routine non-manual, professional or managerial occupations, and the remainder being skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled workers, or on state benefits.“
Tx.
‘haven’t had time (or, frankly, the inclination) to read it in detail’
I hear you.
Used to be one relied on objective news media to do this and summarise fairly, but now, well, you know…
This would seem grounds for Thoughtful to go back and at least try and prise out why they felt certain aspects were worthy of quoting while other, equally worthy facts were not.
But guessing an FOI shutter will be the response.
The Government has banned marches and processions by the EDL because the police considered that they would result in serious public disorder.
——————————————————————————
Unbelievable. Might that just be because the people who oppose the EDL – like say UAF may be violent.
The droids truly are pig-thick.
Just like Geert Wilders and Pamela Geller have been banned for fear of violence. The BBC never gets around to saying just who was going to be doing the violence, though.
Gee, nice work if you can get it…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2391144/Sun-Sex-Suspicious-parents-BBC-boss-boast-TV-crew-partied-10-DAYS.html
Equality, Equality, Equality – I have just flicked on to BBC London Evening News and saw a sight that I didn’t know existed – a male weather reporter on BBC London. For my sins I have BBC Breakfast on (on silent) in the morning as a time check. At _ _ 57 and _ _27 they cut to the local news. In the last six months I have seen 4 different women present the weather not a single man – seems at odds with the national demographic, this got me to thinking about the news presenters and I can recall 4 women and 2 men in the same time period – better but still not reflective of demographic. I can’t believe how sexist this is – they put the male weather presenter on the main programme … clear evidence of the need for a review of the misogynistic employment policies, how dare they put in a glass ceiling like that.
(Have to say on national BBC TV sports reporting going much the same way!)
Sorry is this has been brought up elsewhere.
Has anyone noticed that on the day that the inflation rate fell again the BBC are leading with the rise in rail fares. The fall in inflation has now been relegated to the business section of the web site from the front page.
On the day it looks like the housing market is on the mend the BBC start blaming the coalition for starting a housing bubble.
Every good news story for the economy is given such negative spin it is unbelieveable.
Not unbelievable Glenn – expected!
Al-beeba is merely using the Nulibor ” grid” method,with which to manage the release of news.
In fact it probably IS the Nulibor grid, managed and supllied by whoever spins for them.
Trouble is, Dopey Dave hasn’t yet found out what a grid actually is, let alone begun to use one.
Haven’t noticed this on BBC either despite being from there hose paper
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/12/guardian-icm-poll-tories-economic-confidence
Before any one tells me its on page 24 of BBC parish times-that don’t count
Hillary Clinton, a global inspiration to some Beeboids, gave a speech yesterday about the importance of voting rights. This was in reaction to North Carolina’s new voter ID law (and an opportunity for a little demagoguery and profile-boosting for her presidential run). While stoking fears that the recent Supreme Court decision which enabled this law meant that evil people now had carte blanche to step up the racial discrimination at the voting booth, she also made an Obamessiah-worthy gaffe.
She messed up the last name of fabled civil rights martyr, Medgar Evers. There will be no snarky Beeboid tweets or giggles on any BBC radio or tv show, topical comedy or otherwise, like there was when George Bush or Sarah Palin mispronounced something.
And this is more than a Clinton gaffe, which BBC-Democrat doesn’t mention:
“Anthony Weiner Says Wife Huma Abedin Will Have A Role In Hillary Clinton 2016 Campaign”
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2013/08/anthony-weiner-says-wife-huma-abedin-will-have-a-role-in-hillary-clinton-2016-?
And, of course:-
” Huma Abedin, Alger Hiss, Huma Abedin, Alger Hiss, Huma Abedin, Alger…”
By Robert Spencer.
Robert Spencer in PJ Lifestyle: Huma Abedin, Alger Hiss, Huma Abedin, Alger Hiss, Huma Abedin, Alger…
Link to above:-
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/08/robert-spencer-in-pj-lifestyle-huma-abedin-alger-hiss-huma-abedin-alger-hiss-huma-abedin-alger.html
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/secretary-of-state-huma-abedin/
the always sharp Daniel greenfield
David. I have yet to hear this speech but have been amused in the past by the various different accents Hilary uses depending on subject matter or location. Most memorably she once came over “all Jewish” in New York.
Is it worth my while finding a recording?
No, there’s no reason to waste your time listening to 45 minutes of campaign speechifying. She was speaking to a bunch of lawyers, so no fake accents necessary. I don’t think she even bothered to tell lies about being shot at by snipers in Bosnia or how she personally brokered peace in Northern Ireland. The highlights quoted in that HuffPo piece I’ve linked to are more than enough, I’m sure.
Definitely prefer Sky News. Julia Hartley-Brewer’s magnificent mouth watering bangers were just on there – bloody superb viewing!
if youre up at 0530hrs Alice Baxter on BBC business news is good viewing as well. she hasnt got the mouth watering melons like Julia Hartley-Brewer, but still good viewing all the same.
This is like reading the Viz letters page!
Jeremy Bowen meets BBC 5 Live’s finest :
‘We’re sorry we can’t have more about armpit BO – but we must talk about the Muslim Brotherhood’
Jeremy Bowen : ‘They keep saying it isn’t a coup – that’s looking untrue’
Rachel Burden : ‘….and I’m honestly not being patronising here – it shows how far they are from democracy’
Jeremy Bowen : ’50 years ago Egypt did have a fledgling democracy – but the British managed to crush it’
AsISeeIt: ‘The BBC : “Sticking it to the ‘Man'” at home and abroad – past, present, for ever.’
JB is fantasizing, 2013-50=1963
What happened in Egypt in 1963? In early 1960s, Egypt became fully involved in the North Yemen Civil War. In 1967 Egypt fought and lost the Six Day War. What, if anything, happened in Egyptian democracy that Britain crushed (or for that matter was a position to crush) in 1963?
I hope he isn’t blaming Elizabeth Taylor and Cleopatra for damage to democracy?
In March 1964, a provisional Constitution was declared, leading to a 350-elected member National Assembly. This Assembly lasted from 26 March 1964 to 12 November 1968. Seems that was a step in the right democratic direction necessitated by the collapse (Syria left) of the United Arab Republic (UAR). Did the British have something to do with that? How?
6.50 on Toady R4 – Evan Davies enthusing about French growth of 0.5%. if our next growth is 0.5% will it be more enthusing or will it be that growth has fallen to 0.5%.
Wonder why he doesn’t enthuse at all about non-EU countries Norway and Switzerland having half the unemployment rate that we and other EU countries have got?..
Here’s a scoop… I can exclusively reveal the BBC News correspondents’ new turn for Comic Relief….
Grainy cameraphone footage shot at secret rehersals in the deep basements of New Broadcasting house
Who can you pick out?
Looks to me like Paul Mason in the natty knitwear and that has to be Jeremy Bowen in the trenchcoat….
Circa-back-in-the-day The Original Mirrors – ‘Where’s the fun in dancin’ unless you’re dancin’ with the Rebels’
From BBC News wesite:
“The unemployment rate remains at 7.8%, still well above the 7% rate target set by the Bank of England”
WELL above? Ah well, another good news story shown to be nothing of the sort.
“Website” but then maybe…..
Here’s the link… http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23692996
Don’t know where to start with the bias in this.
Unemployment falls by JUST 4000… very misleading.
To start with, the BoE didn’t set a target. They merely forecast that they would consider raising rates when unemployment reached 7%. Not quite the same thing.
“Unemployment falls by JUST 4000… very misleading.” – Misleading in what way bearing in mind that 2.5m remain out of work? As stated later in the article: “The ONS said the figures meant unemployment was “broadly unchanged” from the first three months of the year.”
Where the bias lies is the use of qualifiers such as “well above” and “just” which are not necessary except to denigrate the achievement. Read again with qualifiers removed – still true statements but sound just a little complimentary to the Government and we can’t have that can we?
The facts remain:
Unemployment fell by JUST 4000 when compared to 2.5m.
Unemployment at 7.8% remains WELL ABOVE 7%.
Spin it any way you like but there is no bias in these statements.
Unemployment fell by JUST 4000 when compared to 2.5m.
‘Unemployment continues to fall, figures today show it fell by a further 4000’ is the news, the bad-news twist is added for effect, their effect, your effect, bias.
Unemployment at 7.8% remains WELL ABOVE 7%.
‘remains well above 7%’ is superfluous and not the news so it is clearly bias.
And the elephant in the room, Albaman, which has had the biggest impact on employment in this country over the last 15 years, but which is NEVER mentioned by the BBC as a factor is………? Go on, you can do it.
Why can’t they just say that unemployment falls? Why do they feel the need to input an opinionated slant into the headline and a negative one at that?
They could just as easily headlined with a positive aspect instead stating the rise in the employment levels, but no, the BBC prefer to focus on the negative.
Just imagine my surprise!
I notice that you don’t comment on the target aspect… just to re-iterate no target was set.
“Target” can be defined as: A desired goal.
The BoE has a desired goal of not increasing rates until unemployment reaches 7%.
As such the use of “target” is justifiable.
Strange isn’t it? 2.5 million people unemployed, population of Britain GREW by more than 2.5 million thanks to Labour’s immigration bonanza, 3 million new homes needed.
Some people are blind to the common denominator here.
Oh, where’s he gone?
“The BoE has a desired goal of not increasing rates until unemployment reaches 7%.
As such the use of “target” is justifiable.”
Well, not according to the BBC’s report regarding precisely what Mr Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, has actually said (as opposed to the contortions you obviously went through to make up a sentence like the one above.)
Quote from the BBC article
“Mr Carney said that the 7% unemployment figure was not a target, but a point at which the Bank of England would re-examine interest rates.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23588958
There you go, direct contradiction of your statement from the mouth of the person in charge of the BoE – no contortions. Simples.
Regardless of what one may think about the BBC’s slant on this, which incidentally is not too different from that of the Telegraph (who also don’t seem too excited and use the word ‘steady’) the figures are grossly massaged, true unemployment is far greater.
In which case “just” could reasonably be replaced by miserly!!
Something for any lurking house monitors. Pure OT.
Well, a bit.
Well, given the Guardian is accepted as the political, social & enviro bellweather of what the public finds important in the news, maybe not.
I get their daily email summaries of what’s on line.
They are split into a few categories: Editor’s Picks, then ‘Most Viewed’, then… Sport, followed by Comment is Free, Culture, Business, Technology, Travel, Life & Style and finally Pic of the day.
I find that order interesting, as news media tend to reflect reader priorities.
Odd to see Sport the first actual category.
Less so when out of the 6 stories of ‘Most Viewed’, 3 are sport-related (one media gossip, one social commentary and just one actually ‘news’, on the Times Top 100 Uni list).
The Editor’s Picks, in choice and slant, could of course be any BBC ‘news’ show running order.
But what intrigued me was the Graun’s own audience seems to use them (ignoring their Editor’s best efforts), at best, for footy and TV gossip, not the ‘big issues’ they get dragged out to represent.
Somewhat intrigued by Jeremy Bowen’s bold statement of British culpability for Egypt’s current political woes….
’50 years ago Egypt did have a fledgling democracy – but the British managed to crush it’
Thumbnail history of modern Egyptian history….
‘Gamal Abdel Nasser established a military dictatorship with a one party state, known as the Republic of Egypt, following the 1952 Egyptian revolution. Egypt was ruled autocratically by three presidents over the following six decades, by Nasser from 1954 until his death in 1970, by Anwar Sadat from 1971 until his assassination 1981, and by Hosni Mubarak from 1981 until his resignation in the face of the 2011 Egyptian revolution.’
Obviously Bowen will blame Britain for Suez (1956) but I’m struggling to understand how Nasser’s regime was a fledgling democracy.
Perhaps some friend of the BBC could enlighten me?
There have never been any Western stye democracies in the ME and Bowen must know this.
Of course I exclude Israel but then according to the liberal left Israel is not a country so the argument holds.
That was the strong message of Roger Scruton’s Points of View last week. “Democracy” on its down is no good – you need the rule of law, independence of the judges, private property etc. Scruton pointed out that these civil rights happened in the UK BEFORE we had any real democracy in terms of wide suffrage. They are the bulwark against arbitrary behaviour by government.
Scruton said that the absence of such rights in communist countries meant that “democracy” does not mean much, people can be trampled – confiscations, kangaroo trials, judges themselves being coerced or punished / eliminated.
Scruton then said this has been the style of the Muslim Brotherhood – he could have added Hamas. Win a “democratic vote” and then run a dictatorship. That is what happens in Gaza and most Arab countries and has happened in Egypt and Turkey.
A fairly simple message really. But far too complicated for most people at the BBC.
Similar sentiments in a piece from the Gatestone Institute. Bowen needs to read it.
An Indonesian commentator compared (well – contrasted) the situation in Indonesia when they booted out Suharto with Egypt when they removed Mubarak.
The Indonesian government’s approach was ‘something for everyone’.
The MB’s approach in Egypt was ‘it’s all our’s now, the rest of you can f*** off’.
I paraphrase.
I think I’m seeing a pattern here. Too many Beeboids seem to believe that democracy is for electing temporary dictators (when they’re not Republican or Conservative, that is). They sure act as if all must bow down to The Obamessiah’s wishes since He was democratically elected. No opposition to any policy is tolerated, and the Constitutional separation of powers is viewed as obstructionism. Same for Morsi, Erdogan, Chavez, etc.: they were democratically elected so their actions are fine.
But when it’s Bush or Cameron in charge, opposition is the highest form of patriotism, and their actions are wrong if some polls show people don’t like it. These democratically elected leaders are not given the same fealty for some reason.
’50 years ago’? 1963? Or is this BBC Math again and he meant 60 years ago?
There was a nominal ‘Republic of Egypt’ for a few minutes there, ending the monarchy, until Nassar took over. But as far as I know, the revolutionary officers removed their first leader and left a vacuum for Nassar, whom I believe was elected democratically, for whatever it was worth at the time. But it was a fledgling democracy only in the sense that there could have been one eventually if Nassar hadn’t seen fit to go large. The British didn’t force him to establish a dictatorship.
Where is this quote from, by the way? All I can find is Bowen’s lamentation on the military coup. He sure is unhappy about the democratically-elected Morsi being removed and MB apparatchiks getting arrested. It’s almost as if Bowen believes Morsi did nothing wrong and was merely trying to do the best he could in a bad economic situation.
It was okay for the military to remove Mubarak – who was the legal ruler at the time – because the people wanted it (never mind the pressure from Western Imperialists, whose influence was welcomed by those who usually rail against it), but removing Morsi – who was in the process of dispensing with the fledgling democracy which elected him – is somehow bad, even though the people wanted it. Bowen suggests that democratically elected leaders must not be removed by force (Somehow, I doubt he’d have shed a tear if George Bush had been forcibly removed – oh, wait, I forgot that most Beeboids believe he stole the election). Even though Morsi was going rogue and laying the groundwork to set up a new dictatorship, Bowen is in favor of letting it happen. On principle, apparently, but which one? There was no infrastructure for impeachment in place, and Morsi was already acting extra-legally, so what other option was there to stop Morsi from setting up another Iran? Bowen doesn’t care.
Listen to the tone of his voice in the audio, and in the way he challenges El Baradei. The emotion is clear. That’s what happens when journalists try to inject drama in their reading: it comes across as emotional, as if there is intent behind the intonation.
A factual summary giving the lie to Bowen’s outlandish, make-history-up-as-you-go-along-to-fit-the-leftist-narrative claim.
Where are scottdezwillalbaman when the facts start flying……..
Near the end of the Today program we had Evan Davis talking to Baroness Falkner about the clearances of the Muslim brotherhood protest camps in Cairo – she explained that on a recent visit she had implored the protesters to get the women and children out as the authorities would have to clear the camps as they are in the middle of arterial roads etc.
Davis was horrified at what she said and rather aggressively asked “Are you on the side of the government in this matter?”
She tried to explain that as a Muslim and a mother she was concerned for the safety of women and children – but Evan had had enough of her appeasement and cut her off abruptly so that they could run an important piece about the upcoming friendly England Scotland football game.
I see the Muslim brotherhood have bombarded police stations, burned churches and attacked Christians. I wonder how the BBC will spin this one out.
There was a case in Cairo earlier this week where a 10-year-old Christian girl was deliberately gunned down in the street.
Animals. But not reported by the BBC ?
I think it WAS reported on the News at 22:00 on BBC1 on Tuesday and set in the context of other such cases, so two cheers for the BBC at least.
Yes, it was on last night. I wondered at the time why they had decided to report something which I knew from sites like this was going on months ago.
So the Eurozone is out of recession – bloc GDP is 0.3%.
Objectively speaking it seems austerity is slowly improving matters. But had that figure been for the UK Ed Balls would be on the Beeb performing his hand-gesture and proclaiming “flat-lining.”
Funny that: EU economic news good – BBC not allowing juvenile antics.
A monstrous battalion of BBC women commentating on male sports…?
Do I mean the BBC meeting quotas for the new football season?
No, no, calm down dears…. I mean the endless stream of headscarfed Muz Brotherhood supporters doing the rounds of TV and radio to tell us what to think about the strictly male sport of Army v Brothers on the streets of Cairo.
Seems to be that the hard core Islamist message from the MB in Egypt needs to be sprinkled with a little sugar and a whole lot of BBC magic….
Just how many sports presenters do they have on BBc breakfast seems to be more than the numbers of presenters being rotated through.
BBC Breakfast is a woman fest, apart from the downtrodden male presenter, we have a woman co-presenter, woman weather forecaster, woman business news presenter and various women sports presenters. Moving on to my local news we then always have a female news reader and female weather forecaster.
At least one of the above at any given time will also be of a minority group, ticking another box…
There is an ethnic news presenter on North West Breakfast. I was watching She has a strange fixed grin which remains when talking about stories involving death. Not exactly appropriate. Mind you I also saw another presenter covering the carbon monoxide deaths on a boat in the lake distict who presented the story with a grin on her face.
More dubious figures on BBc 13:00 news. I seemed to get the impression I was listening to the voice of the muslim brotherhood. Lots of “DEATH” but playing down the Army’s side of low casualities.
Even more smoke and mirrors over the “fall” in unemployment. Not here I’ve just heard the local news say it’s increased locally by 7,000. Then off to the new look job center of the future. Awesome! “there appears to be a good selection of jobs” oh good none of those minimum wage zero hour contracts then.
Watching Sky re the release of Pali murderers by Israel, Anna Botting took care to remind viewers what some of them were convicted of – one charmer killed a 76 year old holocaust survivor with an axe while he was at work.
I wonder whether the droids thought any of this worth mentioning or were they perhaps too busy popping (our) champagne corks over the glorious homecoming of heroic freedom fighters.
Do you mean something like this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23673848
But on the other hand
Most of the former detainees brought to Gaza belong to Fatah. Only one belongs to Hamas, which has strongly rejected the deal to resume peace talks with Israel.
“Detainees” gives the impression of a lack of normal judicial process, does it not?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23693094
““Detainees” gives the impression of a lack of normal judicial process, does it not?” – Only if you believe that everyone “detained” in prison in the UK has not been sent thre after “normal judicial process”.
But people ‘detained in British prisons are prisoners aren’t they?
It would be odd for the BBC to describe Peter Sutcliffe and Ian Brady as detainees, no?
It would not be wrong to describe them as such would it?
yes it would Albaman. they are known as “patients”
Of course, if you say so.
‘Of course, if you say so’
I’ve cut any pasted it; may I use it too?
There may be secret tonality embedded that others from Krypton may be unable to resist.
its a fact, these cold blooded mass murderer’s are called patients. Brady is actually known as “patient 490”.
Whenever is it the norm, Albaman, in this country (and yours) to refer to convicted prisoners as ‘detainees’?
This seems to be the most common definition on the net: ‘a person held in custody, especially for a political offense or for questioning’
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/detainee
You fit well with the BBC, who are constantly trying to muddy the waters with their re-writing of history and the English language.
Page 24 of other parish news again
But easily found which makes the original post by “uncle bup” a bit of a nonsense really. But hey, once again, lets not let the facts get in the way of this sites prejudices..
You were noticeably absent from the tearing apart of Bowen’s ‘facts’ above.
But here’s your opportunity!
Away you go………..
Found if looked for, looked for if know to be there, as opposed to proactively broadcast (you know by a broadcasting company) as is the case with anti Israeli stories. whether true or not.
Blimey Albania Man’s returned.
I thought that when his comment on here that…
‘The Daily Telegraph is (arguably) publicly funded because it’s bought by members of the public’
went viral that we would never see him again. I mean to have half the country mocking you, half the world even, well that’s sumthin else ain’it. I appreciate that in Scotland / West Albania there seems to be major confusion between ‘painurainway’ and sucking the teat of the English taxpayer, but even then.
And to reply to the ‘point’ he raises
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23673848
No I didn’t mean that. I meant did they cover the profiles of the murderers on the main Droidnews bulletins. I imagine that News At Ten has a slightly bigger reach in this country than click bbc click news click world click middle east page down. And the droids know that.
Anyway, fine dining Detroit-on-the-Clyde style
http://tinyurl.com/nu8pxzw
‘The Daily Telegraph is (arguably) publicly funded because it’s bought by members of the public’
By that logic, this blog is publicly funded. Hmm…
By his logic, everything is public-funded.
PROPERTY IS THEFT COMRADES
(except those income gated properties owned by members of the fauxcialist liberal patrician class)
What is the political appeal of the Muslim Brotherhood to so many Beeboids?
It’s not surely that non-Muslim Beeboid staff have caved to the propaganda of Beeboid Muslim staff, is it?
“The Muslim Brotherhood’s False Appeal”
By Daniel Greenfield.
[Excerpt]:-
“The difference between Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, a difference that so many politicians have made their talking point in support for the Brotherhood, does not hinge on the nature of the society that both want to bring about, but on the tactics they use to bring that society about.”
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-muslim-brotherhoods-false-appeal/
Not really BBC Bias but……..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23696920
“This is not the first time it’s happened to me, I’m sure it’s not the last,” Mr Miliband said.
“I’m always looking for new ways to connect with the voters.”
What?
What a spavined worm Miliband is. Any bets taken on this appearing in any BBC [Marxist] comedy output. HIGNFY, News Quiz, Now Show………….Could be comedy Gold, like the Kinnock falling-on-his-arse-in-the-sea-and-punching-the-air-in-triumph moment.
For balance…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23694707
Not perhaps the best return to the office.
Comments not exactly rushing to argue, either.
Maybe the DOEMs are still all here?
Or they’ve decided he’s a liability and any bus will do.
I was just on my way out this morning when I heard VD’s show mention the Institute for public policy research so I made a note of it so that I could look it up later. Guess what, it’s a left leaning ‘progressive’ think tank and yet there was no confirmation of this when they were mentioned. We all know that any think tank with right wing leanings is always flagged so why not the left wing ones? Bias by any chance?
The leftie think-tanks and NGOs have a direct line into the BBC – presenters, researchers, editors. A large amount of the BBC’s “news” is driven by these outfits. Churnalism pure and simple.
But this facility to use the BBC as a megaphone is not available to right-of-centre outfits. It was YEARS before the BBC would even talk to Migration Watch, for example, even though MW had genuine expertise and data on immigration.
John Anderson,
“It was YEARS before the BBC would even talk to Migration Watch…”
MigrationWatch UK was founded in December 2001. MigrationWatch was registered as a company in August 2002.
Here it is on the BBC…
August 2002:
“Migration Watch UK says there are no economic benefits from large-scale immigration and is calling for ‘greater urgency and resolution’ from the government to prevent it.”
http://bbc.in/13kFwH5
November 2002:
“Sir Andrew Green, head of Migration Watch UK, said it was time to stop ‘ducking the issue’ that mass immigration was damaging services in the capital and even the position of settled minorities.”
http://bbc.in/13kIjjz
December 2002:
“[Andrew Green;] There is absolutely no legal requirement on Britain to take any of these asylum-seekers. These people are already in a safe country… We need a serious removals policy, we need to reverse the decision on work permits, and we need to introduce entitlement cards.”
http://bbc.in/13kJfUW
Not exactly ‘YEARS’ John. No mention anywhere of it being “right-of-centre” either.
EPIC FAIL.
Jay Rayner, writing in The Observer quotes one senior BBC News executive, who stated that “We probably were reluctant and slow to take him seriously to begin with. We probably didn’t like what he had to say. But then we were also slow to pick up on immigration as a story, not least because we are a very middle-class organisation and the impact of mass immigration was being felt more in working-class communities. If he’s proved himself, it’s because he hasn’t put a foot wrong on the information he’s published”
your epic fail
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MigrationWatch_UK#Reaction_to_the_group
dez you sad little man,
“your epic fail”
Not really Mr Sad. John Anderson said it was “YEARS before the BBC would even talk to Migration Watch” and that, “this facility to use the BBC as a megaphone is not available to right-of-centre outfits.”
I have clearly demonstrated how he was wrong on both those points. But true, my fail, I forgot that facts are irrelevant on B-BBC.
You quote Jay Rayner talking to a “senior BBC News executive” in 2007. Who was editor of “BBC Ten O’clock News” in 2007? Oh look, it was Craig Oliver – who went on to be “Director of Communications” for “right-of-centre” David Cameron. What a strange coincidence…
EPIC FAIL
Dez youre a sad little man thats been caught out. run along and play little boy.
the BBC ignored MWUK for years, the fact they reported the groups existence as just a bunch of anti -immigration racists speaks wonders for the champagne socialists at the BBC. it took the BBC years to wake up to islam.
Dez you are truly a sad sad sad pathetic little man.
Dez you sad little man,
“the BBC ignored MWUK for years…”
I’ve just proven that not to be the case. Next:
“the fact they reported the groups existence as just a bunch of anti-immigration racists…”
After issuing a press release on 17th Dec 2001 announcing Migration Watch’s formation, the next press release was on 2nd Aug 2002:
“Net migration into the UK is now two million every decade and probably more. With the number of migrants into the UK now running at two million every decade a leading migration think-tank has urged the Government to act with much greater urgency and resolution to tackle the chaos in the system and to restore public confidence. Net inward migration is now running at double the rate of a decade ago and the trend is relentlessly upwards.”
http://goo.gl/xwLvIC
Which was reported three days later by the BBC thus:
“Immigrant influx ‘in next decade’. More than two million immigrants will arrive in Britain every 10 years unless strict new controls are introduced, according to a new campaign group.
Migration Watch UK says there are no economic benefits from large-scale immigration and is calling for “greater urgency and resolution” from the government to prevent it.”
http://bbc.in/13kFwH5
So they didn’t “just ‘report the groups existence”. Next:
“…as just a bunch of anti-immigration racists”
Not once in any of the links provided above is Migration Watch described as racist by the BBC or by anyone quoted by the BBC. Next:
“Dez you are truly a sad sad sad pathetic little man.”
Ah yes, because I have the facts and evidence to back up my argument and you haven’t.
Grow a spine, admit to yourself when you’re wrong and move on.
admit it you sad little man, even the BBC admits it got it wrong with MWUK, your lying will get you nowhere. your selective posts prove nothing apart from your a sad little man
get a life dez, you sad sad sad little excuse for a man. admit your wrong and defending a lost cause because your an ignorant prick
This post was clearly written by someone with a severe personality disorder.
Imagine the line up. It won’t be Stuart unless someone bought him a shift key.
Or….. 😉
That’s you that is nah,nah,nah-Bless
“Who got it right – Migration Watch or the BBC?”
http://isthebbcbiased.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/who-got-it-right-migration-watch-or-bbc.html
‘“Who got it right – Migration Watch or the BBC?”’
Another typically forensic filleting by Craig.
I was interested by the BBC stories he kindly page captured.
Love to discover the thinking of the photo editor choice of a typical British builder. Balance?
It’s also interesting to see all call-out quotes… in these at least… are attributed.
Especially when elsewhere they pop in one that is a serious piece of propaganda, but neglect to mention who has said it.
Rule #1 in effect as usual.
Not the Monty Python Rule 1, I trust. You will leave yourself open to a charge of homophobia.
Ah, I wondered what the actual rules of Aussie Rules football were. . . .
A great sport. But I was referring to our Rule #1 regarding BBC guests/vox pops:
If the BBC doesn’t label them, you know which side they’re coming from. It’s proved to be an almost infallible rule.
You will leave yourself open to a charge of homophobia
Given what matters in the news room down-under, and being spun up as we speak into a matter of world importance by Donno and his new mates, you rival Nostrodamus.
Golly, even more balance…
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2013/08/jim-naughtie-tells-sunny-hundal-to-shut-up/
Not quite a Mairist character assessment maybe, but a rare effort to curb a usual suspect from their usual patter.
Mind you, given the BBC may have decided Ed M. is not the best flag-carrier for Labour, this may be a sign of things to come, given…
‘noted Ed Miliband fan-boy Sunny Hundal’
Seems like some may have to get sacrificed for the greater good.
‘gentle Jim Naughtie spoke for the nation’
For once, maybe.
But Polly, Mehdi, Owen, Kevin, Laurie, etc seem golden still.
Two Labour supporters having an argument about what is best for the Labour Party. Sunny Hundal is so dim that even Jim “When we get back into government” Naughtie finds him exasperating.
Milliband hit by eggs on London walkabout.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2392932/Ed-Miliband-egged-campaign-visit-Labours-relaunch-descends-chaos.html
Enjoy the article, then try search for THAT little bit of good news on the Beeb!!
Are the eggs an answer to the question at the end of this short video clip?;-
“VIDEO: Watch BBC radio presenter James Naughtie tells guests to shut up”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/video-watch-bbc-radio-presenter-2164892?
Beeboids put it up at 2:59 pm.
It seems that the ‘egger’ may be a leftist.
would vote for his (Ed’s) brother apparently
It wasn’t David, was it?
LOL
‘try search for THAT little bit of good news on the Beeb!’
http://order-order.com/2013/08/14/why-not-holiday-in-gaza-this-year/
Not sure they are having that good a day themselves, if anyone compares their reports with other options that may suggest a degree of events interpretation is often the norm. You pays yer money and, in one case, you have no choice…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23632120
Lucky country indeed.
and on day one of his over paid job in oz, of all the stories Jon Donnison chooses to cover first, its gay marriage
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23681857
btw gaza looks nice. i’d have never known from watching the BBC. i have to agree with the 2nd comment in guidos blog “All the bbc program’s about gaza are filmed in tower hamlets
Yes, you’d think one of the intrepid, world-class BBC journalists over there would be eager to debunk this obvious Israeli propaganda (pretty sure we’ve seen those abundantly-stocked shop pics before). I mean, this appears to be a great opportunity for one of the recently-installed correspondents to start off the new gig with a bang. Why haven’t they?
Has the egger been all over Radio 5 shows and gotten a special slot with Jeremy Vine yet? He sounds like a poster boy they can parade around.
EGYPT.
Much violence and death there today.
A ‘Sky News’ cameraman killed.
“Sky News Cameraman Killed In Egypt”
http://news.sky.com/story/1128530/sky-news-cameraman-killed-in-egypt
Russian TV describes scenes as like ‘a war zone’:-
“‘War zone’: Scores killed in Egypt violence, month long state of emergency proclaimed”
(inc video clip).
http://rt.com/news/egypt-police-disperse-protesters-471/
Many photos and video clips here in ‘Daily Mail’ report:-
“British cameraman shot dead while reporting for Sky on Egypt bloodbath as protesters say as many as 100 have been killed”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2392614/Egypt-protests-Sky-News-cameraman-Mick-Deane-shot-dead-100-killed-bloodbath.html
We don’t need BBC-NUJ reporting on this.
Putting oneself in the line of fire for the job, unarmed, takes a special kind of person, who should be recognised and their sacrifice acknowledged. I wouldn’t do it.
Having just penned a view on tributes that now fail to resonate, I would wish our PM had managed something less formulaic, if recognising it is hard to do more than utter platitudes when there are so many occasions now when the media and grief industry demands them. Literally. Military losses. Professional. Even sons of mothers. Or, here, all sexes and ages, tragically.
Interesting to note the highest comment:
‘I have just watched the news…. I see that the BBC supports the muslim brotherhood…. I want my licence fee back, because I think the M.B is a radical and dangerous organisation, and I do not support them.’
I now only have online access. Is this a fair assessment?
It’s quite an accusation.
But if well founded the BBC should really not be taking sides or even be seen to be doing so, as that could be viewed, most seriously, as active incitement.
This is the online version I can access:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23700044
Hard to see any MB support there.
However, reading this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23700663
I would question taking a quoted claim and making it a main call-out in this form:
“Police snipers are above the nearby school buildings, shooting any resident hurrying to the square”
It is unattributed, and after three readings I cannot locate it in the text.
And all the Brotherhood are doing is organizing ‘sit ins’, says the BBC, just like any peaceful law abiding protesters.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
Sky News showed unattributed footage of M.B. protesters firing automatic rifles (AK47s?) from behind the barricades at the security forces. They also showed footage taken from a helicopter’s heat-sensitive camera of the muzzle flashes from the many handguns and assault rifles used by the “peaceful” protesters when firing on government personnel.
‘unattributed footage of M.B. protesters’ makes reporting by definition uncertain on facts, so it is wise for anyone, especially the MSM, to tread carefully on claims.
They key word is ‘reporting’. Once ‘analysis’ or selecting quoting is deployed, it can move into propaganda for one side or the other.
Not an objective medium’s job. Especially if notionally representative of another country.
It’s why I await clarification of the call-out unattributed ‘snipers’ quote source here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23700663
(Noting the video report, at the least, has changed since yesterday – it confirms the SKY report on firing from MB. If followed by a series of one-sided vox-pops).
As a side-note, looking at the reporter’s garb, and comparing it to the riot police, in a fog of war situation, I have to wonder who may get be confused for whom, and by whom, with inevitable consequences.
I also got this press release in my in-box from a group who seem certain of the facts already:
‘Egypt: ARTICLE 19 condemns the killings of scores of pro-Morsi protesters’
Maybe they issued it on twitter too, and that’s what the BBC used as the basis of their reports?
sick and tired of al bbc brotherhood luvviehood today, the amount of airtime
that UK Brotherhood rep has been given … sheesh!, (hasn t she been banged up for terrorism links yet?)
trumpeting the presidential order from Cairo?
what? .. from his prison cell 😀
and sooo obvious, all the hallmarks of “pallywood par excellence”
… it is clear,
islamist instigated protests (read violence), vastly inflated casualty list, absurd propaganda
claims, protests organised through the mosques (islamist)
cairo university (islamist).
from Your Call, to f-ckwit Bacon, to 5live Drive
on one occasion … one, an Egyptian Ab Dal Hadi … outlined the atrocious persecution of the Copts inflamed many fold by the islamist Brotherhood, the islamist agenda to prevent normal running in Cairo, their wish to create martyrs now … before Friday hate hour
well? … he was just roundly ignored
The hell hole that is Gaza http://www.order-order.com. Just like any open prison should be.
Meanwhile in Lebanon . . .
Not a peep about it on the Beeb.
How much BBC coverage has “Miliband meets an egg” had so far today?
Only lurking as story number 3 on the politics page. Is he the leader of the oposition?
No, that’s Dave Miliband.
Hardly a story that deserves a higher spot when democracy is completely destroyed in another country. Funny how little the bigots understand news reporting, only their bigoted views.
‘Hardly a story that deserves a higher spot’
The old seasoned newsroom input that is always so valuable.
Maybe you and maybe A. Journalist could explain why, without an FOI exclusion, in ‘reporting’ events in the fair county of Lancashire, the BBC thought a religious group’s banwagon-jumping, science-lite thoughts on fracking were crucial instant PR to screen shares, but the attempted violent establishment of a no-go area to police within the UK was more a topic for watertight oversight ?
That’s you that is nah,nah,nah-Bless
They will be hugely dismayed at that given the huge effort to set it up in an effort to forget the dismal performance of Captain Y fronts yesterday – cameras in place, happy smiling left wing protesting egg thrower alongside Ed’s spin doctor, – well it helped St Tony, albeit Ed didn’t do a Prescott – would have been a ‘lie’ too far? But hey, Ed is tough – inner city school of life and all that, pathetic and a new (hard to believe) low in the propaganda dept of Liebor
Sadly I anticipate Dave will retalite by being the victim of a severe houmous and tzatziki attack coming soon
God and the BBC team up to oppose fracking.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-23693106
But I was pretty sure we’ve been told by hillbilly only today the BBC doesn’t cover Lancashire & less it’s important.
1) Church fracking sermon
2) Police no-go areas enforced with threats of violence.
Interesting moral relativism there at least.
Well I have to say although it wasn’t bias it was amusing to watch it all go wrong for Maitliss at about 5.40 on the news channel. They went to cover the situation in Egypt and went for one of their “let’s ask a local on the ground via Skype” type interviews.
I’m not sure how well he was vetted for their coverage. There they were trying to get a bit of a feel for the grim reality but got more than they bargained for. It all started to go pear shaped for Maitliss when our man in Cairo said something very much along the lines of:
“Let me tell you how it is here down in the street. They (the pro Morsi protesters) have been here for over 30 days. They’re pi**ing in the streets and against the buildings making the place stink”. He then went to make claims that they were faking injuries for the camera, taking staged shots etc.
Strangely enough that interview got shut down pretty quickly and she had a face like thunder. Clearly he was off message. Probably didn’t like the fake injuries claim – must be a crew from a Pallywood studio.
Brought a smile to my face.
Need a link for that one!
Wonderful.
Yes, INBBC is encouraging British people to feel political sympathy for the the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), indicated by large amount of air-time, and politically indulgent tone of voice, being applied to hijab spokeswomen for MB.
Of course, INBBC, with political naivity, does not include a detailed criticism of the MB’s strategy of infiltration to set up a global caliphate.
Many Egyptians turned to the Army to prevent the Islamic repression which the MB would impose, And the Army is being repressive against the MB, using weapons against its protagonists in the streets of Cairo.
As Tim Marshall of ‘Sky News’ has suggested, we can now expect the MB to turn more to tactic of military Islamic jihad violence in order to gain a Sharia law- imposing Islamic state.
And will the West’s political class (inc INBBC) continue to support the MB?
Does INBBC (and BBC Arabic TV) want a Muslim Brotherhood-ruled Middle East, as part of its global ‘left-Islam’ alliance?
The British people have interests very different to those of both the Egyptian Army and the MB, which INBBC does not represent.
Don’t forget that lefties believe Islamofascists are revolutionaries like themselves. That’s why they continue to support them.
The Islamofascists are real revolutionaries not like the wanabee may 1968 revolutionaries at the BBC.
now I understand wht the ‘gorgeous Em.s is growing the moustache – reduce risk of serious sexual assault as experienced by her peers.Genuinely Emily please keep safe – keep both eyes open and put your own safety above your duty to the proven sexist/ageist of the bbc management – they can always step aside you amy not be so lucky
I guess it all depends if there are any gay men at the BBC who may sexually harrass her. Assuming the moustache is convincing enough and she wears trousers.
BBC news website, sport, England vs Scotland.
Lots of photos of the Little Scotlanders in their kilts and oh-so-funny ginger wigs, lager cans in hand, singing and gesticulating.
No photos of England fans. Are they all on EDL duty, do you think? Perhaps a Beeboid could enlighten.
Well I’m not a Beeboid (heaven forbid) but I think this is just an example of the run of the mill double standards that the mainstream “progressive” media exercise (in fairness ITV covering the match aren’t much better than the BBC).
I guess it all comes down (in the progressive hymn book) to the Scottish being seen as a “downtrodden minority” and most England fans being the sort of white working class “proles” the establishment elite hate and fear.
So yet another nation is to be ridiculed by the intellects of Vances Biased BBC. Really are so dad.
Mind the Scots have something under their kits and can toss the caber. You can only toss of yourselves 🙂
Where’s the ridicule in my comment?
I can see where the mindless abuse is in yours.
And you have the brass neck to insult others.
That’s you that is nah,nah,nah-Bless
johnnythefish,
“Lots of photos of the Little Scotlanders in their kilts…”
By “lots” you mean two?
“No photos of England fans.”
Perhaps because they didn’t congregate on mass in Trafalgar Square? Or no, perhaps showing the Scottish as gingerkiltedlargerdrinkers is blatant anti-english propaganda?
Haven’t really thought this through have you Mr. Fish?
Mr. Fish will check back in and accept facts. I jest ‘troll’ is the new fingers in ears. *lalalala*
We need a prize for the first to spot the first BBC climate expert to use the new terminology. First it was global warming, then climate change, but no one is buying it. So look out for Carbon Pollution. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/13/wearing-out-words/
How can CO2 be a pollutant? Its what trees are made of.
Is oxygen a pollutant also?
Stewart,
“How can CO2 be a pollutant? It’s what trees are made of.”
Gosh yes, how come no one ever thought of that before…
That’s you that is nah,nah, -sorry I thought you were will Duncan. The infertile response,” Gosh yes, how come no one ever thought of that before” threw me.
I’m not
http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=370
And here’s the proof Oh and a little more recent than your 4 year old agit -prop
mhttp://www.westernfreepress.com/2013/03/28/stunning-video-world-getting-greener-because-of-fossil-fuels/
Those you unfortunate enough to live in an area covered by the “Look North” regional news show will no doubt have been shouting at your TVs tonight. We had a news item about a agricultural show but instead of interviews with prize winning farmers or the WI and their ilk we had a right on folk singer who asked his audience to give donations to …. I bet you can’t guess …. food banks !
We then had an interview with him where he explained that these were needed more than ever in that city full of ghettos and starving folk .. York 🙂 He explained without ever being questioned that the dire economic situation and benefit cuts were forcing the starving folk of that city to their local food bank.
This in turn leads a film shot at the local “food bank” where in front of some very oddly empty shelves which appeared to be in a church hall an interviewee that more than ever before people were “accessing” (note the right on wording) their local food banks. Then we were all urged to donate to our local “food bank”.
Once again and very oddly for a charity appeal no phone numbers or contact details were given for this “food bank”. Also the word “charity” is very noticeably never used. Those of us with an evil mind might think that was done for legal reasons.
Its a good job I have faith in the Beeb and don’t suspect them of faking this up with the York Labour/Union movement isn’t it !
Oh then Look North ended with the dire but right on folk singing ramming home the message as the titles rolled.