Here we go, use this to detail the bias. Warning, I will be on BBC Sunday Morning Live tomorrow morning at 10am.
OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Zephir April 29, 2024 at 8:24 am on Start the Week 29th April 2024@ Fed There is, and I am being urged to do so by my solictor and family. and it is...
- Fedup2 April 29, 2024 at 8:22 am on Start the Week 29th April 2024Today I thought I’d dip in to listen to the mourning over their SNP Hamas … But got BBC royalty...
- MarkyMark April 29, 2024 at 8:15 am on Start the Week 29th April 2024Nice to have private protection to keep away the bad people. "In 2010 the Mail on Sunday reported that the...
- Fedup2 April 29, 2024 at 8:09 am on Start the Week 29th April 2024I’m waiting for a delivery so have time to read stuff . Today Gordon Brown - that famously failed PM...
- Fedup2 April 29, 2024 at 7:52 am on Start the Week 29th April 2024Nothing will change -blue labour desperately trying to deceive conservatives into being stupid enough to vote for them …. More...
- Zephir April 29, 2024 at 7:49 am on Start the Week 29th April 2024@ Scrobs My heritage is from the west coast of Scotland, Campbeltown this resonates with me My grandfather worked on...
- Fedup2 April 29, 2024 at 7:44 am on Start the Week 29th April 2024How will the BBC deal with the new policy of the Irish socialist republic in returning ‘refugees ‘ across the...
- Flotsam April 29, 2024 at 7:42 am on Start the Week 29th April 2024It's generally true that left wingers are arrogant hypocrites. For them It's all about telling people they view as ignorant...
- Fedup2 April 29, 2024 at 7:28 am on Start the Week 29th April 2024I’m guessing there’s no value is a civil action against the accuser Zephir ?
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
The bBC and how it is currently reporting the news from Eygpt:
Egypt crisis: Gunfire heard at Cairo mosque siege
Gunfire has been heard at a mosque in Egypt’s capital, Cairo, following a stand-off with barricaded Muslim Brotherhood supporters. Dozens of supporters had refused to leave, fearing for their safety.Television pictures showed security forces firing up towards the main minaret.
Anybody who is relying only on the bBC news coverage of the events inside Egypt is left with the POV that all the people in Egypt are protesting against the army, that the MB are the victims here and that actually the US are to blame .
Here is the Pounce breakdown of events which unlike the bBC has been backed up with actual facts and not emotive supposition as banded about by their so called Middle Eastern Editor.
thanks Pounce for again doing what a £3 billion organisation is incapable of doing. The whole of BBC reporting over the last couple of days has been from the MB point of view. Only in passing and as part of the list has there been mention of ‘churches’ being attacked – leaving the great British public to assume that it was places of religious activity in general (ie mosques) rather than attacks on Coptic Christians. From the BBC all we know is that Morsi is democratically elected and that he was bringing laws that that the army didn’t like. Whilst these laws were not identified at the time (maybe Bowen was on holiday – or maybe it didn’t need Bowen in his helmet and flack jacket) the fundamentalist changes were not reported by the BBC before the army took over. But they are very relevant to what is happening now – but the BBC obviously views the reasons for Morsi’s downfall too complex to provide them for the great British public.
More Pallywood fakery last night. Reporter mournfully telling us about the latest casualties among the Pro-Morsi protesters with the usual warnings about images of wounded people. It showed us footage of four protesters carrying a “casualty” who was wearing a “bloodstained”white t-shirt and clutching his chest with bloodied fingers. They gently laid him on the ground (coincidentally right under the camera lense) . The poor man was wincing in his agony until one of his rescuers, who obviously wasn’t fully au-fait with the script, lifted his shirt, uncovering a chest bearing NO bloody wound or bloodstained skin! The t-shirt was very quickly pulled down before the image changed to another location.
If we, the viewer can easily detect the faked footage, I can only assume that the TV news providers know that much action is faked for the Western news cameras, but they broadcast it anyway with no caveat whatsoever because they have an agenda other than reporting events truthfully.
It’s a shame no maverick reporter edits a compilation of this faked footage to show the public how they are being duped by the M.B and Hamas.
They are not alone.
The C4 on the spot guys, including airflown anchor filters in slightly safer hotels is simply risible.
Their twitter feed claims and advocacy re… or should be… professional suicide.
stephen nolans first segment on his show last night from 10pm to 10.30pm was just an example of how bias and propaganda in this conflict in egypt by the bbc and radio 5 live is just a discrace,no mention by nolan of the coptic christian churches being burnt down,no mention of the murders of coptic christians by the muslim brotherhood murdering mobs,it was just call after call from supporters of the muslim brotherhood who live in england,but the most scary call was the last one from some guy called abdullah from birmingham,his talk of death and martyrdom in the name of his religion just goes to prove tome that islam is more of a death cult than a legitimate relgion.these people are scary and they live amongst us,thats more worrying.
Yes, INBBC is heavily Islamised in its outlook.
“World silent as Muslim Brotherhood targets Coptic Christians”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/08/world-silent-as-muslim-brotherhood-targets-coptic-christians.html
Hi, just thought this link gives a clear idea of what is not being reported about the MB.
I was also wondering what difference it might have made if the German army in 1933/4 had moved against Hitler and his Nazi party as they went about demolishing the Wiemar Republic?
Exactly.
And today’s BBC would say that WW2 began with the allies invasion of Normandy.
David I wish you good luck on Sunday . I hope that you score some telling points and manage to convince a few more viewers that the BBC is the biased , bigoted mouthpiece of the totalitarian liberal left mob who are turning Britain into an intolerant society, where freedom of speech and democracy itself are under threat due to their insistence that their views are the only ones allowed to be aired.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/wine/10245126/Dont-insult-good-wine-by-reducing-its-potency.html
Phew, as I head into the globally-warmed garden, it’s good nature also knows how to balance the BBC, who were recently concerned about just this risk.
not on Jihad Watch, or taken down…
D’oh, should be to comment below (re UK pub)
Not for INBBC to report?:-
“UK: Pub owners ban British military personnel from premises to avoid offending Muslims”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/08/uk-pub-owners-ban-british-military-personnel-from-premises-to-avoid-offending-muslims.html
This needs to be checked. I copied and posted it on an FB site, but was told it was a fake report. Very embarassing Clarification required.
Here is all you need to know.
http://futiledemocracy.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/in-defence-of-the-globe/
“It is horrendously damaging for a local business to be defamed in such a provocative manner, not to mention those who run the pub now having to face constant criticism & abuse for a story that isn’t true. ”
“Always be wary of stories designed to play on prejudices.”
“Always be wary of stories designed to play on prejudices.”
You could easily think it was true if you watch Eastenders, and look at the casting of all those Asian extras pretending to drink alcohol in a pub, so as to please the diversity and equality people at the BBC.
Many Asians drink.
They’re called “Hindus.”
Lots of Pakistanis gang rape, torture and pimp pre-pubescent white English girls.
They’re called ‘Asians’ (according to the BBC).
Gets confusing, doesn’t it?
Was once in a karaoke room in Narita with representatives of every ‘Asian’ market served by a US airline client.
Safe to say all were not averse to a small sherry.
during my much younger days and when I was home on leave I would on a Saturday night pop along to the local nightclub.
There if I saw a Pakistani type person with a drink in his hand I would walk over all smiling and ask him if he was a Muslim, they would smile and say yes and I would call him out for being a fucking hyprocrite.
Yeah them were the days.
To be fair, I have a Muslim friend who said he’d like to drink alcohol but he doesn’t want to upset his family. He’s one of the few Muslims who you wouldn’t even think of as being a Muslim since he’s educated, well-spoken, polite, friendly, doesn’t talk about Islam etc. Of course if I was of the BBC way of thinking, I would take this one example of a decent human being and suggest it’s evidence that Islam itself is a religion of peace while ignoring the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, I have a brain so I can’t do that.
Many Muslims do drink alcohol. There is an active and often violent debate on the Internet on whether the Koran says they can or not. As usual it’s a question of interpretation.
Did you check the accuracy of this story George?
Strangely the couple pictured in the article you cite would appear to have twins who run a completely different pub.
http://www.knutsfordguardian.co.uk/news/9756549.Couple_turn_pub_around_after_ex_landlord___s_jailing/
More interestingly many of the the comments on the article you cite (which now appears to have been removed) stated that it was a hoax.
Yep, it’s a fake. The EDL have spoken to the management of The Globe, who confirm that it is completely untrue and that staff have received threats as a result of the article.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/EDL-English-Defence-League/238696516197018
I wonder who is responsible for ‘the hoax’?
Well you are certainly responsible for perpetuating it on this site.
Posts on this site have acknowledged that it was untrue. It has not been perpetuated. Now how many times have the BBC acknowledged that their sources were false?
Where has GeorgeR accepted that the story he brought to this site was false?
Didn’t he just say it was a hoax?
Ah, but answer a question with a question.
Primitive leftist tactic.
Hmm I dunno which is funnier albthings pathetic latching on to a post by a free person on a open blog which no one is forced to pay for or it’s truly ground breaking hypocrisy in avoiding the reams of lies uncovered on here perpetrated by the BBC it so loves ?? ablwhatever you are a coward and a creep !
One of the “chosen few” posts crap and is challenged on it.
Another of the “chosen few” then calls the challenger “a coward and a creep”.
He posted a link in good faith which appears to be a hoax.
He didn’t ‘post crap’ in the direct sense you are implying.
But I don’t blame you for trying to claim a victory, however puny, because your pickings on here are very slim indeed – the website is its own historical record of proof.
O.K. Albaman, in the spirit of equality, how about criticising the BBC and other TV News channel for broadcasting faked footage of Muslim Brotherhood casualties and the dishonest claims of “peaceful demonstrators” and reporting them as real? Anything to say about that?
Alabaman, you’ve replied to the question about the counter at the top of the page, but you seem reluctant to reply to my question about the broadcasting of footage obviously faked by the Muslim Brotherhood. Care to reply to that, although, I doubt you will because it can be proven and you’ve no snotty answer to it.
Seems to be a “chosen few” cabal here.
Care to elaborate?
You, Albaman, accept no responsibility for your deep denial of BBC bias.
You are merely a permanent apologist for it.
its alright albumen, no one reads this site anyway.
Comment posted by someone reading the site about how ‘no one’ reads the site. Idiocy doesn’t even come close.
Can someone please tell me what the counter on the home page under “recent comments” currently showing a figure of 20,878,181 represents.
The counter is meaningless as it it changes each time you refresh the page or post a comment.
Albaman, care to reply to my question about the footage being broadcast that has obviously been faked by the Muslim Brotherhood, but made out to be authentic by the BBC and other media outlets?
I keep asking but you seem reluctant to answer. Is it because you can’t think of a way to divert attention away from the question, or come up with a snide, snotty answer to obvious Beeboid fakery?
I blame the BBC, the BBC should only depict Blacks in pubs not Asians, the BBC should not use Eastenders to insult Islam.
Might be a difficult concept for you to grasp but not everyone of an “Asian” appearance is a Muslim.
Most of the People of ‘Asian’ appearance are actually Chinese !
In fact if hadn’t been for the appalling behaviour of Pakistanis and some Bangladeshis we wouldn’t have been banned from using the more accurate and truthful description !
“East” Asian and “South” Asian are the differentiators. Say “South Asian” every time you mean Pakistani/Bangla. Say “East Asian” every time you refer to indigenous peoples of the states east of the subcontinent.
See how long before the professional offence-takers start in with the usual “how dare you!”, for your use of a term which has not been moderated in advance by the censors.
Traditional usage in the UK (at least when I was growing up) was that asian = south asian, whilst oriental = east asian (reflecting I guess the far larger numbers of south asian immigrants into UK compared to chinese / east asian immigrants).
I’m not sure if oriental is now considered racist in modern PC usage though.
Even south asian is a poor label, as what is usually denoted when its used (by the BBC) is pakistani muslim or bangladeshi muslim. Hindus from bangladesh for example tend to be more similar to their Indian brethren when it comes to various aspects of criminality (e.g. they wouldn’t form child-rape gangs like the various pakistani muslim gangs one hears about).
However, I doubt the forum moderators at the BBC would tolerate such precise labelling, as these days merely stating unvarnished facts can be a hate crime if you’re pointing out the deficiences of our religion-of-peace ‘brothers’.
I thought this clip was quite poignant given the PC rubbish the liberal left have created. An accurate depiction of the ‘professional offence-takers’ as the realguyfaux referred to.
Well said thoughtfull. Asians always used to refer to people of chinese ancestry not Pakistani . It is a pathetic guise for reporting of Pakistani Muslims acts of depravity
They are to the BBC though. Hindus, Sikhs, Christians and Buddhists are Asian “non-people” as far as they are concerned.
Well, you would think that the BBC would exclude all the brown Caucasoid Asians, just to make sure they didn’t cause offence to Islam.
Tell that to the BBC they still havnt got it
Now, what does Albaman’s sermon remind me of?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2011/06/story_removal.html
So even The Worlds Most Admired Broadcaster links rogue stories on its website.
Tsk.
The World’s Most Expensive Broadcaster.
The comments are quite entertaining!
It is a shame that a media monopoly with £4Bpa to invest in professional services could not find the 10p needed to check a story that cost the public around £190,000 in compo alone, plus costs (including a few million on inquiries that revealed mainly redactions and, only now, the prevalence of selective, short-term Alzheimers on the top floor).
But there you go.
It’s all relative.
Any Answers
A phone in for Labour party members bewailing the hopeless Milliband leadership. A full panoply of lefties on Any Questions with the ludicrous statements that immigration should be open to anyone who wants to come to the UK in what ever volume they can get here.
No boos no jeers, just a quiet & attentive audience of adoring young stoodent lefties. This is patently not the way the country is thinking, and is completely unrepresentative.
*Groan*……
“Mo Farah is Britain’s greatest ever athlete – Brendan Foster”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/23735561
What’s wrong with that? He probably is the best track and field athlete Britain has ever had. And yes, I realise he’s a Somalian immigrant but he defines himself as being British, his dad was a British national and he was funded and trained by the UK Athletics authority. I don’t think you can really infer pro-Islamic bias onto this one, though you can probably infer personal bias towards Mo as a current athlete compared to loads of other great British athletes like Daley Thompson, Sally Gunnell etc who might be getting a bit of a snub.
the muslim brotherhood are a far right fascist organisation with links to al qaeda who persecute and discriminate against anybody that does not follow there islamic ideology.that is why we should support the egyptian states crackdown on these evil people
Yep, I’m with the Egyptian Army on this one. The BBC is telling lies about what is happening in Egypt.
“The BBC is telling lies about what is happening in Egypt.”
Whath lies are they telling?
You see Albaman the result of visitors to this site having lost confidence in the BBC. We have seen evidence of Pallywood (I am leaving you to search for that on Youtube) and then
http://vladtepesblog.com/2013/08/06/muslim-brotherhood-in-egypt-takes-a-page-from-palywood-stages-fake-injury-photo-op/
where fake pictures are coming from the Muslim Brotherhood. We know the BBC reporters are gullible – so the trust has gone. I watched last night’s news, instead of sympathy for the injured, looking to see if the blood was real, whether there was a body in that bag, etc and that was without even thinking who had provoked who in the fighting.
Ignore him, Deborah – pretending he hasn’t read any of the preceding posts on **name your subject** is one of Albaman’s more tedious disrupting tactics.
Look at the speed with which the Albaman Rebuttal System exocet (ARSe) springs into action to challenge any criticism of the bBC. Why, anyone would think there is a shift of BBC interns hopeful of a job with the corporation tuned permanently to Bi-ARSEd BBC.
“……. anyone would think there is a shift of BBC interns hopeful of a job with the corporation tuned permanently to Bi-ARSEd BBC. ”
Delusions of grandeur or what.
A cohort of the “favoured few” have turned this site from being about BBC bias to ongoing rants about Islam, homosexuality and just about anything else bar the BBC.
Arse psml. nice one london calling
evening albaman. still supporting the cruel and barbaric slaughter of animals are you in your appeasement of islam, just like your beeboid masters
“turned this site from being about BBC bias”
I look forward to you making a post about BBC bias.
I look forward to him from banning the “favoured few” and becoming the moderator of this blog.
Peace will ensue.
‘A cohort of the “favoured few” have turned this site from being about BBC bias to ongoing rants about Islam, homosexuality and just about anything else bar the BBC.
If you took the time to read the posts properly rather than filter them through your own BBC pinko-coloured glasses, you’ll see they are about bias in terms of the BBC’s on-going pro-Islam and pro-gay agenda. Also you have obviously missed the many posts about the BBC’s pro-EU, pro-immigration and pro-AGW agendas, but don’t let reality get in the way of your own blinkered bias. You may not agree with them, but from a verbal logic point of view this is what they unarguably are.
I agree there may have been the occasional offensive statements made about gays and Islam and I don’t like these any more than you do, but they are very rare indeed.
Is Albaman’s “favoured few” similar in meaning to the BBC’s? ( Owen Jones, Polly Toynbee, Yasmin Alibai-Brown, etc.)
Don’t forget the jellybaby woman with the fruitbowl on her head.
I’d start with Jeremy Bowen’s claim that the Muslim Brotherhood are “conservative, moderate and non-violent”, and go from there.
CYA sez da’ broterz iz “lagerly seecollars”.
CYA iz smurtz peeple buz beebz iz more brainiaky zen CYA.
You would have to buy the Daily Mail to find that out, but usually it is what the BBC do not tell you that misleads the audience, again you would have to buy the Daily Mail to find that out as well.
Albaman, seen the faked footage of casualties ad the lies about “peaceful protesters”? How about the BBC reporting the 500 Muslim Brotherhood deaths but totally ignore the equal number of Coptic Christians being murdered by these “peaceful protesters” during the demonstrations?
Come on, Albaman, let’s here your excuse for this.
Oh, dear. Albaman seems to lose the use of his keyboard fingers when presented with evidence of BBC bias. He seems to think that if he can highlight a small mistake or miss-spelling he can discredit the rest of the argument.
He’s always asking for evidence and then is struck dumb when presented with it.
Pedantic I know but more akin to a far LEFT socialist party similar to the National SOCIALISTS under Hitler – no coincidence that the Grand Mufti was a fan of the Nazis.
Could anyone on these forums, from BBC output, tell me what the reason is for the great upswell culminating in the removal of the Muslim Brotherhood from power in Egypt?
It seems that the BBC is quite keen to tell us all about the Muslims being killed, and the armies savagery, but not the reasons behind it.
From what I can gather the Muslim Brotherhood were doing what Muslims do – dismantling democracy, bringing in Sharia law, allowing the persecution of Christians, if not outright promoting it, encouraging smuggling into Gaza by reopening tunnels closed by Mubarak. It’s a long list, and it’s no little wonder the rest of the population got pissed at them. To make it worse the Morsi government has made the economic situation worse than it was.
Now where can I find all that on the BBC news sites?
Did you try looking before posting?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23724269
“Mr Morsi, the public face of the Muslim Brotherhood’s top political leadership, behaved as if it had an overwhelming mandate to transform Egypt into a much more Islamist state.”
“To make matters worse, the Morsi administration was not very competent. It could not keep its promises about reinvigorating the economy. “
dated yesterday…what else Albaman? Are these facts expressed in other BBC articles? Many? Some? A few?
This seems to be a regular trick of the BBC, to write a web page which is difficult to find with few links if any, and then when someone complains they use it to suggest that they are in fact balanced.
One web page does not make the BBC any less biased! Their continued silence on the major media streams over the cause of the second revolution is typical. Not everyone has access to the net, or wants it. Mainstream media of all formats should carry the story.
In court when we swear an oath we promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Failing to tell the whole truth is otherwise known as a lie by omission, and on this I think I’m on safe ground to accuse the BBC of lying in the coverage of Egypt.
Oddly strange co-incidence.
Again with the page 24 of other parish news.
So every time I see an editorial on report on news night I have to then scour the BBCs web site for balance?
Won’t wash old man, won’t wash
…nice summary that in a couple of paragraphs says more than months of BBC reports from Jeremy.
Indeed, the trots at albeeba know only too well that the vast majority of their viewers take onboard the guff spouted by Abu Ben Bowen and his ilk. The obscure web pages remain just that, hidden and gathering dust, while the misinformation gains credence.
Go to Pounce’s link at the top of this thread for a lot more said in a couple of paragraphs than in Alabaman’s BBC link.
Thoughtful – doh! You’re playing into his hands. The defenders of the Beeb will nearly always find something on a BBC website (read by a few thousand) to disprove a bias claim, whilst programmes watched and heard by millions continue with their brainwashing propaganda.
The only exception to this rule I can think of at the moment is ‘climate change’, where the BBC has committed to its environmentalist, ecosocialist buddies that it will give 100% support to their alarmist lies throughout both its programming and its website.
Thoughtful – apologies. Looks like we were posting concurrently.
Standard Biased BBC response.
Why is this site so quick to use content on the BBC website as examples of perceived bias but, when the same source is used to refute an argument it is dismissed?
What?
Would someone change Abaman’s batteries, please? He seems to have lost the ability to read.
Ah well, you see that is because we find the same bias on the BBC website as we hear broadcast, but occasionally the website will feature an obscure article thrown in as some kind of pathetic demonstration that the BBC is ‘balanced’.
Try this:
Standard BBC response.
Why is this broadcaster so quick to use content it fancies as examples of perceived failure with those it doesn’t like but, when the sources exist to harm an ideological friend it is dismissed as ‘news’ and the reasons why stuck behind an FOI exclusion?
Via here:
https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/?reset=#anchor
See how far you get.
The BBC web reports are like the small print on a dodgy insurance policy. They use them as a “get out”clause.
I find that the best ‘commentary’ about certain world events can often be found in the comments sections of articles, rather than the articles themselves.
Case in point – it’s a long one, but well worth a read…
(better than Mr. Hannan’s effort, anyway)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100231207/the-alternative-for-egypt-democracy/#comment-1002059813
The BBC reports on an editorial from the Lancet, which questions the government’s treatment of the NHS as a business concern rather than a provider of health services [a false dichotomy of course]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23717866
The BBC provides an uncritical summary of the editorial, which is quite scathing on its own without the BBC needing to add to it.
The original editorial (at http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2813%2961729-8/fulltext ) has a couple of key elements:
i. the editorial states (as the BBC reports) that by emphasising financial aspects related to the NHS, the BBC is ignoring that this is a health care system with patient safety ‘at its heart’. It goes on to contend that the focus on efficiency and cost saving is detrimental to patient safety. It concludes this point by stating that health workers toiling under these finanical constraints are forced to put patient care behind financial imperatives
ii. reference to a paper authored by Don Berwick, a US professor of Health Care policy and former adviser to Barack Obama (paper at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/226703/Berwick_Report.pdf ). We’re left in doubt by the author of the editorial’s view on Berwick, as we’re told in final paragraph:
“The role of Chief Executive NHS England was advertised last week with a deadline of Sept 6 for applications. Astonishingly, the candidate does not have to have experience in, or knowledge of, health-care systems. However, only someone with the calibre, passion, experience, and wisdom of Don Berwick will have the slightest chance of turning around the NHS from its current path to a market commodity to its true purpose of a compassionate, free, equitable, and effective health system with patients’ health, wellbeing, and dignity as its goal and top priority.”
So, the bias:
i. the BBC doesn’t refer at all to Don Berwick in its article. If I was being cynical, I would assume that this is because its summary of the editorial is stronger if you assume that its coming with the full weight of the UK medical profession rather than an editor with an apparent mancrush on one of Obama’s policy advisors
ii. the completely uncritical acceptance of the (false) dichotomy between patient care and economics. In Obamaland, as in BBCland, endless money exists for healthcare so any filthy right wing politicians that are concerned about budgets are just uncaring monsters that are putting mammon above patient safety.
The lancet editorial may have some valid points, but it should be recognised for the polemic it is, and reported accordingly – not summarised uncritically with zero analysis of its major points and whether and how they are contentious. The BBC as a journalistic body should be employing reporters with the expertise to review, analyse, and report on articles such as this in a way which presents the information in its proper context. Experts in their fields (e.g. doctors) should be made to justify their opinions, rather than a blanket appeal to authority just because what they’re saying toes the BBC’s party line. To get a full understanding of this story, I had to follow the links all the way back to the Berwick article that orginally inspired the Lancet editorial; for those without the time or inclination to do so, the takeaway from the BBC article on its own is that the NHS isn’t safe in Coalition hands, which is ironic considering the way that Labour during its tenure destroyed much of the accountability that the medical profession formerly had, along with weakening patient care by absolving GPs of the duty to provide off-hours services (which increasingly falls to NHS hospitals A&E departments, putting strain onto their budgets whilst the GPs make like bandits on their inflated contracts).
Meanwhile, we get this article from the BBC on GPs:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23724215
The key thing this article doesn’t address is the bungled contract negotiations conducted by the Labour government that resulted in huge pay increases for GPs whilst at the same time removing their requirement to provide out-of-hours services (which has impacted A&E departments’ budgets and resources). Instead, we’re told that GP budgets have been frozen for the last six years (perhaps because they were being ridiculously overpaid?), and that waiting times may go up.
Of course, the mantra of year 0 [2010, or when the coalition came to power] rears its ugly head, as we’re told that “78% of GPs had already seen a reduction in opening hours over the past two years, while nearly half had cut back on the range of services they offered” which begs two sets of questions from the Beeb:
i. what about the reduction in opening hours at surgeries following the new Labour negotiations that meant GPs were free to shut down their surgeries / stop home visits at evenings and weekends?
ii. that the range of services being restricted often relates to medical procedures that the local NHS trusts may prefer are done at a regional centre rather than at local GPs clinics
Its because the media, particularly the BBC, has not been overly keen on pointing out the disaster that Labour created with GP contracts that we have a huge set of problems with the GP services in this country, despite them often being paid far more than NHS consultants working in hospitals. And now to top it all off, we’re about to get a new round of the GPs moaning and whining, when they should be told to stfu and start doing the job they’re being paid handsomely to do.
Agreed, one gets the feeling a report that was highly praising of the Coalition efforts would not get the same treatment.
And another article on the BBC today about GPs, this time defending how they charge fairly large amounts for writing you 3 sentence letters saying you’re fit to fly (£15-40 typically per the article).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-your-money-23693468
The BBC allows Dr Peter Holden to explain to us why its ok for GPs to charge these fees, though I doubt for example whether the BBC would be so willing to do the same for e.g. a top banker on why its ok for banks to charge ridiculous amounts for overdraft letters.
Must be nice to have the BBC run defence for you like the GPs seem to have at the moment. I guess the BBC sees it as another way to attack the coalition as they continue to try to tackle GP profligacy.
More public sector propaganda given free air time by the public sector BBC. How long before the shrinking number of non public sector earners get fed up with carrying all those public sector free loaders and call for a massive change in the way things are done in Britain?
Technically GPs are actually not public sector, the practices are usually set up as commercial partnerships afaik. The real problem was that the labour government that set the contracts was horrendously incompetent at doing so, but that is perhaps to be expected in a party where the majority of MPs are career politicians rather than former businessmen or private sector professionals.
The Conservatives generally have a much harder time shaking things up when it comes to the NHS and GPs, as despite being generally more commercially competent than Labour, the BBC and other british media put the NHS on a pedestal instead of challenging whether we’re getting the best possible healthcare provision for the money we spend on it.
The latest spate of articles from the BBC is sadly just a continuation of this trend.
Q. How many health workers does it take to change a light bulb?
A. None. It’s done under a PFI agreement at 90 quid a pop.
It’s a lot more than £90 ! I have a friend who was a caretaker at a school, and they need a qualified electrician to change a light bulb ! In addition he has to be trained in working at heights, and have at least two assistants. The caretaker who replaced him actually is a qualified electrician, but even he’s not allowed to change a bulb even if he can reach it without steps.
A bench in the playground needed to be moved and that cost £400 !
Violence at Mosque.
Of course, such Islamic violence in a mosque is not new.
Perhaps one of the more significant violent events was at the Grand Mosque in Mecca in 1979, if INBBC cares to mention it.
“The Siege of Mecca: The Forgotten Uprising”
By Y. Trofimov.
‘Look Inside’-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Siege-Mecca-Uprising-Holiest/dp/0307277739
Whether you agree with fracking or not one has to accept that it is a lawful means of exploring energy reserves. But, as is the case so often in this country, the Far-Left jackboot Nazis are out in violent force to intimidate those with different agendas to themselves – and the BBC seems more than happy to get their opinions as it did with the other smelly, middle-class leftie group, ‘Occupy’. These motley crew assortments of (more often than not) rich-kid arts students are often misguided, arrogant (as a result of their public/middle class schooling) and highly hypocritical as many of them no doubt go home after a few days in the tent smoking bongs and strumming a three-chord Dylan number, to spunge off mummy and daddy for a few months in the warmth of their big houses which guzzle up copious amounts of gas and electricity.
When I was at university I remember this left-wing, big mouthed home counties prat who used to lecture everyone in the pub about the evils of capitalism and yet we found out his dad was a stock broker paying for his son’s drama degree. Sums up the disgusting hypocrisy of the Left. They really do disgust me.
Indeed, there is a double standard. Why is it that the likes of Jeremy Bowen can scold El Baradei for approving of Morsi’s removal instead of waiting for the next election cycle to try the democratic approach, yet Left-wing protests like this and Occupy which demand immediate results and occasionally resort to violence while trying to achieve it instead of waiting for the next election cycle (all but one hardcore Occupier I spoke to at Zuccotti Park refused to vote and expressed their mistrust of the process) get the hero treatment?
Democracy to them – and to most Beeboids, it seems – simply means getting their way. Shout loudly enough and you win (viz: Occupiers’ and others’ cries of “This is what democracy looks like!”). Violence is okay if it’s for an approved cause, and to hell with the democratic process most at the BBC seem to insist the Egyptians must follow.
Plus it never occurs to Bowen that had the Egyptian military waited for ‘the next elections’ they would have waited forever.
Exactly. He’s so intellectually dishonest about the MB it’s bizarre.
Morsi is the president of Egypt in the same way Abbas is the president of “Palestine”.
This is how it works.
“When I was at university I remember this left-wing, big mouthed home counties prat who used to lecture everyone in the pub about the evils of capitalism and yet we found out his dad was a stock broker paying for his son’s drama degree. Sums up the disgusting hypocrisy of the Left. They really do disgust me”
This made me chuckle. I was in a similar position when i was out on Friday with a mate of mine who holds completely different views to mine. He claims he has no real political allegiance with either the right or left, but the nonsense he comes out with mirrors that of a BBC “journalist”. His brother is gay. Not a problem for me or him. But as the night progressed and drinks were flowing the political debate turned towards Egypt and the religion of peace. Things got a little heated and needless to say he was trying to defend the indefensible. I told him in no uncertain terms that if England became an Islamic state then his brother would more than likely be killed. He espoused the usual lefty garbage that not all Muslims think in that way. I referred him to passage 7:80-84 in the Qur’an. I told him whether you’re a moderate or most devoted Muslim, you abide and practice the scripture of the Holy text. Silence ensued for around 10 seconds while his cogs were working over time, and like a reasoned and sensible lefty, he retorted with the infamous, “You’re just a racist”.
Thank you BBC for brainwashing people this and promoting the belief that people with opinions like mine are clearly racists.
‘Racist’, ‘homophobic’, Islamophobic’ – is the response of the leftie with nowhere else to go with their argument. In fact, more often than not, it’s used as their only argument (copyright New Labour, 1997-2010).
“He espoused the usual lefty garbage that not all Muslims think in that way”
How do you know that all Muslims think that way? Just because it is in the Koran does not mean that is what Muslims believe or do. The proof of that is seen in how many Muslims have non-Muslim friends, despite the Koran forbidding it (Koran (5:51) – “O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other”)
Have a look at this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22889727
And this
http://www.illumemagazine.com/zine/articleDetail.php?Gay-Muslim-Imam-Will-Perform-Same-Sex-Muslim-Marriages-14368
Are you serious?
Those links explicitly refer to two different statistical outliers, not the mainstream.
Jeez you are dumb.
Btw, I’ll be watching to see how that works out for Imam Abdullah and his security team.
Yes, I know that it will be a minority of Muslims in these cases. But I think my point still stands – not all Muslims think the same way.
Who said that they did?
You are arguing against a point that no-one has made.
“He espoused the usual lefty garbage that not all Muslims think in that way”
Maybe I’ve misinterpreted what Beez said, but that quote implies he thinks that all Muslims feel the same way.
No, he made the same strawman argument that you have made rather than address the real issue that an awful lot of Muslims do feel that way and this is reflected in mainstream Muslim communities and societies the world over.
The contrast between Beboids’ politically hostile reporting of EDL, compare with Beeboids’ empathetic reporting of ‘protesters’ at Balcombe, is stark.
Fracking
The BBc are doing everything to promote any lefty, Eco group who oppose fracking. I have heard plenty of anti comments, where is the balance bbc.
The BBC don’t DO balance.
The BBC. promoting the Age of Stupid.
albarman= anjem choudary
Although this raised a smile you should be careful, Anjem Choudary at least tells the truth about Islam as it really is, unlike several other commentators and politicians.
This is the reason they are desperate to silence him, because they don’t want people to know the reality of how hideous the ‘religion of peace’ really is.
The BBC isn’t trying to silence Choudary. He gets plenty of air time, and it’s the context which gives away what the BBC is trying to do with him. They’re trying to convince the audience that he represents only the most microscopically tiniest of minority factions, and that the vast majority of Mohammedans abhor what he stands for nearly as much as Beeboids abhor Sarah Palin. They want you to believe he’s harmless and is not representative of his religion.
Andrew Neil showed Choudary to be problematic once, but I think he got away with it.
The BBC knows he’s bad news, yes. But allowing the public to believe that he represents anything more than the Tiny Minority™ would lead to the dreaded backlash they know can break out in the villages at any moment, so they have to spin him away.
Of late Angie is in hiding and al-beeb must be heartbroken for not having him on the air giving input about Egypt.
Choudary is the BBC’s tool for domestic Mohammedan issues. They have others on speed dial for international stories.
BBC News24 has been telling us that the anti-fracking protest – with its camp of huge marquees and ‘civil disobedience workshops’ – has now become ‘much more sophisticated’. However, it hasn’t bothered to tell us that’s it’s organised by ‘Reclaim the Power’, better known as ‘The Campaign for Climate Change’, which is a pressure group fronted by George Monbiot, Michael Meacher and Caroline Lucas and backed by the usual crowd of Labs, Libs, Greenies and Trade Unionists.
Now is the opportunity to quietly start fracking elsewhere, where there’s a greater chance of striking gas. Wrong-foot the protesters. Silly buggers.
Reminds me of the other year during the ‘student protests/riots’ when the Met waited for them to get into full swing and then went in and changed the locks on the properties they had been illegally squatting in.
The trots came back after a hard days indiscriminate violence to find their filthy crap in a skip and a smiling copper telling them to sod off or they would be arrested. I assume they all went home to Daddy.
We got the Mets pictures from the operation, the faces of the rabble were priceless 🙂
The BBC wants mass immigration but does not want mass home building. We could send them to Scotland, it has lots more space than England and virtually everyone in Scotland is a socialist, so they would welcome them all into their homes, it would also help to reduce the unpleasantly hideously white nature of Scotland as a nation. What does Albaman think?
There’s no room in Scotland for home-building – the territory’s all been earmarked for windfarms.
Not sure what point you are trying to make but as is often the case here perhaps you could have checked the facts before posting.
“Migrants give Scotland record population level”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/420748/Migrants-give-Scotland-record-population-level
Perhaps you could be a good chap and direct us to the BBC’s version of this story too, Albaman?
Or do you think that the BBC would be somewhat leery of reporting on the statistics given in your linked article:
68,000 (mainly ethnically scottish people one presumes) left Scotland last year, of whom 42,000 moved to other parts of the UK; meanwhile, 80,000 people moved into Scotland of whom nearly 1 in 2 (36,000) were immigrants from outside the UK.
So it seems once you discount the intra-UK movement (42,000 from Scotland, 44,000 into Scotland) which is almost net zero, the Scottish population is losing 26,000 Scots to emigration each year whilst replacing them with 36,000 immigrants from outside the UK.
I suspect that the BBC would not want to report that immigrants numbering 0.7% of the scottish population are being added to scotland every year, a number that was probably even higher during the new Labour years.
“Perhaps you could be a good chap and direct us to the BBC’s version of this story too, Albaman?”
As using a search engine is beyond you:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-23614135
And as expected, no statistics on the numbers of immigrants from outside the UK – just a weasel comment that about ‘net inflow’ from overseas, the usual BBC tactic to hide the true numbers [they quote 14,300, when the real number of overseas immigrants is 36,000]
I wonder what the BBC spends our £3.5bn each year on, as its clearly not quality journalism.
2.5 billion on propaganda.
This net inflow figure is pernicious. But it serves a useful purpose. It conceals the true situation which as in the rest of Britain is a creeping population replacement. The BBC/Liberal junta loves it.
Self deception is the prime requirement of a modern liberal.
breaking news,a muslim brotherhood spokesman based in london has praised the bbc jeremys bowens one sided coverage and sympathy towards the muslim brotherhood in this conflict in egypt.that says it all
Quite.
Bowen, who is considerably anti-Israel, has some political regard for Muslim Brotherhood (MB).
Even today, the worse Bowen can come up with against the MB is that it is not very competent, and favours ‘austerity’!
The ever Islamic-compliant Bowen.
“Egypt crisis: How the euphoria turned to tragedy”
By Jeremy Bowen.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23724269
[At least I have heard a few other voices from Egypt talking about Islam and religious fascism over the past couple of days.]
‘Fox News’-
“Mainstream Media Is Wrong on Egypt”
(7 min video clip.)
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2612552660001/mainstream-media-is-wrong-on-egypt-/?intcmp=obnetwork
For INBBC:-
“Think the Muslim Brotherhood is made up of peaceful defenders of democracy?
Watch this.”
(5 min video clip.)
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/08/think-the-muslim-brotherhood-is-made-up-of-peaceful-defenders-of-democracy-watch-this.html
‘muslim brotherhood spokesman based in london has praised the bbc’
Guessing Fran Unsworth will be happy to run with that one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/posts/Centre-for-Policy-Studies
‘More importantly, we remain the most trusted news broadcaster in the UK’
Says so right there.
‘muslim brotherhood spokesman based in london has praised the bbc’.
For an appearance fee paid for by taxation.
Double whammy of totally unchallenged global warming eco-gobshite on Today this morning.
First we had the RSPB’s Director of Climate Change and Energy (yes, the RSPB has its own Director of Climate Change and Energy) interviewed on the news because the RSPB are objecting to a fracking site in Lancashire, um, because of its potential impact on wildlife….’blah blah….climate change….blah blah blah….fossil fuels……CO2….climate change blah blah blah…’
Then we had some ex-Friends of the Earth zealot proclaiming on the siege of Balcombe ‘…climate change blah blah…..CO2emissions blah…..fossil fuels…blah blah blah….Cameron anti-wind turbine…blah…..Tory backbenchers….blah blah blah……thick seam of climate change denial blah blah…….need more commitment to renewables…blah….’
So any ‘But temperature records show there has been no warming for 17 years despite increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere’
or
‘Shouldn’t the government take a breather from its dash to reduce CO2 whilst the failed predictions of AGW are re-examined?’
or
‘You talk of wind turbines, but what are we supposed to do for energy when the wind isn’t blowing?’
or
‘What do you mean by ‘renewables’, because they are not really renewable and actually use an awful lot of CO2 don’t they?’
or any one of dozens more questions you could ask which would expose this shameful eco-nutjobbery abuse of science.
No, of course not.
The country’s economic survival is at stake. Peoples livelihoods are at stake. People’s lives are at stake. The BBC continues to give their unwavering, unquestioning support to a tiny minority of ecosocialist zealots who are hell bent on destroying our way of life.
The BBC, destroying Britain and democracy.
Was there any mention of the turbines’ tendency to make mincemeat of birds that attempt to fly through them?
I was approached by someone from the RSPB hoping to sign up new members at our local shopping centre. I stood and listened patiently to her spiel and then asked why the RSPB are very keen on wind turbines and solar farms. Got the usual Global Warming/ saving the planet Bullshit. I then told her that in my opinion it rather goes against the aim of the RSPB, who are in the business of saving birds and other wildlife, for the organisation to shill for wind and solar power when it’s being proved wind and solar farms are responsible for killing many types of birds and bats. I received no real reply to that question. I told her that while ever the RSPB are pushing an eco-fascist agenda they’ll get no donations from me.
The BBC doesn’t like Atmospheric physicists or Solar Astronomers very much, they prefer advice filtered through the RSPB and Friends of the Earth, because they get what they want to hear about the environment, which is not that David Bellamy has effectively been proven right when he said that the effect of “CO2 emissions” on the environment is effectively zero. Try using the “Unified Theory of Climate” as well as confirming this by using the CO2 atmosphere of Venus as a proxy. I have.
Another one steps onto the bBBC-Guardian merry-go-round.
http://sedatedtabloidreader.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/book-review-mark-kermode-its-only-a-movie-reel-life-adventures-of-a-film-obsessive/
Mark Kermode is a film critic. He writes reviews for The Guardian, but is perhaps best known for the show he co-hosts on BBC Radio Five Live…. to fully appreciate the book and it’s context there are some things you need to know first.
He is a film critic
He is from Barnet
He is a massive horror fan
He thinks (or rather, “knows”) The Exorcist is the greatest film ever made
He loves Elvis
He plays in a skiffle band
He is a former Trotskyist…..
(BBC : The acceptable face of political extremism]
What’s your problem with people being of a Jewish background? I don’t think the majority of correspondents to this site have any enmity against Jews and Judaism, in fact many regulars have defended the people of Israel ( and Jews elsewhere) against the negative reporting of the BBC.
What’s your problem with Jews, GTRman?
An additional thought, GTRman. It’s nothing to do with the religion of their birth and probably more to do with political ideals and affiliations.
The bBC how it promotes Spanish claims on Gibraltar and not even half the story.
Gibraltar border row: UK ‘difficult to trust’
Asked by the BBC’s Tom Burridge if it was wise for Spain, a Nato ally of the UK, to seek Argentine diplomatic support, Mr Ibanez said the issue of Gibraltar had similarities to that of the Falkland islands, which he called by their Argentinian name, the Malvinas. He added: “You need an environment where you trust each other and with what happened with the fisheries, it is difficult to trust the UK.”
And here is what the bBC doesn’t bother its arse in informing the Plebs
The bBC, the traitors within our midst
Oh and for all the bbC claims that the reef that Gibraltar is building may or may not be in Spanish waters. Here is an official Spanish government Map of where you can fish in the area. (Funny how the bBC haven’t published a detailed map of the area)
Try this
http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/agriculturaypesca/moluzonasprodu/
Something has been bugging me about the map the bBC have been using in which to illuminate the issues concerning Gibraltar and then It finally hit me, See if you can spot it too.
You might find the answer to that question by comparing it to these other bBC maps:
and
Did you spot what was bugging me. It has to do with the position of the artificial reef. Here this map makes it a lot clearer.
Anybody else wonder why the bBC left out the borderline on its news web article???
Am I the only one who can’t see the clearer map showing the border?
No, it’ll be dem joooooos again.
When will the JOO’s say sorry for killing Jesus?
It indicates yet again that in many EU countries democracy as we understand it is a very recent import. Spain is a prime example.
The people of Gibraltar must be in charge of their fate. End of story.
without the EU spain would still be a backwards 3rd world country. still amazes me how many people there have to rely on diesel generators for power
re backwards etc…many may think you’re exaggerating but I can assure them you are not.
i lived there for 12 months, i had solar power for the day, little diesel generator for the night. i loved it. i could of either bought a new car or dropped out of life for a year and chill, i chose the latter. sat in the sun all day, drinking beer and smoking weed with the missus. happy days
Worth remembering that Franco’s death and the reintroduction of democracy in Spain only happened within the last 40 years, so perhaps it’s not surprising that they’re a bit more dependent on the EU than some other members.
People with diesel generators will get subsidies to generate electricity for the UK when the windfarms aren’t working.
I’m not making this up.
Don’t give them ideas…
http://tinyurl.com/kozrmg9
Got to love that civil, civic state ideal that is Sweden.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/posts/Centre-for-Policy-Studies
Started well (maybe due to internal familiarity?), but seems to be veering off narrative as others become aware.
Given it’s by a market rate director, whose wisdom is not being lauded as it might, as per a Boaden ‘The Editors’ outing, replete with ‘we are great because we say we are’, I predict a closing.
Worth a bookmark.
We don’t give health warnings about think tanks, we aim to describe them.
Classic dodging the main point of the report, plus word games. We know you aim to describe them, sweetheart. That’s why people are complaining. The point is that you do so selectively. The context of the BBC segments and methodology CPS used to come up with their own “definitions” (shouldn’t that be “descriptions”, then?) are not the issue at all. Of course, as is pointed out in the comments, CPS did show their work, so Unsworth either didn’t read the introduction, or she’s just in denial even more, and chose to fib.
Having said that, I see the BBC is as usual getting complaints from both sides, and the “balance” of the comments is fascinating. Clear, reasoned points made against Unsworth’s post (“Localist’s” interesting point about the facade of balance, “fairpoint’s” remarks about labeling), while the BBC defenders give pathetic efforts we’ve all heard and laughed at a million times (the “Nick Robinson is a Tory!” trump card, the hysterical claim that the BBC is silent about what the Tories are doing to the NHS).
I wonder if this is representative of the quality of complaints they get in general about most of their coverage. They get “complaints from both sides”, sure. But the validity of them is hardly balanced at all.
“complaints from both sides”
I can name Labour MP’s and Tory MP’s who complain that the BBC is too left-wing on Climate Change and Immigration. Graham Stringer and Frank Field are the Labour MP’s.
It just proves the point that BBC Bias has become so bad, that we have now come to the position where they are failing to hide the fact that they are a bunch of Socialist Worker supporters trying to appear not biased, but the BBC do seem to be honest when it comes to those employees called comedians.
Just like the Communists, the BBC is now getting complaints from both sides.
Labour has a lot to fear, the communists murdered the leader of the British Labour party shortly after I was born.
Yes, it’s well worth a visit, and a comment.
It’s a deeply inadequate response from a top BBC editor, well down to the standard of that genetically-infamous Helen Boaden piece.
Sadly not many more as yet, but I do like the latest (No.11) which seem to have resonated with readers and lurkers.
These market rate outings are interesting beasts.
If a criticism is leveled a response is reasonable, but they do seem to prefer to retreat to the heart of the bunker to make it, and more to reassure the hive than offer any sensible counter to the public interested in a sensible debate around points raised.
The last two paras, representing around 40% of the total, are pure cookie cutter ‘we are/are not because we say so…’ from some PR manual clearly all senior editors have been told they have to include… or are too thick to conceal in paraphrase with sincerity.
Rippon, Horrocks, Herrman, Thompson and of course… our BFF ‘Hugs’…‘
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2011/12/the_challenge_of_reporting.html
Interesting it got pulled at 199. Also in taking a trip down memory lane, that posts under one DOTI name remain but if the name changes (now, who would do that?) the BBC system goes back and changes all their post history under the new one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2011/08/newsnight_the_facts.html
Sadly no answers to questions. And an early closing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/09/impartiality_is_in_our_genes.html
Always a favourite.
‘Anyone who thinks differently doesn’t really understand how the organisation works and how seriously we take issues around balance and impartiality.’
And, finally:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/speeches/stories/boaden_lse.shtml
‘Our ratings for trust, impartiality and independence have also continued to rise over the last three years.
There’s a direct connection between these sets of figures.
As the perception of trust and impartiality increases, so do our audiences.
The BBC Trust has shown that impartiality is an important factor in the audience determining its choice of broadcast news provider.
Tell it often enough, girls.
That disgusting attack on a Sikh pensioner last Sunday in Coventry which the Daily Mail reported in full but for some reason the bBC didn’t bother and left it on the back pages. Well they have arrested the cunt in question and again the bBC has kept this story low key.
Hang on an actual physical attack on a coloured gentlemen who is 80 which was recorded and the bBC doesn’t mention it. Gee I wonder if it is because Muslims hate Sikhs as the reason why the News org which promotes the view that the Uk can only be racist whenever anybody looks funny at a Muslim as the reason why they haven’t bothered playing the race card here.
P.S
If you get the chance to watch that video look right at the end where the 2 white guys run up to help and the camera pans round sat not 10 feet away is a black guy who did fuck all.
And yet Caucasians remain the ‘white devils’ while blacks can do no wrong, ever.
I’m really into the works of Andrew Lloyd Webber at the moment anyway I just love listening to Jesus Christ Superstar by Murryhead just wondering if the bbC would play that song as it contains this line:
Tell me what you think about your friends at the top.
Who’d you think besides yourself’s the pick of the crop?
Buddha, was he where it’s at? Is he where you are?
Could Mohammed move a mountain, or was that just PR?
While looking up the Maps above, I moved over to the bBC website for Israel and boy can I go to town on the bBC’s horrible histories:
Israel profile
Much of the history of the area since that time has been one of conflict between Israel on one side and Palestinians – represented by the Palestine Liberation Organisation – and Israel’s Arab neighbours, on the other. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced in the fighting in 1948, during which Israel’s Arab neighbours came to the aid of the Palestinian Higher Council.
Really and there was me thinking that 5 Arab nations invaded Israel on the day after it was born. (14th May 1948)
Its political life has nonetheless been dominated by the conflict with its Arab neighbours, including full-scale regional wars in 1948, 1967 and 1973, and many smaller-scale conflicts including the 1956 invasion of Egypt and the Lebanon wars of 1982 and 2006.
Reading the above do you get the impression that Israel started all of the above wars, wonder why they left out Britain and France from 1956, and they don’t mention that 1982 and 2006 were kick started by the innocent people in Lebanon who for no reason keep on crossing the border and killing Jews.
“Israel evacuated its settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005”
Doesn’t evacuated sound like somebody having a dump, maybe that is why the bBC talks shite, they didn’t evacuate, they unilaterally withdrew, but that simple word change gives the impression that the Arabs kicked out the jews, thus perpetuating the Islamic victim mentality the bBC loves to promote so often.
The bBC, the reason anti-Semitism is rife in the UK
Does seem odd to have the “1956 invasion of Egypt” but not also then have “1973 invasion of Israel”. I guess Israel has never been attacked.
Very good, the wording you highlight and the bold text in the first quoted paragraph are nothing short of sinister and highly provocative propaganda: I would advise any BBC schmuck reading this to find out who wrote it and either arrange to caution them or sack them immediately.
You could look for current border disputes between Chile and Argentina?
And whether Morocco wants an end to the Spanish occupation of Ceuta and Melilla? Which I think are the last remaining European colonies in Africa.
To answer your question: Cyprus vs Turkey was always a no-go.
This isn’t simple bias, it’s a blatant re-write of history to fit a pro-Palestinian anti-Israel agenda.
Defend this one, scottnickeddezwillalbaman.
It seems that in the last six months or so this sites main function which is to highlight examples of BBC bias seems to have been replaced with an overtly anti-Muslim focus.
Gone it seems are the days when it was possible to read factual, persuasive, specific and logical stories, instead this site has lost its way and I fear is turning into a platform for commentators who’s personal issues with people of other faiths is stopping the real examples of BBC bias to go undetected.
Obviously I will not be coming back to this site, however I do wish you all well and hope that some of the old standards are brought back, and that you manage to refocus and start exposing the hypocrisy and distortions carried out by the BBC.
Yet another person that’s never posted before saying they are never coming back because we’re being mean to those soft and cuddly Muslims that have never hacked a man to death, raped an under age white girl or blown themselves up on a bus.
All I can say to you is p”lease don’t let the door hit you on the way out”.
If the BBC are not reporting what is happening in the name of Islam throughout the world, or reporting selectively, that is bias. If they are misrepresenting other religions, such as Christianity or Buddhism, that is bias. In one form or another, from Egypt, Syria, Africa, and of course Europe, Islam and its followers are playing a high profile in the news. I would expect watchers of BBC bias to focus on these areas. I would look for bias in selective under reporting of Islam.
maybe if the BBC didnt promote islam as the religion of peace, and muslims as victims, when they are the ones killing us, or plottng to kill us all the time, we wouldnt talk about them so much
Exactly right.
On a site about bias, it is inevitable that those areas where the BBC are most blatantly biased will be commented on most.
I have asked this before without reply from preternaturally similar sounding posters but will try again.
What then do you deem acceptable topics of conversation for the dinner table?
OT – skip if your sole interest is tangible examples of BBC bias or discussions of one.
I wasn’t too sure about the ‘subscribe’ button initially.
It seemed merely a means to ensure I was left in no doubt that a knockoff Louis Vuitton could be mine.
But now the overnights, read en bloc, give an interesting insight into the dilemma-strewn world of the professional forum well-poisoning team.
Some coordination is necessary, otherwise the real danger of left hand undoing any good work of lefter hand is too prevalent. And funny.
But it needs to be subtle. Which if it isn’t, stands out like a sore thumb.
So when the the strategy of the day is trotted out across the board, it is a bit obvious. Over at the Bishop Hill blog they have a couple trying ‘you’re a bunch of old whingers achieving nothing, and should give up. The only way is protest in person with all the free time you have to travel and camp out. Otherwise nothing, and shutting down this blog is preferable’. There’s even one claiming to be more intelligent than all others there and getting into IQ stat spats. Oddly familiar.
Or here there’s the two extremes of double act, using pincer movement or false flag.
In the first one has a moan about lack of BBC bias being addressed, which another then leaps in on and pats their back and says how awful everyone is. Ideal for a ‘you lot’.
And now we seem to be treated to a new wave of frankly barking provocations. Most, myself included, stay clear, as there is nothing to be gained from engaging. Interestingly, even the regulars on station seem to stay clear too for a while, until a body of work builds up, and then there’s a concerted ‘see…. this is what a hateful site is!’.
But while unpleasant and unfortunate, it is not. It is what a free-speech site with relaxed modding can be turned into by spoilers. These false flags know not to attack personally, but chip away with unpleasant generalities that leave a bad taste. Leaving mods with a real dilemma. I’d be interested how many comments do not get reported by those often quick to do so with those simply expressing an opinion they don’t like.
The names change, a lot. But the styles do not. Along with hard-to-resist giveaway names.
I don’t name any as I would not wish to tar an innocent with a brush they deserve in intention but nothing else.
It now seems simply something any forum making an impact has to live with. Pity.
Good news is the Sunday is shaping up to be a sunny one.
Be interesting to see who is chained to a PC on such a day vs. dipping in over a coffee.
Well GW, is it your view that the ‘well poisoning’ is therefore an organised effort, by some mega-corp. such as al-beeba?
It certainly is mine.
My view is they would be foolish to not attempt a discrediting of their £4 billion protection racket, on blogs such as this.
Some on here do not agree with my view of course.
DC – Coffee time. And luckily your and my views are still permissible. At least here. For now.
My reply to your question will I hope be honest but maybe frustrating: I don’t know.
That is, I have no evidence, and hence could only speculate. If using the experience and opinions of others, who become ‘critics who say’, all in quotes. The BBC and its defenders can surely not object to such discussion practices, as they are precisely what they use too. Sometimes to extraordinary degrees (post to follow).
Maybe simple logic is the best route, seeing what is written and who sets to gain from this.
This site is dedicated to improving accuracy and reducing bias of our national broadcaster by highlighting where and when it strays, and discussing how and why. Or if the BBC seems reluctant to acknowledge such compromises and persists.
Folk can of course be wrong or take things to extremes.
Hence it is right and proper that corrections are made to prevent inaccuracies here becoming truths about the BBC that are unfair. This tends to happen quite quickly and is accepted by most if clear and unequivocal.
Whether this is by BBC employees, contractors or friends of the BBC who knows, but they are surely welcome.
What is odd is how these same people seem less concerned with BBC performance when it errs, and is clearly shown to have done so.
That they vanish, rather than discussing corrective measures is telling enough. But if they weigh in solely to muddy waters then much more can be inferred. Who benefits from such a discussion being interfered with? Why would any simple member of the public commit time in such a practice?
Some here are noticing the most persistent challengers to BBBC… its right to exist, its value, its impact, the capabilities of its authors, the standards of its owner, the demographic make-up of all save the poster making the observation… actually go nowhere near BBC bias either.
They are here to interfere, mock or threaten…. a site highlighting the less than stellar activities of a £4Bpa media monopoly that is uniquely funded by public compulsion.
Now, why would that be?
Some may see such an analysis as legitimate and worthy of consideration. Others may opt for attempts at dismissal, if usually on an ad hom or ‘you’re wrong because I’m right’ basis.
Given actual evidence of BBC behaviour in this regard, it is for any independent reader to decide who they are more likely allied with.
I hope that helps.
Careful, Guest Who. Scott will be posting that there’s no such thing as “false flag” post and calling you a conspiracy nut.
‘there’s no such thing as “false flag” post’
And Albaman will, of course, be there to demand this is proven. Albeit as a negative tricky, though history is a learning experience that the concept is not a new one, or unheard of…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
Or, maybe, again, he will remain doomed to be bizarrely aloof, as if aware that this would be an exchange best steered clear of.
I resign myself to any personal psychological assessments as they are made. They can only be speculation, and it is for the author to make a compelling case.
Or expose their own failings in the attempt.
I am not sure of the anti Muslim focus but you are making an interesting point.
I am of the opinion that we are currently in a culture war between the irrational utopianism of the liberal left and the true forces of conservatism. The latter by the way has nothing at all to do with the Tory party.
This war has been a long time coming but the outcome will decide the fate of this country and future generations.
It is being waged on many fronts. Economic, social and geopolitical.
The BBC is firmly in the liberal camp thus it is, by definition , opposed to the conservative forces growing in our society.
One of the key battlegrounds is over immigration which presents an existential threat to the traditional peoples and way of life in this country. It is, and always has been , a question of numbers and it is idle to pretend otherwise.
There is a suspicion that uncontrolled immigration has been used as a way of destroying the traditional ethnic composition of England in particular and to ensure that the left keeps a monopoly of real power.
The conservative view is diametrically opposed to this.
Islam is caught up in this. It is a way of looking at the world which has virtually nothing in common with the way the English have looked at the world for centuries. Conflict was always inevitable. and the conservative , realising this, will always seek to avoid conflict by ensuring the seeds are not sown that make the conflict possible. The liberal ,believing the best of human nature, has no care for caution.
This is only one battleground in the culture war. There are many others. This war was not sought by the true consevative but wished upon him, by stupid and idle men and women who had little real knowledge of how peoples behave and cared not at all for the future of their country. . The BBc is at the heart of this delusional way of thinking and so is opposed to the conservative. The conservative in return is the enemy of the BBC.
“I am of the opinion that we are currently in a culture war between the irrational utopianism of the liberal left and the true forces of conservatism. The latter by the way has nothing at all to do with the Tory party.”
A few years before 9/11 I found myself at the local army education centre undergoing my EFP2 (education for promotion certificate) which would qualify me to become a Warrent officer my course instructors were a Maj and a young 2LT just out of university . Everyday she would task somebody in the class with a subject to talk for 20 minutes after Naffi Break and when she picked me, she asked me to talk about Islam. (big mistake)
I spoke about my time in the Balkens about how the vestiges of the Ottoman Empire were still causing problems today and that contrary to popular belief East did not meet the West in Turkey, but rather in F.R.Y. (former Republic of Yugoslavia),
I then went on that war was coming and that the next war wouldn’t be between nation states, but rather between radical Islam and everybody else.
At the end of it, the young 2LT exclaimed that a lot of her friends were Muslims and they weren’t terrorists, (Have you noticed how liberals love to use that statement) in which ti try and discredit me, I simply replied that all my family were and they all wanted me dead.
She couldn’t answer that.
‘Gone it seems are the days when it was possible to read factual, persuasive, specific and logical stories’, describes the bBC in a nutshell.
Hindus, Sikhs and especially Buddhists are nicer than Muslims. But the problem is that the BBC is biased in favour of the nasty Asians called Muslims, even though they are much less tolerant of the new type of “western imperialist morals” of the BBC Guardianista “humanist-atheist-socialist” perverts, than most other religions.
The left see the Muslims as the foot soldiers of the communist revolution.
That’s why they are so nice to them.
No, they don’t. It may appear as a side-effect, but that’s not the reality. Mark Thompson and Helen Boaden made it very clear what they think. It’s misguided, and bigoted on a couple of levels, but that’s what they think and why they do it. Except where Israel is concerned, that is. Different prejudices operating there.
I wonder how long this review of the BBC series ‘The White Queen’ is going to survive on Amazon.
“The version we are getting is the censored version due to the boy,buggering,corporation AKA The BBC. The real uncensored version starts on the 10th of August in the USA. Wait for region 1 release of this show”
Allegedly written by a Mrs C Watson ! (see what’s on ??)
There are quite a few insightful reviews which accuse the corporation of having no real interest in the subject matter leading to poor scripting and wooden acting, which is undeniably true.
English History or culture ? Well there’s no surprise that the BBC aren’t interested.
‘the BBC aren’t interested’
Post TVL/Sky cancellation, we are still honing our search for legal sources of TV ents.
In what may be a broadcast equivalent to the bargain DVD bin at Tescos, in scoping iPlayer we noticed that, amongst lean or fractured pickings there was an option for the full series of this already.
As it is so recent, my boys suggested it was therefore probably not worth the bother.
Not, I stress, the same with The IT Crowd on 4OD.
Game of Thrones is more historically accurate than The White Queen.
Hell, so was Blackadder II.
do you know what,i get a bit sick and tired of these leftie tim stanley types in here like joseph accusing us of being anti muslim,all week the news has been about the conflict in egypt,from the bbc to channel 4 to rt in russia there has been 24 blanket coverage of this conflict in egypt involving the muslim brotherhood,are they all anti muslim as well for covering this because it involves muslims,catch yourself on joseph,far from being anti muslim i fully support the egyptiain muslim goverment,the egyptian police,the egyptiain army in there crackdown against the fascist muslim brotherhood,so thats makes me pro muslim joseph,the trouble with the ignorant left is they confuse being anti muslim with being against muslim extremism and radical fascist islam,wake up lefties and smell the coffee.
Stuart, you seem to be missing Joseph’s point, and the point others have made numerous times. Rants about the evils of Islam are not the same thing as highlighting biased reporting of the BBC. Every time somebody expresses a desire to return to the basics of what this blog is allegedly about, a number of people get very angry and take it as a personal offense and demand their right to complain about Islam (or other groups) instead. Has everyone given up on what this blog was founded to do? If so, just say the word and be done with it.
Asking for more posts and comments about BBC bias doesn’t need to be interpreted as an attempt to stifle free speech or suppress the free expression of hatred of Islam (or blacks or homosexuals or whatever). I now expect the usual “Fuck off yank, yew hev no roit….” etc. So be it.
Of course you have a perfectly valid point, David, but if one believes that Islam poses a profound threat to the UK and that the BBC is complicit in this erosion of our society and values then it is equally valid for that anger and frustration to surface.
There is also something very odd about the recent rash of dissenting posts from ‘people’ who never seem to have posted before…
‘something very odd about the recent rash of dissenting posts ‘
Odd? They seem entirely predictable.
There’s a fair old spread of BBC bias and inaccuracy about, getting highlighted and discussed, and it seems pretty clear that what is raised here creeps into the MSM food chain on occasion.
Hence dropping a dead donkey in the well seems entirely normal to try and interrupt the flow.
Yesterday was near textbook.
A false flag double act to clog the threads and sour the tone; a regular to cherry pick and whinge and niggle, and a kapo to tidy up in the evening.
It is with some sorrow that I feel the last two were however handed some tasty morsels.
The most coherent, well-researched, link-supported piece can be thrown off course by reacting to provocation in anything but a calm, polite way… as was with the error share corrected and acknowledged. The harping subsequently was made to look petty and foolish, and merely highlighted the BBC’s woeful (lack of) responses in such cases.
But provocation has but one aim, and if it is rewarded a lot is undone. Hard, one appreciates, but keeping language in check and steering clear of box-tick trophy phrases will frustrate the troll troops more in the long run.
The latest comedy offering on Radio 4 at 18:30 on Friday was tiresomely predictable. Rory Bremner and company ‘deconstructed’ Britishness as a concept of any value or meaning, with a view to arguing later that it is not worth preserving in the face of creeping EU influence and mass immigration. The final insult was John O’Farrell, the man who was sorry that the IRA didn’t kill Mrs Thatcher in 1984 and that Britain won the Falklands War in 1982, giving us his snide anti-British digs.
Oh, and very little of it was even funny, in my opinion.
Can’t the BBC do better than this shower of lefty sh1t?
In reply to your last sentence:-
“Edgy comedy”
Otherwise known as total rowlocks ( cockney rhyming slang ).
It was on at dinner time, my mother was visiting, it was Rory Bremner and called a new satirical comedy show, so we listened to it for a while thinking it might be OK, then it came to a hundred year old joke about posh people hunting in Africa for horns, it got an applause, mother told me if I could change over to something else, we put a Count Arthur CD on.
I thought about the up to date problem in Africa of the Chinese trade in horns, and also our family a hundred years ago, where working class people, who were far more intelligent than the left-wing middle-class morons who produced that show. It was what could be described as a Cbeebies version of Bird, Fortune and Bremner, where the C stands for Communists as well as Childrens.
Just wondering when all these “political commentators” came to the fore. There seems to be alot of em about and mainly to the left IMO.
Before I return to the garden, a question…
http://www.damnlol.com/so-because-she-watched-porn-she-was-stripped-of-her-doctorate-37717.html
This is from a feed on FaceBook I subscribe to because, often, it is damn funny.
Seems odd to get this, which rather patently is not. At least, for the lady in question or media integrity.
As one at least is now on duty, may I ask any with access to BBC archives if the images used here are verified as real?
If not, it will be worth contacting the site to correct a serious compromise to BBC news credibility.
If accurate, it would be interesting to hear what any BBC defenders may have to say about this as a practice, especially with those invited on by the BBC who may be deemed contrary in opinion to the hive narrative.
Especially if, as suggested, the guest had a new title hung on her by the BBC mid-discussion to… ‘help’ their case.
A quick google offers in support:
http://www.themediablog.co.uk/the-media-blog/2013/08/newsnight-porn-user-stripped-of-phd.html
http://muckrack.com/topic/Newsnight
Spare a thought for academic Dr Jude Roberts who admitted on Newsnight on Wednesday night that she uses porn. A minute or so later the caption writers at the BBC had made the necessary changes to her
Newsnight does have a bit of a past with making the ‘necessary changes’, so any clarifications would be welcome.
However, any the BBC invite on in future may need to be cautioned on how what they say can be taken to extremes by the caption writers.
As a precedent it has potential. Next time a DG or market rate does go on screen from the comfort of their own studio, it would be refreshing to see them heralded as ‘Alzhiemers sufferer’ or ‘Nonce enabler’ by their own staff.
With great power comes great corruption. Especially if control of the edit suite has zero accountability.
Wonder if the caption changers ever watched any porn?
Thing is, Paul Mason is currently in the midst of a campaign in which he tries to convince everyone that all women are victims of inherent misogyny and that the only way to stop this is to censor pornography in all households. He’s also made completely irrelevant, uninformed digs at videogames which he claims is a ‘male teen culture’ when any statistical study would have shown him in seconds that this generalisation is total rubbish.
It doesn’t suit his agenda when women come forward and say they actually (*gasp!*) enjoy sex and actually often want to be dominated by their male lovers, but then he can probably warp this in his own mind as these poor, unprotected women being beaten down by the Caucasian sausage fest of Western culture and being too thick and too apathetic to know what’s right for them.
This article is 2 years old – but it shows the wholly naive approach the BBC has taken to the Arab Spring and especially towards the Muslim Brotherhood.
The BBC was naive about Hitler – and continues to be naive about the MB.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/egypt_is_an_opportunity.html
Well I watched David on BBC this morning. A shame you didn’t pull the prison governor putting the cart before the horse.
People are only sent to prison when they become repeat offenders, and prison fails to reform them. It is not the case that prison makes them worse than they were before, as was presented. They are already bad, & simply return to their old ways on leaving prison.
“return to their old ways on leaving prison”
With added radicalisation.
Change the prison regime to something more appropriate and watch the population fall by a half in 6 months.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/middle_east/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-23716796
Side bar on the BBC Middle east page titled ‘Altered Images’
Suddenly the BBc is REALLY interested in photos being either doctored or mistakenly titled.
I wonder why they chose this example, rather than certain other examples of ‘fauxtography’.
Could it be that this time it was an IDF blunder (which incidentally has now been withdrawn) rather than their favourite BBC stringers and Pallywood?
Na. Couldn’t be that, could it.
The BBC isn’t biased, is it?
The BBC is crowing about a single photo out of several. Just like defenders of the indefensible here, they act as if one error means the everything else is false, even if the rest is backed up by facts. Has the BBC debunked all the other photos, or just the one?
By this same rule, we ought to be able to declare all BBC reporting on Israel and the Middle East to be bogus as well, based on Jon Donnison’s tweeting of bogus photographs. How about it, gentlemen?
Just BTW the above article’s sub-heading reads
“Questioning whether cameras never lie”.
Why do they only question the Israeli cameras but not the Palestinian ones?
Answers on a postcard.
‘Why do they only question the Israeli cameras but not the Palestinian ones?’
There’s an official apologist on duty, currently pretending he’s nothing to do with the other two false flag privateers.
He’s good at fielding such questions, though only if serving the BBC narrative.
If it’s the BBC doing what he’s just accused a lone blogger of doing… not so much.
The BBC’s contribution to, say, the business community through negative or incorrect ‘news’ publicity is rather a matter of record, along with the time and costs involved even when they are bang to rights.
Ask Primark, or McAlpine. Or the NAO.
“There’s an official apologist on duty, currently pretending he’s nothing to do with the other two false flag privateers.”
You really are getting to be rather tiresome. You continually assert that I am in some way connected to the BBC.
Kindly provide some evidence for this assertion.
In more simple terms “put up or shut up”!!!
Interestingly shouldered, that man. No names, but ears aburning.
But I do sense you are irritated that your evening flow of taking site owners and posters to task is being interrupted.
This can be frustrating, probably, yes.
‘You really are getting to be rather tiresome.
That too. But if to you, I can live with it.
‘You continually assert that I am in some way connected to the BBC’
I am on record as saying I know no such thing. Anything else is but speculation.
Kindly provide some evidence for this assertion.
I kindly… don’t feel like giving a distraction/disruption specialist any more than you scrabble already. Tough.
The BBC too often runs confident and forceful statements of fact or belief in their stories (and their complaint blow-offs, up through ECU, or Trust). As ‘news’. Or ‘analysis’. When challenged, they can take upwards of a year to not answer and/or pull an FOI exemption if needs be. Seems the way things work now. from professional broadcasters, no less.
It’s less fun to be on the wrong side of such things even if honest and sincere, but life is seldom fair.
In more simple terms “put up or shut up”!!!
Or.. you’ll… ?
That, I regret, signifies a polite decline on my part.
I have been watching the David Starkey series on Music and Royalty – sumptious, interesting history and lovely music. (It is starting again next week – catch it if you can.
And last week had the added bonus of the quirky and jolly Lucy Worsley presenting a history of the Royal Bedchamber. Simple fun, lots of historical insights – and again, sumptious. The sort of visual stuff that TV is ideally suited to.
It is such a change to find something of quality on BBC TV.
But then – they have a budget of only £4 approaching 5 billion a year.
Starkey and Worsley’s programmes ticked all 3 of the boxes in the BBC’s Reithian mission – both presenters educated, informed and entertained. Most of the rest of the BBC schedules are misinformation, unentertaining and/or pig-ignorant.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2382424/Tales-Royal-Bedchamber-BBC4-documentary-historian-Lucy-Worsley.html
still too big a price to pay, unfortunately.
The BBC aren’t running Sunday morning live on iPlayer so I can’t watch DV’s performance. Nobody has mentioned it here so was on it? Or did he say something?
It’s all very quiet about Vances’s appearance because he was so poor. Rather embarrassing to witness his desperation to be honest. Almost totally ignored on Twitter in particular by right wing loons. They sense he’s a loser.
Wow the opinion of a moron who actually pays to be a sycophant defender of a multi billion £ + funded corporation! lol what a fool
I had never watched Sunday Morning Live until yesterday but made a special effort. The discussion was good, the presenter Samira Ahmed was fair and Mr Vance seemed to me to make some perfectly sensible comments on the issues of (1) the effectiveness of prison and (2) generalizations about the level of intelligence of religious believers. So credit to the BBC and to him. Loyal and True, you have gone over the top with “so poor” and “desperation” and “loser”; can you justify these remarks or is it just personalization?
What utter drivel!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23744948
Labour winning back voters under Miliband – Chuka Umunna
No scare quotes used in that quote, I notice.
Why you can no no longer trust the bBC
Gibraltar protest ‘a chaotic scene’
Spanish fishermen are staging a protest in the disputed waters off Gibraltar over an artificial reef placed there by the British territory’s government.The fishermen say the reef restricts their right to fish but Gibraltar says it will encourage sea-life to flourish. Tom Burridge, aboard a Spanish vessel, says it is a “chaotic scene” in the disputed waters.
I see the bBC are reporting from a Spanish fleet which has decided to sail into British Waters. Yes the bBC ace reporter Tom-I love to stick it to my own people- Burridge reports how the this situation is ever so tense , chaotic, and he loves to use the adjective-Disputed waters- for the are which the Spanish claim is their fishing ground and Gibraltar which says it is there’s But here’s a question why has nobody at the bBC sailed over the spot with an I-phone and use a sports tracker app (like I do when I go biking) . They could then publish that finding on a map (which the bBC has been very remiss to show) in which to put this bed. Instead the bBC again takes the anti-British side (Yet again) in which to promote any cause which has a gripe against the UK. On that note listen to the video clip where dicksplash opines where the plane coming in to land is coming in from Britain you can taste the disdain the twat has for anything British. He then adds a little bit of spice in which to add that its a nasty little ryan air aircraft, err no, Ryan air don’t fly to Gibraltar yer twat. they fly to Malaga , that was the 1030am Monarch Airlines flight from Birmingham. In fact the camera shot shows it is a Monarch airlines flight. Should have gone to Spec savers, in fact all the bbC staff should go in which to be able to clearly see what they should be reporting. Imagine if this was the time of the Spanish Empire and they were sending a huge Armada in which to take out the British , I wonder where the bbC would be reporting from?
Guess again as according to the bBC it was Muslims who saved us from the Spanish armada and not the Royal Navy.
The bBC, the traitors within our midst
Further to my last:
British history ‘needs rewrite’
British history should be rewritten to make it “more inclusive”, says Trevor Phillips, the head of the new human rights and equality commission. He said Muslims were also part of the national story and “sometimes we have to go back into the tapestry and insert some threads that were lost”. He quoted the example of the Spanish Armada, which was held up by the Turks at the request of Queen Elizabeth I.
“It was the Turks who saved us,” Mr Phillips told a Labour fringe meeting.
The bBC, the people you are supposed to trust, like Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall, Dave Lee Travis and the many other rapists whom the bBC covered up for. and yet we still presume they report the facts?
The BBC here is reporting what someone has said. What’s the problem with that?
And in your first post, the link merely says that “Queen Elizabeth I, for example, asked the Ottoman Sultan Murad for naval assistance against the Spanish Armada.” I don’t think that’s the same as saying it was Muslims who saved us from the Spanish Armada.
Yes Chris you absolutely correct:
So when the bBC headlines read:
“British History needs a rewrite, is that Ok, in your book, You know like saying that Islamic countries went to the aid of their Pal friends when Israel was born (the original bbC version simply said “they walked in) or how about people who carry out the most ghastly murders in which lets say ‘terrorise the locals are called..Militants. Hey about lets not call anybody from a certain segment of the population who enjoys sex with little girls as a paedophile. Go on, look it up, for the vast number of Islamic gangs caught with their dicks inside little children, the bBC is very reluctant to refer to them as paedophile.
So spare me your sanctimonious crap about what somebody said. Simply as when its a Muslim sprouting hate, the bBC not only justifies his stance, but ensures that if the shit hits the fan, they will simply quote him as…misunderstood.
You posted what somebody said, claiming it was what the BBC had said, when they were merely reporting what Trevor Phillips said.
You also claimed that according to the BBC it was Muslims who saved us from the Spanish Armada. I don’t think that’s what the BBC said, as I showed with my quote.
Those are the 2 reasons why I posted. I don’t know how that counts as ‘sanctimonious crap’, but that’s by the by.
I’m not sure about whether British history should be rewritten like Phillips wants. If these Turks did make a significant contribution to defeating the Armada then it should be mentioned at least (I’d never heard of their role before).
I don’t know enough about the Israel-Palestine situation to comment on it. In my view using the word ‘militant’ isn’t that much more positive than the word ‘terrorist’, although in many cases the latter term is accurate and could/should be used. You may be right about the BBC’s reluctance to mention the cultural background to these paedophile gangs.
perhaps, we should also look at the slaves that were captured in the south west and taken back to n Africa.
“Jerry Brotton, Trevor Phillips and the Armada” (2007).
http://ukcommentators.blogspot.co.uk/2007/09/jerry-brotton-trevor-phillips-and.html
No Pounce is right Chrisumeada
“Queen Elizabeth I, for example, asked the Ottoman Sultan Murad for naval assistance against the Spanish Armada.”
That falls far short of a reason to rewrite British history, unless one is desperate to find a pretext to do so.(the man who controls the past and all that)
And the BBC give prominence to the statement “It was the Turks who saved us,” in their eulogising report of Mr Phillips’ speech
Would they report a speech by, say, Melanie Phillips on ,say, the Armenian Genocide, in quite the same way I wonder
Instead of “Labour in disarray” I see the BBC website is saying “Miliband is winning back voters.”
No attempt to stir things as would be the case if the Tories had some internal conflict.
Yes, dreadful leftie propaganda, no news value whatsoever.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23744948
Why not also highlight these examples:
Prescott: Labour ‘has failed to get its case across’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23744316
Ed Miliband: How much trouble is he in?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23694707
Albabum, it is surprising that you have not responded to the nazi that has recently started posting here. care to explain? or do you find his antisemitic socialist arguments compelling?
As I find his postings somewhat bizarre I did not consider them worthy of a response.
‘surprising that you have not responded to the nazi ‘
Very good question; interesting response.
Trying to recall what failure to decry was called by the rest of the Flokk troupe once, as most simply steered well clear of the poos in the pool.
Didn’t realise that applying ‘bizarre’ conferred a magic waiver.
Seems wading in can, as with so much, be for some a selective matter.
Tea time almost over, but looking through the day’s sample, it is interesting to note the two new sources of the vast majority of posts throughout the day, and the provocations being attempted (and wisely ignored).
But also that they have been ignored by one usually so sensitive to such things, or keen to point at contrary views of an extreme nature as somehow representative of all.
Their value in tainting via an attempted ‘hate site’ complaint possibly rather blown now?
I suppose that this will make sense to some.
‘I suppose that this will make sense to some.’
August 18, 2013 at 7:25 am
By way of an introduction.
Enough people sign up for subscriptions to get posts emailed in sequence, but as I have been warned of feeding those who should not be, I’ll add this to the previous open thread. It also serves to remain generic.
‘Their value in tainting via an attempted ‘hate site’ complaint possibly rather blown now?’
From some things I have seen and am now seeing, possibly not.
There’s a schizophrenic aspect to the posts of some that really swings so far between two extremes I wonder how the boat stays afloat.
And boy does it fall into the hands of those who know when to gently step on one side as it’s heeling.
Slow #prasnewsday?
Run anything laying in the fax machine?
Actually, I see subversion at work in the picture editor department.
The image of the two alone against a row of shuttered shops seems almost a complement.
I remain of the view that the BBC sees Mr. Miliband as a dead duck, but if their faith lies in deploying the Prescott as the trumpet of Jericho whilst slipping poisoned barbs in here and there, good luck with that.
“BBC pays out more than £2m in payoffs weeks before cap deadline.
“The BBC has agreed a new round of pay-offs to 11 senior managers worth around £2m – just two weeks before the
deadline for a pay-offs cap.”
By Ben Bryant.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10250537/BBC-pays-out-more-than-2m-in-payoffs-weeks-before-cap-deadline.html
Darn.
If they’d played their cards right they could have turned it into a gameshow, ‘Beat the Integrity’, and still paid some Dutch geezer twenty mill anyway.
Actually a public sector outfit swinging in on deadline, if still over-budget, is pretty unique.
Maybe the payees threatened to go on strike if they didn’t get it?
Leaving the BBC without their 3 replacements each on twice the dosh could have left a major hole in the BBC’s ability to…. what again?
Good to see GeorgeR and his “friends” doing their bit to support the business community – not.
“Leicester Globe pub closes over anti-military rumours”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-23745674
“Police confirmed the matter was under investigation and urged anyone with information about the posts to contact them.”
No doubt GeorgeR will be contacting them imminently to explain his genuine mistake in perpetuating this hoax.
There a lot of unknowns about this story ,I wouldn’t jump in with both feet just yet old man
Err Albaman please correct me if I am wrong here, but didn’t georgeG state later on in that thread a retraction and that it was a hoax. I quote:
George R says:
August 17, 2013 at 2:51 pm
I wonder who is responsible for ‘the hoax’?
Now he posted that 20 odd minutes after his first, yet while you can see this initial post, you are unable to see the second, even thou you have replied to it.
Let’s be honest here , you are nothing but a selective issue troll. Who loves to stifle any debate by finding the smallest issue going and making a huge mountain out of it, in which to divert people away from the main thread.do us all a favour and get a fucking life.
people like you suck all the air out of any room they enter.
bBBC get it wrong and regulars resort to insults. Nothing new in that behaviour.
As pointed out in my initial post if GeorgeR had taken a little time to look at his source document he would have seen it had already been debunked.
No Albaman, my post wasn’t insulting, if i wanted to insult you I would, not only that but I am man enough to do so to your face. Now be a good little boy and ask mummy if you watch the telly.
Internet Tough Guy https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Internet_Tough_Guy
Cliche,
This is Pounce; who promised (on this blog, more than once) to get a gun and kill as many muslims as he could before ‘turning himself in’ to the police. Who, after the attack on Lee Rigby, said (on this blog, more than once); “I hope to god that Mosques get burnt down, Muslims get attacked on the streets.”
Possibly a serial fantasist and a sociopath, but that’s just my opinion so I might be wrong.
He is of course well respected on this blog for obvious reasons.
Ah I see the clones have stepped out of the laboratory in force tonight. (Ironically we are watching the 4th series of the clone wars)
Mr Dez,
I see you have crawled out of the latest arsehole you have stuck yourself into as there is a whiff of shite in the air. As always your slime cover post’s attack those your dispise (All of the human race) in which to promote yourself as some sort of liberal minded hero.
If you are going to quote me, then at least quote me in full.
I said:
If I ever get diagnosed with cancer I will sell up and take out: Idiots such as yourself, idiots from the far right, MPs and of course radical muslims and then hand myself into the police in which to get the best medical care (And food going) Now if you feel I am wrong to do so, can you explain why I should put myself at the mercy of the NHS.
As always its a pleasure to chat. Do say hi to your wife and your mother, last time I saw them both it was from behind.
P.S
If you are going to try and wind me up, then at least accept the fact I am your master in everything and anything and that a bloke who can take the piss out of himself (yes I am a fat Ugly Paki) isn’t going to be wound up by a cocksucking Nancy boy such as yourself.
‘Ah I see the clones have stepped out of the lavatory ‘
there fixed that for you pounce !
my you have upset the BBC’s chorus girls !
dez i think you will find every soldier and ex soldier like pounce and myself wanted to do what we were trained to do when lee rigby was brutally murdered. maybe you and scott wanted to give them both blow jobs and have a gay gang bang you horrible prick
“Promised”. LOL.
“Sociopath”. LOL.
Come on, dez. You know better.
David Preiser,
“Come on, dez. You know better.”
Your defence of someone who reminisces about seeking out Muslims on a Saturday night out in order to call them “fucking hyprocrites”; who boasts about intimidating a female charity collector with threats of violence; and who hopes to god that Mosques get burnt down and Muslims get attacked on the streets, is admirable.
Stop telling lies about what pounce actually said, dez. You know better, and you’ve been through this song and dance before.
David Preiser,
“Stop telling lies about what pounce actually said, dez.”
pounce, May 22, 2013 at 6:27 pm:
“I say again, I hope to god that Mosques gets burnt down, Muslims get attacked on the streets.”
http://wp.me/p2ZrbV-54r
Who’s lying David?
Dez – lots of churches actually do get attacked and Muslims actually do murder people in the street.
Yet you refuse to condemn this, instead choosing to archive what people (albeit rashly) write in anger on a blog so that you can produce it with a flourish several months later to support some argument or other.
The word ‘sociopath’ is entirely apposite in your case.
As debunked as the BBC’s slander of Lord McAlpine?
That still doesn’t explain why you see fit to repost this issue when you know that several comments IMMEDIATELY after George’s highlighted the dodginess of the story and as Pounce writes here, George acknowledged it too. Why are you reposting it again?
Any comment, Beeboid apologists?:-
“BBC Panorama spy-cam package sparks terror alert costing £14,000”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bbc-panorama-spy-cam-package-sparks-2175774
BBC quiet about this major story at present…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396486/UKs-biggest-child-sex-gang-uncovered-45-men-arrested-abuse-girls-young-13.html
I wonder why?
Now that Muslim Brotherhood supporters have burned down “scores” of churches, the MB is denying it, claiming it’s all false flag ops, and stating that they are, as Jeremy Bowen says, “peaceful”.
There is currently nothing whatsoever about the increased violence against Christians in Egypt on the BBC News home page or even on the main Middle East page. Nor is there anything from the BBC on this news:
Egypt’s Coptic Church announces support for army, police
Egypt’s Orthodox Coptic Church announced on Friday its support for the military and security forces in their fight against what it called “groups of armed violence.”
“The Egyptian Coptic Church is following the unfortunate developments on the ground of our country Egypt and emphasizes its strong stance with the Egyptian police, armed forces and other organizations of the Egyptian people in the face of groups of armed violence and black terrorism,” the church said in a statement.
“While we appreciate the sincere and friendly position that understands the nature of the developments, we strongly deplore the media fallacies that are prevalent in Western countries,” the statement added.
The Coptic Church called on the West to “read objectively the facts of events, and not give international and political cover to these terrorist and bloody groups.”
Clearly much of the rest of the Western media are looking the other way when it comes to religious genocide against Christians in Egypt, so I guess the BBC isn’t obligated to report it. The BBC knows all about this, of course. They’ve reported on Mohammedan violence against Christians in the past, albeit in the context of dog-bites-man sectarian conflict. Morsi has said that Christians made up a significant part of the movement to remove the MB from power, so it’s difficult to pretend that his followers didn’t get the message and are treating Copts with kid gloves.
The BBC, like their fellow travelers in the US and European media, have decided to ignore this aspect of the chaotic scene in Egypt, because they’re afraid it might incite a backlash against Mohammedans in the UK, and because – as former Director of News Helen Boaden has admitted – they have to take care not to offend the sensibilities of their World Service audience. Presumably not the Samoans or Brazilians.
Yes, there’s the big, sexy picture of a collapsing State and looming civil war over which to
salivatespend most of their resources, and lots of “analysis” to squeeze in and Q&A pages and timelines to update. But is there really no room or time at all for a single BBC journalist to quickly patch something together from the wire services about this?Your license fee hard at work: censoring news of religious genocide in the misguided interests of Social Cohesion and appeasement.
This is the fifth headline on the BBc’s UK News website (before even the HS2 story): “Miliband ‘is winning back voters'”
Inside over another headline “Labour winning back voters under Miliband – Chuka Umunna” we learn that it is not even from a poll but from a remark in an article in the Sunday Mirror.
They don’t even notice when they are shilling for Labour.
(It is also the premier story in the UK politics page.
Wait and see when the Tories ever get that slot from an article in another media outlet.)
Albaman posted a couple of links above, showing the BBC discssing Labour’s failings. No-one has yet come up with a decent response.
2 comparable stories for the Conservatives:
‘How can the Tories win over northern voters once again?’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19846255
‘Tories can win back votes from UKIP, Theresa May says’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22409522
Quote from first story.
I am sure the Tories never planned to ignore the North.
clearly implying that they have ignored the north,hardly supporting the Tories is just a veiled attack.
…or, it implies more faith in the Tories (‘I am sure the Tories never planned to ignore the North’). I don’t think that piece is an attack on them.
A similar quote from the Chuka Umunna story:
‘Conservative Party Chairman Grant Shapps said Labour grandees were lining up to “take a shot” at a “weak” Mr Miliband.’
The story you quote from does not feature any criticism from Labour. The Chuka Umunna story does, by contrast, feature criticism from a leading Conservative.
It doesn’t need to as the criticism comes from the bbc journalists, the other just sounds like Tories sour grapes.
Another quote.
Conservatives suffered a drubbing in the local elections and support leached away.
I don’t think it’s a criticism though (assuming you’re still talking about the ‘I am sure the Tories never planned to ignore the North’ quote).
‘Conservatives suffered a drubbing in the local elections and support leached away.’ – Is that not true? It’s describing what happened in the elections rather than criticising the Conservative Party.
Yes, in the interests of political impartiality, did Director General, Tony HALL simply toss a coin in deciding to appoint Labour Party’s James PURNELL as his personal advisor, rather than someone from the Tory Party?
Countryfile tonight reporting on the 1000’s of sheep that are being rustled in the UK, Essentially they seemed not to have a clue as to where they are going, basically saying that in no way could they be slaughtered at licensed abattoirs and being somewhat dumbfounded as to where they are going. ummmmm, I could hazard a guess especially as cases have increased since 2005…
I wonder if any halal slaughterhouses have been investigated? Probably not…..
Have they ever heard of smokies ?
My immediate thoughts also when I saw that part of the programme. I, too, wondered if halal abbatoirs had been investigated, and decided they almost certainly had not. Interesting that there was, and is, no problem with kosher abbatoirs, jews also having strict requirements in respect of meat – but, there again, they respect the law.
This is what really bugs me about these kind of investigations of fairly recent phenomenon (Channel Four are as bad) ie they go down every explorable avenue apart from the one that is obvious to the ‘enlightened’ viewer, that is the elephant that sits in the corner.
The Spectator mentions that Labour will be having various cost of living pushes in the coming week, no doubt Miliband will be trying to make up for lost time (I wonder if he’ll be talking about the ‘squeezed middle’ – a phrase I heard adopted and repeated by a Five Live ‘ presenter a few weeks back).
No doubt the BBC have been briefed and a few co-ordinated activities / phone-ins / discussions are planned for the grid.
In addition to the BBCs one dimensional coverage of fracking and having learned how nasty it is…no doubt by the end of the week, I’ll also be told how badly-off I am.
I’d better cancel that brand new car that I’ve ordered.
Blimey – right on cue. This morning’s headline:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23726224
The bBC and how it lacks any form of integrity when it comes to reporting the news.
Gibraltar dispute: Spanish fishermen in reef protest
Spanish fishermen have sailed into disputed waters off Gibraltar to protest about a reef put there by the British territory’s government.The fishermen say the reef restricts their right to fish, but Gibraltar says they should not be fishing there.Gibraltar police said the protest, which lasted an hour and passed off without incident, ended at 10:20 BST.
So according to the bBC Spanish fishermen have sailed into disputed waters in which to protest at a reef being built by Gibraltar. Here is the leftwing Guardian version:
Gibraltar reef protest flotilla repelled by Royal Navy and police vessels
Spanish fishermen have been involved in a standoff with the Royal Navy and police after a flotilla entered British waters around Gibraltar.About 38 fishing boats and a small number of pleasure craft was “corralled” by Royal Gibraltar Police (RGP) and naval vessels after crossing from Spanish waters close to an artificial reef created by the Gibraltarian government.The reef is at the centre of a row between Britain and Spain, which has seen Madrid introduce additional checks at the border with Gibraltar in protest, leaving workers and tourists facing queues of up to five hours.Chief Inspector Castle Yates, of the RGP, said the boats met in Spanish waters and, despite efforts by British vessels to stop them, crossed into Gibraltarian waters before being “pushed” out again.”At around 9am about 38 Spanish fishing boats and seven or eight pleasure craft converged in the area of the western anchorage … They tried to breach the cordon several times but they were not successful.”Yates said the boats left Gibraltarian waters at around 11am, adding that police had been aware of the planned protest since Friday and it had passed peacefully, with no arrests.
The floating protest was also met by Spanish Guardia Civil boats, which warned them not to sail too close to the British territory’s reef.
It seems that the bBC must have been reporting from a different Gibraltar than the Guardian.
The bBC, the traitors within our midst
BBC 1 10 o’clock News
Jeremy Bowen is embedded with the Muslim Brotherhood and our BBC reporter is onboard with the Spanish fishermen.
BBC : Rarely is there any doubt about whose side they are on.