A new week AND a new thread for you to detail the bias! Off you go….
MONDAY OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- MarkyMark Nov 16, 06:51
Weekend 16th November 2024
BORIS DID NET ZERO TO STOP IT! [img]https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/976/cpsprodpb/fcd5/live/be7a61f0-a399-11ef-a4fe-a3e9a6c5d640.png.webp[/img] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yg5n35rzeo Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson has written in the Daily Mail… - Doublethinker Nov 16, 06:49
Weekend 16th November 2024
For any site members who want a surreal experience I recommend watching Chopper ( Christopher Hope ) interview Lord Glasman… - MarkyMark Nov 16, 06:48
Weekend 16th November 2024
Malala: The girl who was shot for going to school 7 October 2013 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24379018 …………………………. It did not even make… - MarkyMark Nov 16, 06:47
Weekend 16th November 2024
Afghanistan: Boris Johnson vows to help those left behind Published 27 August 2021 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58353726 MAYBE BORIS WILL WRITE A BOOK… - Lazy Cat Nov 16, 06:06
Weekend 16th November 2024
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2l9gg4yd75o “We are dying every moment’ – the Afghans risking their lives to reach UK” An article devoid of any… - JohnC Nov 16, 06:00
Weekend 16th November 2024
Trump cabinet picks battle misconduct claims and controversy https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgl48r2wnx1o So after a week of slurring and mudslinging, the BBC end… - MarkyMark Nov 16, 05:56
Weekend 16th November 2024
BBC write about the BBC … “Other large institutions such as the BBC and the NHS have held major inquiries… - Lazy Cat Nov 16, 05:45
Weekend 16th November 2024
I’ve got an idea for wokies. All us honkies will move to Africa and take it over. And all the… - MarkyMark Nov 16, 05:41
Weekend 16th November 2024
Thalidomide: the tragedy of birth defects and the effective treatment of disease Thalidomide was a widely used drug in the… - Lazy Cat Nov 16, 05:33
Weekend 16th November 2024
Pug, I think it’s because the woketards now have their views disagreed with at times, after Musk allowed more free…
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
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03902m3/Thatcher_The_Downing_Street_Years_Woman_at_War/
“Award-winning four-part documentary series, examining Margaret Thatcher’s 11 years as Prime Minister. The first programme looks at how she rejected the postwar consensus that had governed the country for more than 30 years, and came into conflict with trade unions, the old establishment and even members of her own cabinet. Yet even as the country moved into a crippling recession, the Prime Minister refused to make a U-turn in policy.”
Award-winning used at the start of the description as an appeal to the intellectual authority of the documentary, while not actually mentioning what the award was for (it could easily have been some almost anonymous award for best sound editing for all we know). Smugly implies that every decision Thatcher made was wrong and portrays her as overly stubborn and confrontational, despite the fact that most people seem to agree the trade unions needed to be reeled back in and at least some of her military actions were completely justified (e.g. the Falklands war which the Beeb and the Guardian seem to think was an unprovoked attack as a means of making herself look good on the world stage, instead of defending an island being illegally invaded by Argentina). I haven’t even watched the show yet but just from the description alone I’m not expecting much in the way of balance, although I will probably watch it later and hope the write-up simply didn’t do it justice. I don’t even like Thatcher but bias can’t be ignored just because it caters to someone’s pre-existing opinions.
Not much balance, have to say, but as an aside it is worthy of note that the title for the programme is exactly the same as the title of her authorised biography.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Downing-Street-Years-Margaret-Thatcher/dp/0007456638/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376912318&sr=8-1&keywords=the+downing+street+years
I am hoping it is based on Charles Moore’s biography – which has had excellent reviews. But Volume 1 goes only up to the Falklands.
That implies she caused the recession. The country was already on its knees before she took over!
“I haven’t even watched the show yet but just from the description alone I’m not expecting much in the way of balance,………………………….”
Do you also review books you have not read, plays you have not seen and music you have not listened to?
How many of those, as at now, “51 likes” were given by people who actually read your whole post or does using the name “F*** the Beeb ” suffice no matter what nonsense is written?
I’m a bit concerned that this post from Pounce was allowed to remain on the site.
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.
Clearly “Pounce” has severe mental issues and anyone close to him needs to get him to a GP for some help. The post is unfit for any serious site.
Friend of “Dez”, are you?
No, it’s probably one of our regular Beeboid trolls posting under his nom-de-plume for today. It will be a different name tomorrow, but the same person.
Is that a possibility?
Mind you, with even politicians like Mr. Miliband saying what he wrote was not written by him, anything now seems technically… or subversively doable.
I recall being told a Dr. Foster I was engaging with was not the same one I was engaging another time (no obvious caps or full stop tweaks either), so this does have serious ramifications in offering opportunity to the unprincipled.
http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/keep-calm-it-wasn-t-me-22.png
But is that the real you max farr?
Or have you mixed up your alter- egos?
I didn’t read Pounce’s comment the first time. Now I have. How many others are in the same position.
The long comment is republished word-for-word. Can we be sure that Max Farr isn’t an alter ego for Pounce?
Whilst I am sure that Pounce can defend himself why did Mr Farr feel the need to copy and paste the whole post?
I agree with your point Deborah, and as much as I am normally a fan of Pounce, some of the stuff quoted above is way OTT.
However, for Pounce to go that far, what did Dezi write to provoke him? And we all know Dezi can be equally offensive most of the time.
I remember what the rancid Dez said about Pounce (There is no point in repeating it) but by responding in that manner Pounce does not do himself (or this site) any favours, which of course is precisely why our friend is quoting it. Pounce was probably one over the eight at the time.
At risk of exposing too much parapet fodder too to a fragging, no matter who penned it (as there seems some doubt), the content alone would seem by any measure to warrant removal. Along with the cut ‘n paste. One presumes that’s what the ‘report comment’ button is for?*
Especially as the number of ‘hate site’ references seem to be adding up to some form of trigger level.
*Not sure what reaction times are acceptable (is it still there? RD asked for a link), but it also may be unfortunate that advise by site owners that they will be away is seen as a good time to mess with the site.
I have found it now – 11:30 last night on page 1 of the last open thread. It’s still there: not much point in removing it at this stage I guess. Frankly, it’s well out of order and an example of how a stupid post can be used against this site by those with an agenda.
Yet we don’t see Max Farr or dez or the usual defenders of the indefensible spending any time condemning outrageous comments on other blogs or news sites, and making similar dismissals of the entire site based on them. I wonder why that is?
You hit the nail on the head, Roland. Just the sort of reaction Dez aims to provoke so he can rubbish the site (even though most of the rubbish on here seems to come from him).
A win for Dez, I’m afraid, but sadly nothing to do with his debating skills – he’s still The King of Non-Sequiturs.
Trolls ought not to be fed.
They should be starved, never fed.
Wise up guys.
It is to deflect and ‘taint’ a new Open Thread.
Clear troll tactic
Wrong. The new thread opened just as i finished reading the previous one. That such a post, showing severe mental disorder, still remains on the site completely undermines any serious debate. If this is the standard the site sinks to then it’s very depressing.
To attack anyone who disagrees in such a manner is for the gutter. I’d hoped to log in to find all these posts removed.
They should be forthwith.
Given your shallow and rather pointless non contribution to this site so far I hardly think if you flounce of in disgust hand in hand with Dezzidamoana we will miss you so er bye then !
And he WILL leave, then reappear under another name, and repeat, repeat ad nauseam
Why do some claim to have been regular visitors to the site for 6 months, but suddenly get the urge to comment?
Is that in their instruction manual?
.
….and try to pass off as Max Farquar too.
‘If this is the standard the site sinks to then it’s very depressing.’
Well typically it isn’t, Max, so stop trying to make out it’s the exception that proves the rule.
Lots and lots of fact-based bias to discuss from intelligent people who long for an impartial BBC, so please feel free to join in….
So, Max Farr, can we please see a copy of the angry letter you wrote to the BBC denouncing Chris Addison’s wish for someone to send a bomb to George Bush and declaring that Have I Got News For You must be condemned?
Could you link to that please? I don’t recall seeing it, though I can’t claim to have read every post this past weekend.
But no problem with this from ‘youstink’ Max?
August 19, 2013 at 12:50 pm
It sticks in albeeb’s gullet that a bunch of Jews wrote both the Hebrew bible and the “New” Testament! And what about that fictional character, what was his name, the one who slipped down the birth canal of a virgin, and was later on resurrected?
0 likes
Or the reams of old school ‘blood ritual’ anti-Semitism
that has been posted over the last couple of days
Strange how they stop and you start
‘Strange how they stop and you start’
As I await clarification whether we have another ‘Martin’ meltdown or something even less edifying in process of concoction, it is as you say interesting how it seems ‘known’ by site critics who is a bizarre stirrer whose worst excesses in no way interfere with serious debate and can be cheerfully ignored, and who is clearly representative of all and mentally disordered, requiring instant removal.
It’s almost as if two sets of standards are working together.
‘Clearly “Pounce” has severe mental issues and anyone close to him needs to get him to a GP for some help.’
Some might see that as a tad provocative, Max. It’s unnecessary, and surplus to the thrust of your point.
On the previous open thread I mentioned a piece of Pallywood fakery that was broadcast on both BBC and Sky. It purported to show a pro-Morsi supporter who, allegedly had been shot in the chest. One of his rescuers went off script and lifted the wounded man’s bloodstained t-shirt which showed NO bullet wound.
The video has been published on news site http://www.trendingcentral.com on their International page today. Sorry I’m not good enough with my notebook to link the page.
How come blogosphere reporters can identify faked and fabricated events made solely for the Western media but a £4 billion pound a year organisation with, reportedly, the best journalists cannot?
‘How come blogosphere reporters can identify faked and fabricated events made solely for the Western media but a £4 billion pound a year organisation with, reportedly, the best journalists cannot?’
A question worthy asking of the BBC, given their erratic abilities in this regard.
Shame they seem to use FOI exclusions should ‘we only ASK questions’ fail to provide.
Here’s the link. It’s quite a funny clip actually.
http://www.trendingcentral.com/al-jazeera-broadcasts-another-faked-egyptian-injury/
Maybe albeeba will add it into their series of Greatest Movie Mistakes?
No, thought not.
That’s the one. Both BBC and Sky treated the clip as genuine.
According to PJM the “victim” is Morsi’s photographer. Small world, eh?
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/08/17/pallywood-aljazeera-and-egyptian-muslim-brotherhood-edition/
Perhaps Dez can explain for you, Andy, and what a good opportunity for ‘Max’ to join the debate.
So what do you think of this one, Max? Were the BBC part of the act or just ‘useful idiots’ for the MB cause?
At the end, the left leg being raised to boot the exposer out of the way is an even greater give away. Makes you wonder what grey matter there is between the ears of a beeboid.
They want to believe.
I see Vaz is in the news again providing a voice of authority (haha) about the detention of David Miranda, gay partner of a Guardian journalist.
Yes, that’s right BBC, make the “abuse of anti-terrorist laws” headline news when it involves a gay lover of a Guardian journalist, but put the “anti-terror laws” low down in the news when it involves councils snooping on residents.
Who in politics and the MSM isn’t gay these days? It seems to be a prerequisite….
Looking forward to gay imam on Songs of Praise soon.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12486003
So it’s wrong to use terror laws – the terror laws introduced by Labour – on suspected terrorists, but perfectly ok to use them for people who put their wheelie bins out at the wrong time or abuse the school catchment areas?
Did not see the odious, racist, two faced, hypocrite Vaz complaining when a member of the audience shouted “rubbish” during a speech by John Reid and was promptly arrested under the Terrorism Act.
Oh, well put General. I had forgotten that one!
I seem to recall it was at The Labour Party Conference and the old geezer in question was a party member.
I am sorry, but I thought labour only brought in those stalinist oppressive totalitarian laws to shaft straight, white working and middle-class males with?
They were never meant to be used against gay lefty liberals.
And that reminds me, Will Self was bitching about a over-zealous security guard calling the police due seeing Will and his 11 year old son going for a walk and those police detaining him (for a short while) without good cause (according to the arrogant Self).
There was a very prescious line in the article in which Will, in a stunning display of self-blindness, complains that “Time was that you could live your life with no more intereference from the state than having to buy a stamp” Or words to that effect.
Hang on Will, it was your arrogant, fellow lefty intelligencia who were the chief cheerleaders for 13 disastrous years of labour imposition of BIG STATE meddling in ever more personal areas of everyone’s lives that led to that overzealous security guard calling the police.
It is deeply hypocritical of him to complain about the consequences of his own lefty beliefs now.
Bear in mind Miranda has recently visited Berlin where he had meetings with some lawyer and other individuals connected with Edward Snowden and it’s no wonder our Security Services took an interest in him. They probably confiscated Miranda’s mobile phone and lap-top to make sure he wasn’t taking any sensitive government information out of the country.
Mess about with this country’s national security or that of our allies and you are bound to be of interest to our “spooks”.
Not bias as such, but an observation on BBC sports coverage from watching the World Athletics Championships from Moscow over the weekend. I am not a big athletics fan and don’t watch it that often, but I couldn’t get over how dated and banal the format appeared to be. The place seemed to be a haven for ex-athletes (who undoubtedly were very good and successful in their day) who have pitched up as commentators and punters to supplement their pensions.
The same is true elsewhere.. the utterly banal dated and dull Question of Sport (which should have been put down years ago) is now very much second best to the Sky equivalent (League of Their Own) which is much more of the age. Even Match of the Day now looks like a relic of the past, and will not be able to compete with Sky or BT’s Saturday equivalent.
I’m sure there are probably other examples, but the BBC used to be the kings of sports coverage. Maybe it has crept up on me but now they are pretty much second best in all that they do. No innovation and nothing new in their output at all.
One does wonder how much more sport they could afford if it wasn’t for the endless ‘experts’ giving their pointless opinions, and free taxi rides to and from Salford.
Take for example Formula One, Murray Walker did the intro, commentary and post race interviews, now we have the obligatory eye candy, two millionaire ‘experts’ and a myriad of commentators across different broadcast formats.
I caught a bit of the athletics on Saturday afternoon, as far as the ‘experts’ were concerned just about every box was ticked…
As a woman I feel I have the right to complain that the ‘eye candy’ in Formula 1 racing ask such stupid questions eg ‘how did you feel as you were coming round that corner?’. Stupid
I’m am F1 nut and I cannot bear the banal BBC coverage. Sky is so much better.
Murdoch’s output is as nearly as questionable as the BBC who incidentally sold out their exclusive Formula 1 rights to Sky, just so they could buy cr@p like the Voice and pay Lineker £millions…
Maybe if we didn’t have to pay the BBC tax many could afford Sky – I can but principle won’t allow, I prefer the free all year coverage live from Germany.
belgium GP this weekend, best race ever. best quote ever was from martin brundle ” eau rouge isnt a corner, its a mountain!”
Forza minardi!
oh yeah BBC coverage is shit. Ben Edwards should be sacked. worst commentator ever
I notice that the BBC’s Stephen Fry has not called for a boycott on these games. I can’t figure why in his logic these games are ok, but the Winter Olympics are a homophobic celebration.
Too late to boycott these games. No headlines in it for him.
Whereas the Winter Olympics give months of headlines, obligingly provided by the BBC to an attention-seeking luvvie.
Don’t worry, he’ll boycott Soccer World Cup from Qatar.
If dozens of mosques and hundreds of Muslim shops were being attacked and burned down in America or somewhere in Europe – along with many Muslims being murdered in the streets or in their homes and shops, the BBC would trumpet it all as its main headline, non-stop. Even though the events were overseas.
But when the attacks are on Christians, their property and their churches in Egypt, the BBC’s reports are pretty sketchy and certainly not run as major continuing headlines. Just like they have not properly reported all the attacks on Christians in Syria – or in Iraq.
Why ? A stand-up fight between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian army and police – PROVOKED by the MB, many of whom were armed – gets huge coverage. But MB attacks at the same time on unarmed and non-provocative Christians get very low-key treatment by the BBC.
Most mentions I’ve caught only refer to “churches”. I’d bet most people listening will think that means mosques, and give no thought to a Christian element.
I think most people know a church is not a mosque.
What they know, and how they interpret in the context, are two entirely different things.
Solid, if tentative start, Max. Beware of getting splinters in your arse or worse, appearing as an Albamanesque defender of the indefensible.
The BBC usually refer to “attacks on places of worship” making it appear that, as they are referring to attacks in a Muslim country, viewers will automatically think of mosques.
Really?
Egypt crisis: Churches under attack
“At least 25 churches across Egypt have been attacked by arsonists in a wave of anti-Christian violence, a non-governmental group has said.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23727404
Egypt’s Coptic Christians dread further backlash
“As tensions rise again in Egypt, the country’s Christians are dreading a further backlash.
The Coptic Orthodox Church is one of Christianity’s oldest, founded in Alexandria around 50 AD. ”
As tensions rise again in Egypt, the country’s Christians are dreading a further backlash.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23662698
I think the vast majority are unawareof the large Christian minorities in Egypt and Syria. The liberal media is in no hurry to enlighten them .
So badly informed are the majority ( I have asked many ) that they have no idea that Christianity predates Islam in the ME by centuries.
i think the BBC realises that if it starts reporting properly on Christians being attacked by the religion of peace, there would be a huge backlash against muslims in this country.
I heard quite a remarkable expose of what is happening to Christians in Egypt on a early morning religious programme yesterday on BBC Radio Cornwall of all places.
Just remembered as well that I watched That Puppet Game Show on Saturday to see if it really was as bad as people have said (I’ve seen worse, but the obviously fake laughter/applause track ruined any credibility it might have had) and there was a scene where one puppet asked another what his favourite party was, to which the other puppet went into great detail about Clement Atlee’s government, making sure to mention it was Labour that founded the NHS and welfare state etc. Again, even though I am in full support of the NHS and welfare state (in principle at least) and consider myself more politically centre than a lot of people on here, the fact is they used a scene in a comedy game show to force a pro-Labour message on the public, basically turning it into a half-arsed election broadcast. The only way it could have been worse is if the question had been what his LEAST favourite party was and he’d gone into depth about Thatcherism.
The scene was apparently justified by the fact that the puppet was talking about parties as in social gatherings/celebrations, so therefore it was a ‘joke.’ Didn’t work, Beeb.
Well, the Labour Party is full of muppets.
It is not even correct – the notion that it was the Labour Party who the ones pushing for the NHS is a myth. Many Labour MP’s and Cabinet Ministers actively opposed the creation of the NHS.
So did the BMA. Bevan said “I stuffed their mouths with gold”, to shut them up.
All three parties were committed to a health service free at the point of delivery, but only Labour benefitted from a giant payroll-voting NHS bureaucracy.
Looking forward to a programme about a BBC hack’s experience of the NHS after ditching BUPA.
I watched five minutes. I have no words to descibe it’s awfulness. And the taxpayer pays for this?
I’ve just watched that [at 33:40].
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0392gbz/That_Puppet_Game_Show_Dougies_Birthday/
That scene feels really contrived.
In a show aimed at children the lines are inappropriate, unnecessary and unacceptable.
I think that given the constant criticism the BBC faces over bias, they need to explain how the scene got their and why.
But hang on, perhaps next week they’ll be saying how revolutionary Thatcher was. I suspect not though.
It seems to be aimed at inanimate objects as we had a race in our house to switch channels within 2 minutes before going out and getting way from the banal trash on this Saturday.
Isn’t that irrelevant? Was the BBC being biased, gratuitously pushing the Labour line, or not?
Watched it and it is odd. Would that have ever appeared in The Muppet Show?
The character says Labour “nationalised one fifth of the economy”. Oddly specific. I thought it was more than that, at least a third.
Another day (well a while ago, but I just found it), another director, another foot-in-mouth classic…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/posts/The-BBC-and-plurality-in-the-media
All with the obligatory ‘..the BBC, as the UK’s leading provider of independent and impartial news..’
What’s that James?
‘ …the BBC as an independent provider of impartial news…’
Ok, James, but how do ‘people’ feel about it?
‘..rate the BBC significantly higher than other UK news providers for trust, accuracy and impartiality‘
What about online, Jimmy?
‘…includes the provision of free-to-use, impartial news online.’
It may be worse than that, Jim. Any thoughts on what makes it so?
‘Impartiality is a core value of BBC journalism’
Can we trust this, though?
‘The BBC Trust commissions and publishes independent reports into the impartiality of BBC journalism..’
Phew. Shame they are mostly redacted and FOI excluded, though.
Anything else make the BBC unique?
‘…the BBC’s public interest remit, impartiality requirements, and extensive governance and regulation.
See, even Lord Leveson says it too, so it must be true…
‘…the effect of the impartiality requirements meant that its size gives rise to no plurality concerns”.’
Tell it often enough James; tell it often enough.
Shame no one so far believes a word.
Especially that genetic impartiality one Hugs tried on a while ago.
Lucky you are unaccountable as that would get most market rates busted down to mailroom.
it is just that the BBC have altered the meaning of “impartial’
See what you did there:)
I shall alert the OED.
Where’s that ratcage?
this morning on the Today programme (Monday at 7.04) it was reported that the Chief Rabbi had ‘accused’ David Cameron of not doing enough for marriage and stay at home mothers. Leaving aside the usual view of most the BBC (which is down on stay-at-home mothers) this item came from an interview in The Times. Behind paywall but from the rest of the report I assume the word ‘accused’ is the BBC’s reporter Vicky Young rather than the Chief Rabbi’s. Vicky Young then goes on to say that many Conservative critics (but not saying who) are complaining about the child care vouchers not being available for stay-at-home mothers. Then she finishes off with the message that the Chief Rabbi ‘attacked’ the government re multi-culturalism. This was an interview in a Times article. The word ‘attacked’ is the BBC’s (unless someone with access to the Times can tell me better). Just how many more negative words she could have included without trying I am not sure.
We must remember that the mother who stays at home to bring up her children is by definition counter revolutionary and conservative.
A prime target of the deluded liberal and by extension a target of the BBC.
Quoting a rabbi provides “balance”.
N having problems with what things are called. “The so called bedroom tax”. That’s not what it’s called is it?
‘“The so called bedroom tax. That’s not what it’s called is it?”.
It is when even those flexible Editorial Guidelines the BBC concocted for themselves don’t offer enough weasel to use an inaccurate opposition party attack point as news.
You need one degree of semantic separation.
Hence, ‘so-called… by my chums at Labour who sent me this PR’.
The other way is, of course, ‘quotes’.
‘So called’ in quotes is doubleplusgood.
The BBC seems to be in an obvious partnership with the Howard League for Penal Reform. I think it’s part of the BBC’s overall crusade to portray criminals as the victims these days. Has anyone else spotted this?
North west at mid day that should be.
Is Nicki Campbell dead ? he hasn’t done the Radio 5 breakfast programme for 2 or 3 weeks, I’m concerned because I do miss his rampant egotism, narcissism, supercilious banal banter, the riotous laughter from his giggling posse when Campbell cracks an inane joke which he probably thinks is a Oscar Wilde witticism. The phony personality etc etc.
It’d be a shame if he’d been in that minivan in Egypt.
Nicki Campbell was mugged in Johannesburg during the World Cup. It didn’t get much press attention because it would spoil the Liberals ”Rainbow Nation” utopian narrative.
The Uruguay football team was also robbed and the ex wife of FW de Klerk was murdered by a member of the hotel staff. Just another day in Africa.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bbc-world-cup-crew-hit-229376
Ah, the legacy of apartheid 😉
Strange how the BBC has discovered the word ‘muslim’ in regards to Egypt, I suppose it’s because they’re favourite ‘pets’ are getting beaten up by the military. Yet when it comes to the persecution of Coptic Christians by islam, not a cheep !
‘Not a cheep’, you say?
‘Egypt crisis: Churches under attack’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23727404
‘Egypt’s Coptic Christians fear extremist backlash’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23683035
‘Egypt’s Coptic Christians dread further backlash’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23662698
‘Egypt’s Coptic Christians pay price of political tumult’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23337659
Chris mate, I was talking about Television and radio, you know, that big square thing in your living room, not the BBC website.
You aren’t related to Scott, are you ?
Colleagues perhaps?
They must be on a shift pattern.
Keep ignoring the points we make in favour of ad homs, David, that’s the spirit.
No your ignoring the point ,using the back waters of the internet to excuse the British Broadcasting Corporation bias, is like the Mail printing a retraction of a front page story on page 94 (and I know how much you would love that)
I don’t pay the BBC to trawl the internet for those stories they don’t think worthy of broadcast news , I can do that for free.
Stewart, it’s not the ‘backwaters’ of the internet. Millions of people read the BBC websites.
The ‘Egypt’s Coptic Christians dread further backlash’ story was written by Caroline Wyatt, one of the BBC’s senior news correspondents. They are not going to hide something written by her.
And you’re ignoring the video report from the ‘Egypt’s Coptic Christians fear extremist backlash’ link.
Chris, old son, do you have any definite evidence of “millions” reading the BBC News website, or is that what our national broadcaster told you?
I have already provided it below:
‘BBC Online is one of the Corporation’s most widely-used services, reaching 22 million people each week’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/2013/online_redbutton.html
It comes from the BBC Trust, so maybe that means you don’t believe it. But I don’t see any reason not to.
There’s also this:
‘The Global Audience Estimate, released on Tuesday, shows that in the year 2012-13 the BBC’s global news services – that is, the World Service, World News and the website bbc.com/news – reached 256m people each week, a rise of 7% or 16.6m.’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-editors-23032145
I don’t know how that 256 million figure breaks down, but I would still say that means an awful lot of people around the world access BBC online content.
‘It comes from the BBC Trust, so maybe that means you don’t believe it. But I don’t see any reason not to.
You may not, but some may feel that any outfit atop an entity run by a bunch described as ‘astoundingly uncurious’ by their peers and MP inquiries may be felt prone to believing any old tosh they get in a memo.
However, I’m more interested in what the % is of actual people actually interested in news, vs. those keener on the latest ‘Enders goss.
It was eye-opening for me the other day to discover the oft quoted Graun’s online audience seems pretty much into footy and celebs and not much else.
So audiences for tripe and news, and audiences for tripe or news may be different, broadcast vs. online.
You get one with your pizza and Stella dinner… the other you need to hunt down.
And possibly may not.
If Carolyn Wyatt wrote that report for the website, why didn’t she broadcast it on BBC 24? If it’s newsworthy enough to put online, why didn’t they broadcast her report on TV and radio?
People here are still ignoring this video report. I don’t know if it was actually broadcast, but it has all the hallmarks of a report broadcast on the TV.
‘Egypt’s Coptic Christians dread further backlash’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23662698
‘People here are still ignoring this video report. I don’t know if it was actually broadcast, but it has all the hallmarks of a report broadcast on the TV.’
If you don’t know, and can’t be bothered to find out, it’s possible your estimate of ‘hallmarks’ is why it’s currently being ignored?
Maybe Albaman can ask around.
As it’s the one bedrock to already slim pickings, but may still be worth a go.
Firstly, apologies as I posted the wrong link. It should be this one:
‘Egypt’s Coptic Christians fear extremist backlash’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23683035
I have watched it. I have no way of knowing if it was broadcast, but it sounds every bit like something that has been.
‘it sounds every bit like something that has been’
Well, if you say so (c) Man. A
Still may be worth waiting until confirmed.
Until then, a Newsnight producer slot awaits.
Why don’t you watch it yourself and see what you think?
You are Scott and I claim my £5
David, you said the BBC hadn’t said anything about the persecution of Christians in Egypt. You were wrong.
These days, BBC online content is read by a heck of a lot of people. You can’t argue that it doesn’t count.
You’ll also notice that the ‘Egypt’s Coptic Christians fear backlash’ story featured a video report, implying to me that it had been on the TV.
I am no relation to Scott. Why do you ask?
”BBC online content is read by a heck of a lot of people. ”
I don’t.
Chris, you have yet to learn: anything truthful which directly refutes Brims’ deluded little fantasies apparently doesn’t count.
Next, he’ll accuse you of being demented for standing up to him.
Then, when it’s clear that people out there aren’t treating him as the fount of all knowledge he dearly wants to be, he’ll declare himself bored and try and shut down conversation that way – before popping up on another thread, making up another fact and repeating the same cycle over and over again.
It’s all really rather sad. Still, as long as it keeps him off the streets and bothering decent people, let him continue.
Speak of the Devil, Scott turns up, right on cue.
Yes , Scotty , will someone please beam him up , (Brasil looks good for Guardian reading gays at the mo.) comes up with the same ole shite , & calls the two David`s, Brims & Vance , by their surname`s as usual , bit of a give away .
As the matter of forum names is current, along with spaces between words and ears, etc, how does anyone know who is who any more?
Though manners of speaking do lend a hint.
Equating online with broadcast is an interesting avenue to persist with, especially on where people derive their news information from.
One may also wonder why there is a disconnect between one and another, or when expecting the full picture can only be derived by using two sources concurrently.
So far the ‘but it was explained [elsewhere]’ rationale has seen poor credibility accorded it.
Purely in cause of grasping the way registration works, does one presume..
Persona nongrata says:
August 19, 2013 at 3:19 pm
…is the same as…
Persona non grata says:
August 19, 2013 at 3:46 pm
..or are there Borg adapations spawning to cover more ground more quickly?
And how many more can be expected?
Just me, typing by hand, and missing a space out.
Or in Biased BBC world, OMG WHAT A HUGE CONSPIRACY!
If Alan stopped being such a big baby and removed the automatic block on my own name, I’d be using that. I don’t like hiding behind pseudonyms.
‘OMG WHAT A HUGE CONSPIRACY!’
Caps always work better I find.
I actually asked a technical question, what with the matter of who’s who on the site being topical.
‘You’ say ‘just me’, but who knows?
May just be ‘me’ (same applies I guess:)), but being who ever you wish to be based on what is chosen to type, seems rather dubious for sensible forum dialogue to take place, especially any based on previous claims and credibility.
Still, ‘you’ keep saying you’re banned every time I see a post from ‘you’ (which is a lot, if nowhere near actual BBC bias), so there’s clearly aspects of such technobabble I will never fully grasp.
Folk should try accusing the BBC of being big babies with any 2-year expeditings for asking questions the BBC can’t answer (as opposed to the calibre of output you manage here)… it could work.
Inky Spash here. Well if I can post as Scott …
You know it’s Scott because he’s dredged up some post from ages ago to use as a weapon against the writer. That’s his style.
He’s not only a Beeboid troll, but a cowardly troll, to boot!
He’s been conspicuous by his absence from threads and posts where BBC journalistic integrity has been proven to be lacking this past week or so, even when he’s been asked to comment – zilch, nothing.
He’s another one who cherry picks a spelling mistake or small factual error to try and discredit ALL the poster’s argument. Typical Alinskyite/Trotskyist methods. Not only that he’ll use that small error for months on end to castigate posters because he has nothing relevant to say.
Don’t lose any sleep being insulted by that fool. Think of it as a badge of honour.
You know it’s Scott because he’s dredged up some post from ages ago to use as a weapon against the writer. That’s his style.
You used the same attack against me in the same thread once. If people like you and Brims actually answered points at the time, you’d find people wouldn’t feel the need to bring them up again.
He’s been conspicuous by his absence from threads and posts where BBC journalistic integrity has been proven to be lacking this past week or so, even when he’s been asked to comment – zilch, nothing.
I’ve been working in the real world and not had time. I’m also not at the beck and call of every idiot on here. Additionally, there are times I deliberately ignore people because they are just desperately seeking attention and I do not want to fuel their egos.
‘I’m also not at the beck and call of every idiot on here.
Just the smart folk then?
I got the impression you were banned. Or was that PNG. or pnG. Or NPG? Or Inky Splash? Or all of you?
‘Additionally, there are times I deliberately ignore people because they are just desperately seeking attention and I do not want to fuel their egos.’
That’s the second time in as many days I heard rather bizarre rationales for how some are ‘known’ to be messing about and not worth precious corrective input, and how others need to be pounced on in a flash.
They used cricket clickers on D-Day, I gather. Maybe online there’s a secret handshake deal?
…ok.
But this is not about what you do or do not watch, it’s about the BBC’s output. And they have reported the persecution of Christians in Egypt.
‘BBC Online is one of the Corporation’s most widely-used services, reaching 22 million people each week’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/2013/online_redbutton.html
The point remains. We know that TV and radio are the main source of news for most people – mostly BBC TV and certainly BBC radio. Most people do not go to the BBC website for their news.
I have not heard a single word on Radio 4 about attacks on Christians and churches in Egypt. Disgraceful.
Well, if you haven’t heard it, it must not have happened.
I’m sure it’s just a huge coincidence that this is the same argument Brims attempted to use when he made his fictional claim that the BBC hadn’t covered a controversy within the British Taekwondo team. Which it had, on numerous occasions, both online and on radio.
The reason Brims and his ilk insist on discounting the BBC website is that it disproves their falsehoods. If we were to accept their premise that only radio or TV transmissions count, calling out their lies would be nigh on impossible, since the public don’t have access to a searchable archive of old broadcast news & sports reports.
That’s the real reason why they don’t like citing the internet: it makes it harder for them to lie. Plain and simple.
See what I mean, readers? Typical Scott.
‘Most people do not go to the BBC website for their news.’
22 million is a lot of people.
‘There has been significant growth in audiences for BBC digital sites, which now reach 38m people every week, an increase of 8m.’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2013/global-audience-estimate.html
If Radio 4 hasn’t reported the persecution at all, then that is wrong. But are you ignoring the TV report I posted above?
”22 million ”
The 22 million hits is, I suspect, Scott going on the BBC website 22 million times !!
Once again, ignoring my point in favour of a cheap shot at Scott.
No, 22 million is the number of times Scott has repeated his claim that David Brims is a liar because he said that the BBC hadn’t covered the dropping of a gold medal hope from the British Taekwondo team.
No, 22 million is the number of times Scott has repeated his claim that David Brims is a liar because he said that the BBC hadn’t covered the dropping of a gold medal hope from the British Taekwondo team.
Doesn’t matter how many times I repeat it: Brtims still isn’t man enough to admit it.
It’s a good thing the BBC has done these stories on the religious genocide going on in Egypt. But along the lines of what I said the other day, at least one of these should be featured somewhere on at least the main Middle East page, if not on the News home page. This is far more than the usual sectarian violence the BBC treats as dog bites man (unless Jews are involved), and it’s disgraceful that this isn’t a constant main topic in the BBC’s coverage of Egypt right now. Imagine if there was a similar persecution of a minority Mohammedan population somewhere. Are there statements from various Christian leaders around the country or around the world? Has this been mentioned on Thought For the Day yet?
The BBC’s triumphant debunking of only one of several photos the IDF (and others) use to show that Gaza isn’t such the hellhole after all is still listed in the “Features & Analysis” sidebar, but there’s nothing about this ongoing religious war perpetrated by Mohammedans. The violence against Christians was going on long before Morsi was removed from power, so it’s a bit glib of the BBC to leave it as just a case of Morsi supporters blaming them for the coup.
The Copts cannot be blamed as equal partners in this violence, so perhaps it doesn’t warrant special BBC attention.
The boring spats that seem to get started by the resident trolls picking on a comment and then hammering away until the text is pushed hard into a small column on the right hand side are pedantic, childish and end up in a sour slanging match that serves no purpose.
The one above started with a sensible comment pointing out that we have not seen much news from the BBC about churches being ransacked, burnt and Christians being attacked or killed in Egypt. These attacks on Christians have of course been going on for many months and were openly encouraged by Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood/ Al-Qaida mates. This was well before millions of people in Egypt started to demonstrate against Morsi’s Islamic stranglehold. The army then took control to stop the anarchy getting worse and the country becoming completely out of control.
It is a fact that the BBC was not finding the stomach to report the attacks on Churches and Christians to its viewers. As a matter of fact nor did many other British TV news programs. There was an exception though, Russian TV, they took a different stance of coursed but like the BBC one has to read between the lines for the truth. But at least they did report it.
A helpful person, trying to discredit the comment then links to 4 web pages by the BBC, which he says proves the BBC was reporting it. Funny how they always know where to look isn’t it? Anyway the dates on those pages are all in the last week so prove nothing. There then followed a load of crap by the trolls and their pathetic followers trading cheap insults. How very grown up.
The fact is the first comment was right; The BBC gets to the party late and then only reported these attacks when it was general knowledge and they couldn’t avoid it any longer. And we continue to pay £3 billion a year for the privilege of being manipulated, lied to and generally treated like puppets by this paedophile loving cess pit of an organisation.
The whole miserable terrorist appeasing lot of them should be sent, with a one way ticket, to Iran on a leaky boat for re-education.
‘It is a fact that the BBC was not finding the stomach to report the attacks on Churches and Christians to its viewers.’
What about this then? It contains a video report, which I assume (though I don’t know) was broadcast on TV.
‘Egypt’s Coptic Christians fear extremist backlash’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23683035
There is also this Newsnight report from Dec 2010
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9299585.stm
David Brims original post was that the BBC has reported ‘not a cheep’ of the persecution of Christians in Egypt. My 4 links, far from ‘proving nothing’, proved that they have reported it.
Here are a couple from 2 years ago:
‘Egypt clashes: Copts mourn victims of Cairo unrest’ (Oct 2011)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15242413
And this from Radio 4’s ‘From Our Own Correspondent’ from Oct 15 2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b015yf3g (From about 7 mins in)
BBC Radio 4 headlines stay much the same all day – with their usual leftie slant.
I listen to Radio 4 a lot, it is my only source of broadcast news. I have never heard a news item on the persecution of the Coptic Christians – which has been going on for a long, long time. I would have remembered if I had heard anything – I was in Egypt last year, spoke to several Coptics about the outlook, why many of them were trying to leave Egypt..
So dredging up a single Radio 4 item from 2 years ago on From Your Own Correspondent seems to me to prove the point :
THE BBC’s NEWS REPORTING ON ITS MAIN RADIO NEWS SERVICE HAS AVOIDED – OR VERY LARGELY AVOIDED – THE KILLINGS OF COPOTICS AND THE DESTRUCTION OF COPTIC CHURCHES, SCHOOLS and BUSINESSES. BY MUSLIMS.
Sorry about using capitals – but some of the trolls are too damn thick or devious to get the point..
‘I would remember’ – why don’t you remember the From Our Own Correspondent episode I linked to then? I really don’t think we can rely on 1 person’s memory (I would say that about my own too).
OldTimer argued that the BBC had only belatedly got around to reporting the persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt. My links show that’s not true.
Another one, this time on 5Live, from Oct 2011:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b015n21r
And this, from the World Service in Nov 2012:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p010n7th
A story from February 2013:
‘Cairo clashes at St Mark’s Coptic Cathedral after funerals’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22058570
One from Jan 2013:
‘Worry taints Egyptian Coptic Christmas’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20896896
And one from Aug 2012:
‘Coptic-Muslim clashes erupt in Egypt’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19089474
Please don’t call me a troll just because I disagree with you. That says more about you than me.
I was abroad when that From Our Own Correspondent programme was broadcast . You are still ducking the issue – one swallow, 2 years ago, does not make a summer. Radio 4, the BBC’s premier radio news channel, “setting the agenda” – has largely AVOIDED rep[orting on the persecution of Coptic Christians by rabid Muslims.
It’s not just 1 though.
Today programme, Jan 2011
‘Egypt’s Coptic Christians under attack’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9333000/9333970.stm
Radio 4 Beyond Belief, Jan 2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00xhd7s
BBC Radio 4 Sunday, Aug 2013
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0381kbl
World Service Have Your Say, Aug 2013:
‘Many Egyptian Muslims were with Christians but now they are being brainwashed – Coptic Christian’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01f7ckm
Most people do not listen to fairly obscure religious programmes on Radio 4. And you examples from 2 years ago are irrelevant. There has been much-increased persecution of Coptic Christians by Muslims under the Morsi regime – and last week was almost like Krystallnicht. That should have been splashed across the BBC NEWS programmes. It wasn’t.
Why not – because the dangerously naive BBC has favoured the Muslim Brotherhood. And there are plenty of BBC staff who would set out to spike any story telling the truth about the persecution. While elevating dross and non-stories to news headlines.
It’s interesting and the bbc have reported the atacks but having read the articles, they certainly go out of there way to imply the Muslim Brotherhood have nothing to do with the attacks and it is only a few extremists. If you go to other sources you get a different view
Quote from the Australian
In the past few days, about 50 Christian churches, monasteries and orphanages have been firebombed or looted by Muslim Brotherhood mobs.
Fair enough, Radio 4 should have had more coverage. But why are you solely focusing on Radio 4?
This was (I’m pretty certain) on BBC TV last week:
‘Egypt’s Coptic Christians fear extremist backlash’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23683035
I think it is fair enough pointing out that the BBC has not completely ignored the anti-Christian persecution and widespread destruction of Christian churches in Egypt, but since most people on here are saying that that the BBC has sought to downplay (rather than completely ignore) these anti-Christian attacks, pointing out some BBC webpages that mention it amounts to little more than an Albaman style diversion.
If your aim is to defend the claim that the BBC is neutral in the way they report (for example) the beliefs of Christians in America in comparison with the beliefs of Muslims in Egypt, it is a case of who is kidding who; are we supposed to go along with that pretence or do you want a serious debate about why the BBC report Muslims affairs differently.
Do you think the BBC was slow to support widespread child abuse of white children by Muslim men? Do you think that they are slow to engage with the problems caused by lack of Muslim integration? Do you think that the BBC attacks/mocks Muslim and Christian religious beliefs to the same extent? Do you recognize the existence of any BBC bias in the way the BBC report Muslim issues?
I mean of course report not support
I watched the re-run of the 3-programme series Punk Britannia last week. I really liked the punk era and it was a pretty ground-breaking period in music. The BBC of course seem to think it was a purely socialist thing.
Firstly The Heath government gets mentioned for creating much awfulness. The Thatcher government gets mentioned for even more awfulness. The government in power when punk actually started and finished, when the country was on its knees and punk was actually spawned from the desperation … errrm … not a peep. The establishment were all portrayed as ‘conservative’. The fact that most punk bands and fans were pretty mysoginistic and actually pretty fascist was not studied at all.
Oh and not one mention of The Stranglers – the band that outsold all the others combined. Funny that. Couldn’t be to do with their (perceived wrongly) political beliefs could it?
Excellent observation.
The BBC’s favourites seem to be Morrissey and the Smiths, Stuart Maconie and his Mancunian mate in particular fawn over them, but they have also been the subject of radio and TV documentary’s and Jeremy Whine has also stated they are his favourite band. Maybe it because they emanate from Salford!!
The BBC must love the fact that he has also been quoted that “if all men were gay there would be no wars….”
Morrissey also spoke of wanting to “destroy Thatcher”.
The BBC use his ‘music’ as a reference for the 80’s and assume that every kid in the 80’s was listening to it, not me there was far better stuff than his whining tosh…..
so did u all wear doc martin boots and look like vyvyan off the young ones?
In their celebration of “Not the Nine ‘O’ Clock News” one of the voices (Howard Goodall I recall) said that life was grim under Thatcher, which the BBC accompanied by a stock clip of the rubbish piling up in the streets in the “Winter of Discontent” in 1978 before she was elected.
Only too true. And what was said about Chis Langhams predilection for underaged boys? Next to nothing. Well they were different times weren’t they?
My recollection of punk from spending too many nights stuck to the floor at the Marquee Club was that most of us were either apolitical or pretended to be anarchists. There were were very few right wingers, a small but noisy clump of SWP types who thought the revolution was coming, and rest were apathetic. Since few of us had decent jobs and No Future (seems a bit familiar) disenchantment with politics set in and I don’t think it’s ever left.
I suspect you’ve forgotten the Rock against racism movement, although I never equate being against racism as signifying you are left wing. It’s common sense.
I agree – it seemed largely apolitical to me. Rock Against Racism was somewhat different to UAF nowadays because there genuinely were a lot of racist attitudes around that time. The cause did get hijacked by the usual suspects of course.
I meant ‘fascistic’ in that the attitude seemed to be ‘everything that came before was wrong and is now dead’. Probably something more akin to Pol Pot’s way of doing things!
As for post-punk, the BBC have single-handedly re-written the entire post-punk scene to have emanated from Manchester (and to a lesser extent Sheffield). The programme featured the usual suspects of Joy Division, Magazine, and spent an inordinate amount of time on Gang Of Four who came across to me as a bunch of posh-boy revolutionaries and were most certainly not at the vanguard of post-punk in terms of fan base.
I was one of the few (right wingers at the Marquee)! Used to go fairly regularly in the late 70s early 80s.
“How does a polyamorous relationship between four people work?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23726120
First they softened up public opinion towards ‘gay-marriage’, now it seems it’s on to the next progressive cause: polyamorous/polygamous relations.
Where will it end? Don’t be surprised if the legalization of paedophile unions isn’t on their radar sometime in the near future.
I have no doubt that this is just part of the BBC’s scheme to allow Muslims to have more wives, more children, bigger houses, but only one TV License. Think about that BBC!
A lot of us said that polygamy would be next on the ‘progressive’ list when they were agitating for bloody gay marriage. Of course that was ridiculed at the time. They make me sick.
Al Beeb condemns polygamous Mormon sects, but if they took up paedophilia, they too would become a victim group.
According to the following parliamentary answer (12 August), the BBC is guilty of colossal and hideous discrimination against Englishwomen in court enforcement over unpaid licence fees. Nearly two hundred thousand people were summonsed to court last year, and 150,000 were convicted.
Twice as many women as men were charged and convicted.
A subject for Woman’s Hour and government equality proofing?
Thought not.
Yet so much human misery and distress, mostly for women who suffered 68% of the convictions.
(And the BBC does not pay for any of this court action out of the licence fee – we do from other taxes.)
Television Licence Fee: Court Proceedings
Question Asked by Lord Laird
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many people in 2012 were summoned to appear at magistrates’ courts in England for failure to pay a television licence fee; how many were proceeded against at such courts; how many were found guilty of fee evasion; what percentage of magistrates’ work is related to dealing with such crimes; what is the estimated annual cost of this court operation; and what proportion of those charged with licence fee evasion were women.[HL1726]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally): The number of persons proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts of installing or using a television receiver without the appropriate licence, in England, in 2012, can be viewed in the table, which also provides the proportion of which are female.
The Ministry of Justice does not collect data on the cost of proceedings for specific offences in magistrates’ courts and therefore is not able to estimate the cost of proceedings for failure to pay a television licence fee in 2012 with sufficient reliability within the time and cost available.
Persons proceeded against magistrates’ courts and found guilty at all courts of installing or using a television receiver without the appropriate licence, England in 2012:
Proceeded against 181,880
– male 59841
– female 121,602
– proportion female 67%
Found guilty 155,135
– male 49,477
– female 105,347
– proportion female 68%
[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldtoday/writtens/120813.htm]
Excellent post. This is incredible. Not only is the BBC is a lying, extorting, paedophilia-promoting, immigration-inducing pile of treacherous shit, it is also the single biggest cause for criminality in the UK.
Why the f**k do we allow this sinister organisation to continue??? It beggars belief!
You forgot antisemitic.
Nice bit of research. BBC sexism even extends to sacking women when they’re too old to be eye candy.
In reality the only way you can be found guilty is if you self-incriminate by confessing all to Capita (the BBC’s agent). Thus a successful prosecution requires the BBC’s legal mouthpiece to be able to submit a signed confession in evidence. Since, I suspect, such a confession is, effectively, only obtained through bullying it doesn’t surprise me that women ‘fess up rather more than men. Moreover, as regards personal visits by agents of the BBC, since the doorsteppers are (in my limited experience) always men and, as such, would be rather less reluctant to threaten women than men it is little surprise that women form the majority of those dragged through the courts.
Remember: the best way of dealing with these creeps is to shut the door in their faces and to throw away the (monthly) threatening letters from the BBC.
The BBC is indulging in one of its favourite hobbies today: publicity for fellow travellers. The ‘news’ website was leading this morning with a report claiming that “Families struggle as cost of child raising reaches £148,000” (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23726224) (subsequently demoted in later editions). It is a not-so-thinly disguised attack on the government — by the third sentence we learn that “the value of benefit payments has fallen in real terms” (implying Tory Cuts of course). The report has been produced by the ultra-left, ultra-wealthy Joseph Rowntree Foundation, but commissioned by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG). CPAG is possibly Britain’s most unsuccessful charity; when it was founded in 1965 it claimed that 0.5 million British children were living in poverty, but its website (see http://www.cpag.org.uk/child-poverty-facts-and-figures) says it’s now 3.5 million – a sevenfold increase despite nearly 50 years of campaigning. CPAG generates income through its business activities (company registration 1993854) but also receives government handouts; according to its accounts for the year ending 31/03/2012 it received £408k from the Scottish government and £90K from HM Revenue & Customs.
There, in a nutshell, is a perfect example of one of the ways in which the BBC and the rest of the liberal left operates: job creation and agit-prop courtesy of the tax payer.
for once,i have found somebody more biased in reporting the conflict in egypt than the bbcs jeremy bowen,did you watch itv news last with john irvines totally one sided biased pro muslim brotherhood reporting from cairo,he talked of innocent unarmed muslim brotherhood supporters being massacred and slaughtered in cold blood by the egyptian mililtary,the muslim brotherhood must love john irvine but no mention from him of the 80 plus coptic christian churches being burnt down and christians being burnt alive and murdered in the streets,his bias was sickening,how john irvine has not been arrested by the egyptian army and deported for sedition is beyond me.as for egypt,why are the british media types like bowen and irvine siding with the islamist muslim brotherhood.this stockholm syndrome love affair the british media have with the sharia law islamists sickens me to my stomach.
Just caught the news of the BBC’s anti fracking protest where the police are making a few arrests whilst the reporter stresses that it is a peaceful demonstration. Caroline Lucas, courageous MP for Gaza and Brighton, is said to have been arrestehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/d.
I imagine that’s exactly what she wanted, and that the BBC will be only too happy to play ball.
With a bit of luck she’ll get that Palestinian-born judge, who Lucas praised for letting off the EDO vandals (the Brighton firm makes and exports defence equipment to Israel).
The BBC never seem to refer to her as the ex-communist Caroline Lucas, wonder why? Incidentally that woman has a face like a blind cobblers thumb, she cracks my tv screen when she appears!
But they will soon acknowledge her leading role in the People’s Assembly alongside Owen the boy wonder of the left . They are planning a major rally against Tory austerity at the Party Conference. Hope she is out of prison by then.
http://thepeoplesassembly.org.uk/speaker/tba/
Beeboid heroes include-
Muslim Brotherhood (and Islam), UAF, Obama, Bradley Manning, Ed Snowden (inc Glenn Greenwald & ‘partner,’ David Miranda), Balcombe illegal occupiers, Occupy, Julian Assange, Oprah, Mandela, Luther King, Shaker Aamer, Rageh Omaar, Binyam Mohamed, Clement Atlee.
In other words, anything that is against Great Britain, Indigenous British, White, Tax-paying, Heterosexual, Law-Abiding, Scientifically Advanced, Empire, etc, etc, etc
Update: Beeboid list now definitely includes: Caroline Lucas-
“Green MP and son arrested at climate protest”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23753750
Oh, Beeboid headline tells us it’s a ‘climate protest’.
Well, there you go.
And there was I thinking it was an illegal occupation aimed to prevent the exploration for oil/gas.
If the police were to arrest all 800 or so illegal occupiers, and they were each fined £1,000 on conviction, that would just about cover the costs of policing (but not other costs).
Its refugee Monday at the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23695205
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23753875
In the first story, we hear about the positive benefits that refugees bring to Australia, as they settle the 800,000th refugee since breaking away from the UK in 1901. Of course, not everyone in australia agrees that they bring benefits, and our friends at the Beeb helpfully tell us that ‘right wing groups’ oppose this.
Meanwhile, in the second story, we are told about the nasty Swiss, who have decided to segregate asylum seekers from the general population. The BBC glosses over the fact that this policy is approved of by the majority of the population there, but instead tells us of the ‘outrage’ from various ‘human rights groups’.
And of course, we have the obligatory reference to the patron saint of being offended, ms. oprah winfrey herself, whose recent severe denial of human rights in the country clearly corroborates to us that the swiss have become a nation of degenerate racists. I’m surprised that the right to buy £25,000 handbags isn’t enshrined in the various formulations of human rights doctrines over the years, but I guess thats because they’re usually written by sexist old white men or something.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/19/thedc-morning-steyn-for-senate/
Hers something that the BBC will NEVER report. An intelligent, witty true Conservative politician who has consistently and incitefully shown up Obama for the incompetent he is.
‘Here’s something that the BBC will NEVER report.’
Crafty.
I see few heads exploding at the debrief between editorial and troll coordination strategy on that one.
Steyn’s not a politician. He’s a columnist and commentator. He’s consistently been scathing towards the President, yes, and of the Left in general, which is why he never seems to get hired by the BBC to do one of those “Viewpoint” pieces, or on one of their topical comedy panel shows.
Steyn was on Newsnight a couple years ago, and they pronounced his name wrong.
Although Mark Steyn was persecuted in Canada for his views, he was exonerated and now has been instrumental in changing Canadian law towards greater freedom of expression (unlike the trend in UK where Geller and Spencer are banned).
“Mark Steyn law repealed in Canada”
http://freedomwatch.ipa.org.au/mark-steyn-law-repealed-in-canada/
But Beeboids are not interested.
And Beeboiods won’t like Steyn’s views in opposing the trend towards an Islamised Europe., as argued in his book:-
‘America Alone: The End of the World As We know it.’
‘Look Inside’-Amazon-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/America-Alone-The-World-Know/dp/0895260786
But, of course, Mark Steyn is definitely NOT on the Beeboid list of heroes.
Definitely not. Steyn wrote an article in 2006 espousing very similar thoughts about Mohammedans outbreeding everyone which people like Anjem Choudary have freely expressed. Only he didn’t describe it as necessarily a benefit to society.
In a 2008 report about a subsequent clash between his publisher and some Mohammedan organization (as usual, it’s okay for all Mohammedans to be represented by a single voice when it suits the agenda – just don’t lump them all into one group when some of them do something naughty, right?) the BBC described him as “an outspoken conservative columnist”, and (in the photo caption) “a writer with a zest for vigorous polemic”.
Pretty much like your average favored edgy comedian with his own BBC show, really, except with unapproved thoughts. No air time for you!
Time was, Mark Steyn used to present a weekly programme on Radio 4 about light entertainment, the show scene in New York, big musicals etc. But he was dropped like a hot poker when he started to write his very entertaining and acid political pieces. He is frequently on US radio – usually as a gust, often as a stand-in presenter. In other words – a fluent and interesting proponent of the right wing – and a harsh critic of Islamism in Europe as well as the US.
Obviously not fit to be on the BBC’s regular Rolodex for US comment.. Censorship, pure censorship.
“ONLINE PETITION ASKS CONSERVATIVE PUNDIT MARK STEYN TO RUN FOR U.S. SENATE”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/18/online-petition-asks-conservative-pundit-mark-steyn-to-run-for-u-s-senate/
I cannot wait to see how Jeremy Bowen and the BBC are going to report the news of Mubarak’s release from jail. Cue wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Mubarak’s behavior at the end of his tether is looking better and better every day. He certainly behaved in an infinitely classier manner than all the other Mohammedan dictators, yet the Beeboids couldn’t stop demonizing him. Of course, he suppressed the MB, kept the Christians from getting slaughtered, and – worst of all – kept the peace with Israel.
David, your last sentence seems to be saying this: the BBC hates Mubarak because he stopped Christians from being slaughtered.
Do you really think that? You’re basically accusing the BBC of wanting Christians to be slaughtered.
(Unless I have misinterpreted, in which case I apologise).
I’m being slightly facetious there, Chris, I admit. But only slightly. After all, if Mubarak hadn’t ruled the way he did, the violence against Christians would have been far worse than it was while he was in charge, and we don’t see the BBC pointing that out.
I am, though, accusing the BBC (well, lots of BBC journalists and producers and editors, anyway) of disliking Mubarak for keeping the peace with Israel and suppressing the MB.
Fair enough.
Given Marx’s theory of permanent revolution it’s a practical certainty that there’ll be some(many?) at the BBC who would be happy to see Christians slaughtered in the furtherance of a socialist utopia.
The BBC is keen to educate us on non-traditional sexuality:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23726120
Personally, I would call the situation described in the article f**k’d up, but then I’m also not a fan of gay marriage so what do I know.
Happily our friends at the BBC are doing what they can on the limited funds they get from us to help educate us so we can transition to the brave new world of the liberal utopia, where the constraints of monogamy and all the things that actually built our civilisation are discarded, and where everyone can feel ‘normal’ no matter their deviancies.
The BBC provide outrageously partisan coverage to professional waste of space Caroline Lucas MP who successfully managed to get herself arrested for the cameras at the Balcombe fracking ‘protest’. Can the BBC possibly sink any lower than this dreadful example of heavily biased, entirely propagandist drivel..?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23753750
The Corporation are a total disgrace to so-called ‘journalism’. This is naked political activism – nothing more, nothing less.
‘Reclaim the Power said four activists used locks and glue to attach themselves to another activist’s wheelchair …
“…a day of principled civil disobedience,” said protester Ewa Jasiewicz.
Evidently.
The notion of placing the disabled at the front of a conflict is one that has not even occurred to those noble warriors in Gaza.
Yet.
No consequences for the Lucas lad – bound over to keep the peace or a few hours of community service on the downside vs Heroine of the Revolution status and more votes on the upside.
Would love it if she got a proper punishment like say 6 months in Styal.
Anyone catch the report on Today this morning about the large numbers of young black Christian men becoming Moslems? Apparently about 9% of Pentecostal young black Christian males become Jihadis. What was interesting was the way the Beeboid “Religious Affairs” man (somebody called Piggot) managed to simultaneously rubbish Christian theology (in particular the notion of the Trinity) and present Islaaam as a perfectly coherent, civilised response to that deficiency. Nowhere did we hear a mention of the large numbers of black Muslims (almost all of whom had criminal pasts) who become murderous terrorists. Well here’s hoping that Piggot is one day on the receiving end. Twat.
Yes, this was a dangerously propagandist, irresponsible, anti-Christian, pro-Islam ‘report’ by INBBC’s Pigott.
He endorsed the converts to Islam by blaming Christianity.
He did not compare the tenets of the two religions. He simply went along with the superficial notion that if people convert from Christianity to Islam, it must be the fault of Christianity (in apparently, not being able to explain the Trinity).
No criticism was made of the belief system of Islam; and ‘Sharia’ and ‘Jihad’ words were unmentioned.
There is some clue in the audio that violent threats are made to get conversions to Islam (and not only when Muslims are in British prisons), but this was not followed up.
The contrast between the morality of Christianity with that of Islam was not discussed.
In short, was INBBC’s Pigott not practising ‘Da’wah’?*
*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawah
“Young Muslims ‘becoming radicalised'”
(4 min audio.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23753325
Maybe I am naive but I find it difficult to believe, as heard on the Today programme this morning, that young black men really convert to Islam because they find the idea of the Trinity difficult to understand. Perhaps the synagogue would be more relevant with the same Old Testament and belief in one G-d? Sorry BBC and Mr Piggott this explanation really doesn’t wash.
Maybe it’s time to run another piece about what happens when Muslims convert to Christianity (which they do, in quite large numbers, despite the threat of death for apostasy, but don’t expect that to be greeted by a fanfare at the Beeb).
BBC-NUJ Radio 4 ‘PM’ programme, with a concerned Mair, is currently re-affirming hero status on chums of Snowden, the double act of ‘Guardian’ journalist Greenwald, and his Brazilian male partner Miranda. BBC ‘PM’ puts the British government in the dock for detaining Miranda on transit to Brazil for nine hours. Wow!
Will BBC-NUJ now apply the same moral concerns to the cases of the banned Americans, Geller and Spencer?
Or is BBC-NUJ-Guardian ‘justice’ only applied to their selected political causes?
Spot on. Why all the fuss about this chap while others , with less liberal views ,are banned from even setting foot in the country. At least he was released and able to go about his lawful business. Others are not extended this courtesy. Just another excellent example of the liberal left bias of the BBC.
“Journalist’s partner interrogated at Heathrow for nine hours ‘WAS carrying encrypted documents from Edward Snowden spying leak'”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396745/Edward-Snowden-journalist-Glenn-Greenwalds-partner-David-Miranda-detained-Heathrow-airport.html
And of course the BBC and the Guardian laughed their socks off as News International journalists were dragged from their beds at 4am, had their houses searched, technology impounded and were held for days….all in front of their families, including young children.
Against many, no charges were ever brought.
Also, best I recall, the NI guys were suspected of past white collar crimes, as opposed to ongoing national security ones?
Is it possible there are multiples of standards in affront at play elsewhere too?
The US government claims that they did not request and had no involvement in the British authorities detaining Glenn Greenwald’s partner. So far, there’s only a “Breaking News” brief quoting the White House statement, and that the police haven’t said why they held him.
Either the red flag next to his name got their by accident, right, or the British authorities ear-marked Greenwald and some of his closest associates at the request of the US government, or because the US gave the British authorities info that would cause them to put him on the watch list. If it wasn’t an accident, it would mean that the White House has told a lie. Let’s see how the BBC follows this developing story.
On second thought, maybe he simply had a baggie of E in his pocket?
“Let’s see how the BBC follows this developing story.”
19 August 2013 Last updated at 18:47
“US denies ordering airport detention”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23761918
Albaman, you just linked to the same BBC news brief I did.
So many posts to write; so little time to think first.
My mistake: German authorities, not British. Even more amusing, then. Why would the Germans put somebody on a watch list who was associated with heroic whistleblowers who told the world that the US was spying on countries like Germany? Not at the request of the US government?
9 August 2013 Last updated at 19:12
US denies ordering airport detention
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23761918
“A White House spokesman said the decision to detain Mr Miranda “was not made at the request or with the involvement of the US government”.
Thanks, Albaman. I said in my original comment (which I assume you’ve read properly by now), “Let’s see how the BBC follows” this. And now they have. Rather meekly.
I said that Miranda was on the watch list at the request of the US, which in turn directed his detention and questioning. This means the US government’s claim that they had nothing to do with it is false. Not only did the BBC not question this, but BBC correspondent Kim Ghattas even admits that:
it was likely that the “heads up” about Mr Miranda’s detention was passed to US officials when his name was spotted on passenger lists.
In other words, I’m correct, and the White House isn’t telling the truth. The Beeboid who put the article together stared at his/or her feet, shuffled a bit, and then wrote:
The White House declined to comment on whether Mr Miranda’s name was on a “watch list” maintained by the US Transportation Security Administration.
So the BBC can’t be honest and say what’s happened. Security correspondent Gordon Corera isn’t performing any better in his inset “Analysis”.
The stopping of David Miranda was highly unusual and will be just as controversial.
These powers are often used to have a look at an individual heading in or out of the country to see if there is any evidence linking them to terrorism. That may involve questioning and a search of their belongings.
It’s “highly unusual”, but the powers of stopping somebody for questioning are “often used”. Then Carera goes on to act as if the powers which are “often used” concern random stops. Er, no. People on watch lists are stopped regularly. Those are the relevant powers which are “often used”. Carera is implying that this was a case of “stop-and-frisk”.
But we don’t know the whole story yet, and can’t say for sure if the airport authorities did in fact search Miranda at random, and happened to find a bunch of laptops and USB drives. Then they check his name. And if he’s not on a list, why take him in for questioning? It would indeed be “highly unusual” if an anonymous traveler got hassled just for having a couple of laptops and hard drives on him. But that’s so obviously not what’s happened here, and it’s weak for Carera to even play this game.
He, too, knows that the US is lying but won’t say so.
I realize neither Carera nor Ghattas can come out and say the US is lying until we get the facts. But pretending that this is some sort of shock is a joke. As the BBC admits, Greenwald often uses Miranda to do his leg work, so it’s a no-brainer that Miranda would be on a watch list the moment Greenwald was.
Greenwald has now threatened British authorities, and Carera’s reaction betrays his attitude towards the entire situation:
…you have to wonder if the person who made the decision might just be wondering if it was worth it.
No question which side Carera is on. Maybe the BBC’s coverage will get better from here. Hopefully, they’ll be able to deflect any negativity away from the President and make it about “the US” instead, and remind people Bush started it.
Caroline Lucas in the can, now thats gotta be worth a titter, hehe =D
The ‘One Show’ attempted a weak and very dumbed down fact v fiction look at fracking.
In fairness, their guest geologist from Leicester University debunked most of the leftie’s lies, including the now notorious flaming water film, so beloved of the smellies.
The exception was ground water contamination; he admitting an episode (in the US). That the facked gas bed was, unlike in the UK, not far beneath the water table, and we have significantly greater safeguards presumably stayed on the cutting room floor.
And the BBC was wrong in the studio discussion to repeat that there is no fracking in France – there is. Geothermal fracking is taking place in the Massif Central and in the Pyrenees
Yes, not far from moi.
Hollande declared that there’d be “no fracking whilst he was still president”. Well, we know if there’s kudos to be gained and/or money to be made, declarations like that soon fall by the wayside – to wit the spineless performance of Cameron and his cronies.
Anyway, the French are so pig sick of Hollande, I suspect that his days are numbered, and we can get on with living again.
Greenwald’s latest apparent threat to British government, from which few NUJ members seem to demur:
‘For searching my partner, Miranda, and finding information on him, I will make it worse for the West by revealing much more of Snowden’s secret information. So there.’
“Glenn Greenwald ‘Not Worried At All’ About Britain Getting Info From His Partner’s Seized Electronics”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/08/19/glenn-greenwald-not-at-all-worried-about-britain-getting-info-from-his-partners-seized-electronics/?
The Guardian-The BBC-The New York Times and much of media are righteously convinced that it is only THEY who know and act on what is in the interests of the West, as illustrated by Manning and Snowden.
For a Western government to challenge their political presumption is unacceptable to them.
Have the BBC reported anywhere that across the USA there have been protests and demonstrations that President Obama should be impeached and that peaceful demonstrators have been arrested?
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2636/saudi_cleric_who_raped_and_killed_daughter_receives_small_fine
5 year old “Lama al-Ghamdi was the daughter of Fayhan al-Ghamdi, an Islamic preacher who makes regular appearances on television.”
the bbc thinks more important news from saudi to tell us is
Saudi prince sacks TV chief for Muslim Brotherhood ties
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23747381
al beeb, supporting the muslim brotherhood, ignoring muslim atrocities
And if anyone on here wonders why President Obama should be impeached, maybe it could any of these reasons?
1. President Obama has appointed numerous people to cabinet level positions without the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, as is required by the Constitution. These individuals are given extraordinary power and independent funding, and are not under the scrutiny of Congress. The fact that Obama calls them Czars does not make them legal. He has also made illegal recess appointments of other members of his cabinet that required Senate approval. He simply declared that the U.S. Senate was in recess despite the fact that no such declaration had been made by the Senate. The President has no Constitutional authority to do this.
2. The push by Pres. Obama to pass healthcare legislation in the Congress of the United States that he was fully aware was unconstitutional.
3. Despite the fact that the United States Senate refused to pass the Cap and Trade bill, the President has ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to use regulations to implement key portions of the bill, including those regulating so-called greenhouse gases. Obama himself has acknowledged that this will force energy prices in this country to skyrocket. He is taking these actions in direct defiance of the will of the people of the United States, the will of Congress, and the Constitution. The actions of the EPA include regulations that will force many coal burning power plants to close.
4. Through the Department of the Interior (DOI) Obama has placed a moratorium on offshore oil drilling or exploration off both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the United States and in parts of the Gulf of Mexico. He has also prohibited new drilling exploration on federal land in any states in the United States. These actions by the DOI have continued in direct defiance of several court orders issued by Federal Judge Martin Feldman in New Orleans, Louisiana declaring that the department had no authority to issue such a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf.
5. Instead of allowing American companies to drill for oil domestically, Obama has betrayed the American people and authorized loans of billions of dollars to countries like Brazil and Mexico so that they can drill for oil, and then sell that oil to the United States. This will dramatically increase our dependence on foreign nations including Venezuela, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and even Libya that do not serve the interest of America or the American people.
Obama has also refused to approve the keystone pipeline from Canada to the United States that would not only lessen our dependence on oil from countries like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, but create thousands of new jobs in the United States. The decision on the pipeline is one that belongs in the hands of the members of Congress, not the President.
6. President Obama has abdicated his responsibility to enforce the laws of the United States against illegal immigration. He has virtually declared our southern border an open border by declaring certain areas of federal land in states like Arizona as off-limits to federal, state, and local authorities. This is despite the fact that these areas are being used to bring in thousands of illegal immigrants, massive amounts of drugs, and also being used by foreign terrorists to infiltrate the United States. He has also ordered the border patrol not to arrest most illegal immigrants entering the country, and has stopped deportation proceedings against thousands of people in this country illegally. He is in effect instituting the so-called “dream act” bypassing the Congress of the United States which has sole authority over immigration matters.
7. The President and his Attorney General Eric Holder have clearly violated their oath of office by joining with foreign countries such as Mexico, Bolivia, and Columbia, in lawsuits against the sovereign states of Arizona, Georgia, and Alabama to stop them from enforcing the federal immigration laws.
8. President Obama has ordered the Federal Communications Commission to adopt regulations giving the federal government control of the Internet and its contents, including providing Obama with a kill switch that gives him authority to shut down the Internet if he sees fit. This is in direct violation of a decision by the United States Supreme Court that the FCC has no Constitutional authority to control the Internet.
9. One of the paramount responsibilities of the President of the United States and his executive branch of government is to enforce and defend laws adopted by Congress unless they are declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. Obama has decided that he should ignore this Constitutional mandate, and that as President he is more powerful than either the Congress of the United States or the Supreme Court. He has unilaterally declared that the Defense of Marriage Act passed by the Congress is unconstitutional, and further declared that he will not have the Justice Department defend it against lawsuits.
His administration has also refused to enforce laws against voter intimidation and federal law that requires states to purge their voter registration lists of deceased individuals and those that are registered illegally. In addition, the Justice Department is refusing to allow states to enforce laws requiring proof of identity by voters at the polls. Obama has essentially said that he is the supreme ruler of the United States, and that the Congress and the Federal Judiciary are irrelevant.
10. It has been widely reported that acting through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms the Obama administration was involved for months in getting legitimate and law-abiding gun store owners along our southern border to supply weapons to straw buyers who the government knew would deliver them to the drug cartels in Mexico. This was billed as a sting operation against the cartels when in fact it was designed to produce fraudulent data showing that large numbers of weapons were going from the United States to the Mexican drug dealers.
This data was then to be used, and is being used, to try to justify new gun control regulations to limit the rights of American citizens to keep and bear arms. It has nothing to do with arresting members of the drug operations. The administration has, in effect, armed our enemies, and one border patrol agent has already been killed by one of these weapons. Now, Obama continues to impose gun control laws by Executive order so he will not have to deal with Congress. The administration is also refusing to cooperate with the committees in the House of Representatives that are investigating the entire operation. It is even defying Congressional subpoenas.
11. The President of the United States is not authorized by the Constitution to take our nation to war without the consent of the Congress of the United States. The only exception to this is the authority granted to the President by Congress under the War Powers Act. This law allows the President to take immediate action without the consent of Congress if there is an imminent threat to the security of the United States, or its citizens. Although there was clearly no such imminent threat caused by the Civil War in Libya, the President committed members of the United States military to combat missions in a foreign country without the consent of Congress. He based his authority on a United Nations resolution, and a resolution by the Arab League.
Now, the President has carried it one step further. During testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 7, 2012, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told Senators that the President has authority to take our country to war without the Congressional approval required by Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution. The administration is taking the position that it can ignore Congress as long as it has United Nations approval or NATO approval.
However, these actions may be the least of the worries facing the American people. The White House insisted that language be included in the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that gives the President sole authority to order the military to arrest and indefinite detain American citizens on U.S. soil if the President suspects them of terrorist ties. This was amazingly passed overwhelmingly by Congress. It appears to be another situation where few members read the bill before voting on it.
This was almost immediately followed by another unconstitutional executive order titled the National Defense Resources Preparation order. It is similar to orders signed by past Presidents, but this one includes language that appears to give Obama the authority to declare martial law in peacetime, and take over the allocation of everything from food and fuel to transportation and health care. This violates the Constitution in a number of different ways.
12. Last but not the least of my dirty dozen of impeachable offenses, is the fact that since taking office the President has used executive orders, laws pushed through Congress in the dark of night, and administrative actions by his departments to nationalize and control automobile manufacturers, banks, insurance companies, and portions of the healthcare industry. This is designed to take our country from a free enterprise economy to a socialist economy. There is absolutely no authority in the Constitution of the United States that allows the President to do this.
And this list does not even reference submitting a fraudulent birth certificate as “proof” of his citizenship.
I’m sure this will provide counter argument.
The above was from another public viewing web site.
Does anyone think that the BBC will cover any of this?
+ the Bengazi cover-up?
This list along shows that 0bama has a complete disregard for the constitution of the USA that could easily lead to massive civil unrest. How will a man with such anti-constitutional tendencies handle such a situation? He will use all of his powers to squash what he and his cronies will see as disloyalty and treat any civil unrest as terrorism.
I fear he has an agenda much deeper than wilfully disobeying a few laws and constitutional rights. The last paragraph of point eleven on your list is to me the most frightening but does not surprise me. He is constructing unlimited powers for his hands only and that will lead only to one thing. Dictatorship.
He like, many other folks with his background still think they are victimised no matter how rich and powerful they have become under the civil rights that you all have in the USA. He has said so. He does not just want ultimate and complete control, he believes it is his destiny, it is his right. He has also said he finds it difficult to discuss and argue his policies through, he would rather be able to impose them.
I hope you get another free and fair presidential election but the signs are not good based on his history of subterfuge and manipulation in the last one. Any wonder whistle blowers are treated so harshly. And be sure that your own media and our own progressive left wing idiots at the BBC will support his glorious revolution on behalf of the oppressed people of the USA. After all his first job before even coming into office was to break the USA’ economy, and Britain’s, as the chief instigator in getting millions of poor American people mortgages they could never afford.
Good luck and God Bless America.
You will need it.
Sure, the BBC has reported lots of White House talking points about most of these issues. Mark Mardell’s and Daniel Nasaw’s position is generally that the President has to act unilaterally only because intransigent Republicans have worked to block His every move. Mardell did moan slightly about Libya, at first. But then he declared that Ghadaffi getting strung up by his own people was “a vindication of sorts” for the President’s policy.
As for Benghazi, Mardell wrote that, while it turned out he was wrong to ignore the story, it was only because the wrong people were talking about it, which impeded his ability to discern the facts.
Speaking of Benghazi, we can add the President’s absence from the scene (nobody will admit where He was), and His lies to the public that it was the video what done it, and His orders to Hillary and Rice to lie to the public repeatedly, and even to the victims’ families in person.
We can add to the full list the billions thrown down the Green Energy Toilet to Democrat cronies and the President’s campaign money-bundlers, with the White House pushing to keep the money flowing, and telling companies to postpone unpleasant announcements.
But He will not be impeached. Nobody wants to go down in history as the one who destroyed the first black President. I don’t even see the media – who are angry like and abused spouse for the time being, but will snap back to form and stand by their man come the mid-term elections next year – thinking anything is bad enough (never mind having the balls to say something if they did) to whip up a frenzy to force Him to resign.
We’re stuck with Him until 2016.
“At least 24 Egyptian policemen have been killed in an attack by suspected militants in the Sinai peninsula.”
I know this “militant” terminology has been used by the beebyanka (and the DT, to its shame) for long enough, now, but I don’t remember “suspected militants” before. I’d say they are obviously muslim terrorists, suspected of connections to the ousted muslim brotherhood.
If you murder twenty-four policemen, I hardly think your “militancy” is in any doubt and, in Egypt, any responsible news organisation will be a bit less timid about suggesting what your motivation is likely to be.
The *Voice of America* are reporting it as thus:
“CAIRO — Gunmen have killed at least 24 Egyptian police in an ambush in the country’s Sinai Peninsula. It’s the latest in a series of violent incidents following the army’s crackdown on its opponents last Wednesday.
The security forces were riding in buses when they were stopped by armed men. Some reports say the men were forced from the bus and shot, others say rocket propelled grenades were used.
The attackers are believed to be members of a militant Islamist militia of the kind that critics say deposed President Mohamed Morsi allowed to operate in the Sinai. The army ousted Morsi July 3, backed by large-scale public demonstrations, and forcibly ended weeks of sit-in protests by his supporters last Wednesday.
Although al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood have some ideological features in comm e.g. the ideology of Sayyid Qutb, the leading member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950s and 60s, they are not interchangeable. Nor did they come to the Sinai pensinsula during Morsi’s brief presidency. They came during Mubarak’s presidency.
The MB sees them as rivals and potential threats, as does the army
Ironically the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty which limited the number of Egyptian troops in Sinai plays a large part in making Sinai attractive as a base.
I had to turn the TV off after 15 minutes of tonight’s Six O’Clock ‘News’. Supposedly the top ‘news’ item was about the homosexual friend of a Guardian journalist – do they all go for nice Brazilian boys like Mandelson did? – then the next ‘news’ was that a minor MP had managed to get herself arrested, as she had said this morning she intended to be. Then the preview for Northwest Tonight ‘news’ was about the ‘bedroom tax’.
We are forced to pay for this drivel.
Whereas the Yorkshire news led on the royal mail removing the delivery service to a dozen houses because of a fierce dog, but found no room to report this
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/britains-biggest-child-sex-grooming-2181438
Scots red deer ‘breeding earlier due to climate change’
David Miller, BBC Scotland environment correspondent.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-23726965
Prof Josephine Pemberton, of Edinburgh University, “Calving dates have come forward by about 12 days. The rutting dates also come forward too, which is consistent with that, but also the antler casting and cleaning dates have come forward.”
So, all those thermometer readings for the last 17 years have been wrong. They will never give up.
Couldn’t those advanced breeding dates for the deer correspond to the change in the weather? Deer breed in autumn. They could hardly make it more obvious; it’s the time of year when you’re lucky if those stags on the road don’t come through your windscreen, antlers and all.
The Alarmists have been desperately praying for the final melting of the Arctic Ocean ice, this summer, to fulfil a characteristically idiotic prediction, from some years back. The Arctic ice seems to have been failing to cooperate. Instead, it’s freezing early.
Prematurely freezing ice, sadly, means early autumn for the rest of us, but also an early rutting season for the deer.
In Edinburgh, where an early onset of autumn is pretty well traditional, they really should be able to work the consequences out for themselves.
BBC accuracy and impartiality, how they respond to any pointing out error, and how they tidy up quietly when they think no one will notice…
http://bbcwatch.org/2013/08/20/bbc-accuracy-error-disappeared-from-view/
‘This of course means that there is no acknowledgement on the part of the BBC that a mistake was made in the first place and hence no record of the failure to comply with BBC editorial guidelines on accuracy. ‘
Those internal complaints logs that never make it to public view, and 1063% trust levels are explained, if possibly subject to even more scrutiny then ever.
Still, it should all prove valuable input on why the BBC need not be included in any account holding in the Plurality Review.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/posts/The-BBC-and-plurality-in-the-media
‘ overall, the BBC ‘continues to reflect an impressive range of opinion’.’
Six comments before closing should be enough, surely? Mind you, they don’t look like they’ll make it into the BBC’s submission.
Maybe best to talk about ‘getting about right’, how impartial they are, and all those internal stats that no one ever sees that claim everybody is totally happy with everything as they haven’t complained (make that, the BBC has accepted their complaint).
Propaganda backed by censorship: Speaking fo… telling the nation what the BBC needs it to hear.
Radio 4 has been characteristically far left with Naughtie & Evan Davies on the Today program.
They wheeled on some expert to pontificate about the arrest of some Brazilian homo for 9hours.
Louise Mensch said that the UK had intelligence that Miranda had encrypted data from the ‘whistle blower’ (SPY!) Snowden which could have put UK agents in danger.
The radio 4 response – they shouldn’t have arrested him because it was just a suspicion – they didn’t actually know he was carrying that and we still don’t !
This is the craziest interview I think I’ve ever heard – people are always being arrested on suspicion with the Police then questioning or/and searching them for evidence. If our people are not allowed to arrest without full proof then we might as well give up.
Lots of gushing praise for the work the Grauniad has done in printing state secrets, but if that’s the best defence the lefties can offer it seems to me that the arrest was perfectly legitimate.
The other comment which raised a wry smile was irony that all these laws were brought in by the corrupt & oppressive Bliars Nu Liebour government.
Neither we, the people, nor our state representatives, must interfere with the Guardian(RUSHBRIDGER)-BBC (HALL)-New York Times'(THOMPSON?) righteous plans to impose an imperialist ‘political Left-Islam’ project on the world by ‘direct action’!
The issues of ‘illegality’ and ‘security of the state’ will apparently be decided by that media, not by ‘reactionary’ forces representing other interests!