These things fill up quicker than a BBC’s presenters eyes at the news of the fall of the Muslim Brotherhood, so here’s a new one for you.
TUESDAY OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Yasser Dasmibehbi Dec 22, 03:46
Weekend 21st December 2024
I found this interesting. https://youtu.be/tA8zz7niOy0?si=YwrTyvtMxLn2vVvH - StewGreen Dec 22, 00:14
Weekend 21st December 2024
Youtube just pushed a video at me that invading North Korean troops had been smashed cos they were using 19th… - StewGreen Dec 22, 00:09
Weekend 21st December 2024
“Jawdropping” propaganda from woke-Supremacist BBC and police https://youtu.be/IMuafLX0xhQ - Greencoat Dec 21, 23:22
Weekend 21st December 2024
Mantel was a deeply unpleasant, dishonest person. And her books? Next to unreadable. - tomo Dec 21, 23:12
Weekend 21st December 2024
Trump shooter…….. https://x.com/TonySeruga/status/1870474697676325217 - Lazy Cat Dec 21, 22:39
Weekend 21st December 2024
And that ‘Let’s get ready to rumble’ announcer is still going. He was doing the Tyson fights back in the… - Lazy Cat Dec 21, 22:35
Weekend 21st December 2024
Right going to watch the Fury fight now. The build up has been about 5 hours long. I think 4… - Lazy Cat Dec 21, 22:28
Weekend 21st December 2024
Indeed. I’ve seen few NK documentaries down the years. In a few of them, I’ve seen clips and interviews with…
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
Did I hear right on this mornings Radio 4 when I heard Evan Davis say of the Royal Family photographs (new baby) that there was an attempt at: Middle Classisation? Is this a new word in the babble tank of leftyisation? Did I really hear this at 07.45??
I also listened to Today, which depressed me greatly; but then I read an article in the Grauniad and, much to my surprise, it cheered me enormously!
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/15/bbc-factual-tv-insult-brian-sewell
Check out the comments below. If the bbc are starting to lose the Grauniadistas, then they really are in trouble.
“MH: But the BBC remains a great source of pride to many of us. It’s arguably the best broadcaster in the world.
BS: Bollocks.”
Brilliant!!
OldBloke
Middle Classisation. I agree .
Strewth cobber!
Diolch bach
Blimey, if BBBC keeps getting it about wrong as it appears to be doing, and ‘no one’ keeps reading or posting or paying any heed the way they are, you may need a morning and afternoon daily version.
That will really mess with the shift patterns in some places, and the controllers may even need to invest in some new logic boards for a few on the team at long last, too.
Being that this forum is about BBC Editorial, it may be worth checking out activity at the home page of the £4pa, 20,000k staff envy of the world media monopoly that is our national treasure, in comparison.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_editors/
Approaching the month anniversary since the last, which garnered… one comment… before closing… after a day.
That’s the kind of mature and professional interactivity management that gets you the plaudits.
The next one (that allowed interactivity) did of course manage 2. But then, in June… 28!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-editors-23032145
And we can’t say it often enough..
‘Whatever media platform audiences use to access BBC news, what they will find is accurate, impartial, trustworthy journalism.’
Even if the facts, and the opinion of many, appears different.
‘But as our new director general Tony Hall has said, the BBC’s best days lie ahead of us.
International broadcasting is a highly competitive business, which requires predictable, stable funding.’
Doubtless if tacky things like being included in plurality reviews can see the BBC exempted, and predictable, stable, increased funding flows as a consequence of grateful political debt-payment, to ensure lack of accountability remains at the core, they can continue to get it about… what again?
BBC radio schedule.
Monday 9am 5 Live. Save Ed Miliband phone-in
Tuesday 8.10am R4 Today prog. Save Ed Miliband with David Blunkett, supported by James “When we Win” Naughtie
Not sure about the rest of the week but bet its more of the same until BBC wall-to-wall coverage of Labour Conference.
‘…Tuesday 8.10am R4 Today prog. Save Ed Miliband with David Blunkett, supported by James “When we Win” Naughtie…’
While in some sort of leftie simulcast…over on Five Live, at exactly the same time, Chucky Umunna was going in to bat for Miliband – the man whose job he coverts.
Pity they didn’t ask ‘Harrison’ or ‘Obama’ or whoever Chucky thinks he is this morning, if he’s seen any trash around the London streets today. Mind you he was probably too busy updating his Wiki profile.
On BBC Breakfast too, Chucky looking smug accompanied by footage of Ed Miliband out and about meeting people.
Who needs Party Political Broadcasts when you have the BBC?
Non-socialist parties do .
Bleary-eyed and still half asleep, I switched on the Today programme this morning as I waited for the kettle to boil only to hear the self-obsessed presenter still babbling on about the ‘miranda arrest’. It’s as if the BBC, strangely, can find no other newsworthy subject worth clogging up the airwaves with – and these progressive, leftie media types do so love to talk about themselves so very much, don’t they?
I suppose they consider that as ‘journalists’ (ha!) they are ‘under attack’ from the authorities in this country…it’s truly pathetic; a genuine case of all that insular, incestuous self-congratulation on display for us mere proles to gape at in mute indifference. We are somehow (and despite all the facts) supposed to appreciate that something ‘Really Bad’ has happened; in fact nothing much has happened at all, other than that the UK police and intelligence organisations have been discovered to have been doing their jobs with professionalism, restraint and strict observance of the law.
I heard the two men in this case on the BBC news last night vowing (from the safety of their home in Brazil, of course) to ‘do all they can’ to ‘expose’ the UK authorities. They sounded spiteful, vindictive – like two angry children swearing to ‘get even’.
Welcome to the finest journalism has to offer in this new Age of Stupid, folks.
(-A reprise.)
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!
Damn! How do I always manage to be the last poster on the old thread !
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
I think they should have hacked his phone and computer , put trackers on his car and secreted a micro camera somewhere on his person, to find the evidence first! Then if he wasn’t carrying anything there would have been no need to arrest him.
Oh I forgot this isn’t lawful is it. So I guess we will just have to rely on the authorities abiding by the law.
It’s well known that Miranda does leg-work and is a courier for Greenwald. It wasn’t just a lucky guess that maybe he had something on him. Even Alan Rusbridger says so.
(Side note: Apparently the next two people to play Dr. Who have both also played Rusbridger. Bleah.)
LOL hes a lot more than a ‘courier’ for Greenwald, he’s his bit of exotic toy boy.
… And called Miranda. You couldn’t make it up!
Wasn’t that failed barrister Tony Blair’s old nickname?
He invoked his right to remain silent.
He looks “Asian” and hopefully he is familiar with his Miranda Rights.
Apparently the BBC is reporting that ‘scores of negligence claims have been made against Tameside hospital’.
I wonder whether Wimmins hour will be reporting how many of these hospital failures have had a woman in charge. Tameside, North Stafford, The AQA, it’s a long list, but another common factor might well be their far left views, and that’s another area which will never be investigated.
I listened to the Caroline Lucas interview – how much time is given by the BBC to a single MP from a minority party? I don’t know the veracity of her claims but I do wish the government would send her to Peru to support the girls who may have been trafficking in cocaine. I know this isn’t evidence of bias by the BBC except the amount of air time they give Ms Lucas – but they BBC don’t really seem very keen to give us the facts on fracking. But I have a theory – I just automatically support the non-Green and non-Beeboid view, search the internet for evidence trying to take in both sides and usually (no change that to always) find that non-Green ,- non Beeboid is the right thing to do.
The over coverage of her is bias; the woman only has to break wind for several BBC teams to kneel before her and tell her it smells of roses. This is what happens when you have a communist representing the Green Party and from accounts of friends in the area, screwing up Brighton for anyone who isn’t a student/greenie/farleft turdbucket!
BBC-NUJ has similarly political subservient attitude to Red-Green E.U’s federalising Daniel Cohn-Bendit:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Cohn-Bendit
She didn’t get banged up, then. Pity.
Deborah, you will be pleased to know that the Green Party’s new leader is a complete nutter…..
http://britain-today.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/the-nutters-are-in-town.html
….who once worked for the Guardian.
thanks Ian – I knew the Greens had a new leader who doesn’t quite seem to get the publicity that Caroline gets…but Guardian ….I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised and even without the outburst about aliens they are both still nutters.
It was worth watching Louise Mensch on Newsnight last night on the “Miranda” case. She totally wiped the floor with some rather distant hacker who stood under the Brandenburg Gate and who seemed to think that given state secrets and the location of secret agents in China was fair game. She also put lacklustre stand in presenter Derbyshire in her place accusing the programme of outright “BBC bias”. The government referee on terrorist legislation appeared to enjoy the experience since he was hearing the sentiments that he was so diplomatically avoiding. Good viewing.
Sounds like iPlayer warrants a visit.
Though a YouTube sample is always easier and can be bookmarked… unless certain folk get all copyright shy for reasons of transparency or massive sulking.
Always an interesting precedent with a news medium that sees its god given right to show or quote what or who it likes for the other end of ‘purposes of journalism’ spectrum (to FoI redaction or exclusions)… when it suits.
I thought I was hearing things! Louise was really very good and speaks well. First time I have seen Derbyshire. Not up to much I’m afraid.
The biased Narrative prejudiced the veiwer’s mind right from the start. In the intro, Derbyshire described Greenwald’s reporting of St. Edward’s espionage as being about the domestic spying abuse in the US, full stop. This is a false impression. There has also been information released about foreign policy activities and about other countries. The UK wouldn’t detain somebody for being a whistleblower about a US domestic issue alone. This is, I should point out, the same Narrative we see featured in nearly all BBC coverage and discussion of this story. As if by magic, the same angle is seen across the spectrum of BBC broadcasting, on different channels, in entirely different departments. How pathetic that it took the lightweight Louise Mensch (nobody with even a little gravitas available during August?) to point this out.
As usual, Rule #1 was in effect when introducing the “hacker” who moaned about his own detention. The BBC did not mention that he’s a WikiHacks maven and is involved in the Tor Project. While I support the Tor Project on principle, it’s also abused by drug dealers, which this “hacker” supports. And let’s not forget that WikiHacks is directly involved in this issue. Not an innocent, independent voice at all, yet he’s presented as an independent, non-partisan voice speaking about his experience as an unfairly targeted hacker – the appeal to authority.
At least the terrorism law expert was a reasonable voice and able to defend against the WikiHacks guy and Derbyshire. And he was even open-minded as to whether or not this was an abuse of power, unlike Derbyshire and the rest of the BBC.
“Do you believe that the police using terrorism legislation in this way undermines public confidence in the legislation?”
This is asked from the perspective that it was an abuse, a prejudiced question. Because Anderson didn’t give the desired response, Derbyshire then had to ask more clearly if this was an abuse. Bias.
Naughtie was on his best behaviour when he “interviewed” Lucas this morning on Today. His approach was exactly that of an understanding but rather anxious psychiatrist talking to a loonie who had been placed in front of him minus her usual straitjacket. Questions – even sensible ones – were indeed asked, but no follow-ups to the manifestly deluded responses; no contradictions; no laying out salient facts to illustrate that maybe, just maybe, Lucas was not just wrong but irredeemably, unequivocally the other side of sanity. Naughtie preferred to go through the motions, effectively apologising for questioning the Sage of Brighton.
She thinks fracced gas is different from natural gas – much more dangerous, you know – all that methane which will burst forth from our taps and ignite, burning down the whole world.
I don’t think she’s quite grasped that fracced gas or oil, is merely the result of a different method of extraction.
Anyway, if we find, extract and use this stuff, we’ll all go to hell in a hand cart, because it’s not renewable, you see, and is dirty, dirty dirty, and besides, we have targets you know – we mustn’t produce any carbon (I think she may mean that essential, innocuous trace gas carbon monoxide, but she’s so ill informed, one can’t be sure…), because the climate has suddenly made us aware that it can change, and that it’s all our fault, and we must stop it – at once, preferably…
For “monoxide” please read “dioxide”. This is a result of belated viewing of this blog, and frustration at having been dragged round a French supermarket. You understand, I know you do…
I’m from Brighton, I hope you don’t think we’re all like this. You’d think it was a city of nutters.
Well, somebody voted in the Lucas woman….
Not to mention a local council run by Jason KitKat (no, I didn’t mistype that). Brighton is a microcosm of what many n the BBC wish the entire country to be; a dystopian ‘green’ ‘gay’ nightmare..
I do recall a year or two ago that she was voted by fellow MPs to be the most ethical MP in the Commons. She is so caring you see.
The bar had already been set below the floor, so it’s not a meaningful accolade.
Who was the most unethical?
It was a tie between the other 649
Could be her?
Up date on previous post
http://www.trendingcentral.com/tag/university-of-birmingham/
I think we should all follow the link and help Ms. Abbot do the right thing
So am I. There are quite a lot of staring-eyed, crop-haired women with issues about men, though, and I expect they all voted for her.
If “her” isn’t offensive to trannies, the Green Party’s latest victim cult.
I fled there in terror years ago, and I’ve been a leftie most my life. It was too much for me even.
In fact the views of Lucas are profoundly anti human. We are the enemies of the planet which is given God like status. This way ends in destroying ourselves for some higher good. In death and tyranny. Be aware that these people are dangerous. If they had had their way centuries ago we would still be hunter gatherers.
We would be again if these people had their way. Maybe not the hunting part so much, as the vegetarian and animal rights crowd would object.
These green nutters all subscribe to Giai worship;
Some of these whack-jobs think the human race is a virus destroying mother earth and that we must be culled to make sure we do no more damage.
The fact that the BBC give tacit support to these eco-fascist ideas and see nothing wrong with the destruction of our countryside by dumping windmills everywhere and filling their pension funds with stocks in green corporations means eco-loons like Lucas will get a easy time from them.
The eco-whacks only want others culled as they seem very reluctant to volunteer themselves or their family’s to the cause !
Interestingly a few years ago I heard James Lovelock, the father of the Gaia cult, on Simon Mayo’s show (when he had game show’s slot on 5live)
Basically he said that windmills where a fraud , Nuclear was the way forward and that we should ring the entire British Isles with electric fences to keep out the displaced (by climate change) heathen hoards, less they sink the lifeboat .
I paraphrase ,but only a little, you could hear poor Simons jaw hitting the desk.
Well, hunting tofu, anyway.
Points made by Lucas, with questions not asked by Naughtie in brackets:
– There is no guarantee fracking will bring down energy prices in the UK as it has done in the States. It will be available on the international energy market and subject to market price.
(Even if that turned out to be the case, and say we exported all of our gas, which is unlikely given the energy shortage we are facing, it would therefore be an export earner, wouldn’t it, helping to plug our trade gap and reduce our deficit?)
– We must reduce our CO2 emissions if, as the scientists tell us, we are to avoid the 2 deg increase in warming this century.
(But whilst CO2 emissions have continued to rise for the last 17 years temperatures have stayed flat and some scientists are now claiming we’ve had a cooling since 2002. Isn’t it time climate models and our policy on climate change were re-evaluated – and let’s face it, there are many scientists out there who have never subscribed to the popular alarmist predictions, aren’t there?)
– Our future is renewable energy, but we need to plug the gap until that becomes a reality. (Note: gap or plugging thereof unspecified.)
(‘What do you mean by ‘renewables’, because they’re not, really, are they? And what do we do for energy when the wind doesn’t blow, or the sun doesn’t shine? What square mileage of turbines and solar panels will we need to provide 80% of our energy?)
We are taking action on this on behalf of the majority of people in this country who are against fracking.
(What majority? And aren’t you bypassing the democratic process and also breaking the law by stopping Cuadrilla from going about their lawful business?)
In other words, the elephant in the room continues to go unnoticed, because to recognise it would blow the BBC’s agreement with their eco-socialist mates at their 28gate meeting. Lucas and her like will therefore continue to get away unchallenged with the main thrust of their argument: catastophic climate change because you see, readers, the BBC are believers too – just like Caroline.
If I could cover my roof with solar panels and put a wind turbine on my garage and produce enough electricity to power my house all day and all night, I would. If I could produce gas from the sewage my family produce to power the cooker and central heating, I’d ignore the obvious qualms and do it. But I can’t do either and won’t be able to in my or my kids lifetimes. So I’m not going to.
Lucas isn’t an idiot and she knows it can’t be done. So why is she pushing a hopeless agenda? Who is funding her to do so? Questions not heard on the BBC lately.
The AGW advocates are political activists pushing an eco-socialist agenda. All you need to do is look at the ‘mitigating actions’ against climate change pushed by the UN, which are all based around ‘social justice’ aka re-distribution of wealth, and ‘sustainability’, aka a radical green agenda.
Try reading ‘Watermelons’ (green on the outside, red on the inside) by James Delingpole, and ‘The Delinquent Teenager…’ by Donna Laframboise. Here’s a link to her website:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/
Or before buying her book, just absorb what’s on her website – it’s all eye-opening, life-changing stuff.
“Who is funding her?”try the Qataris.
Just looking back over recent history and the disgraced Labour MP Phil Woolas who spectacularly lost his seat in a legal case brought by the Lib Dems over election material which blatantly played on race issues.
His history records him as being a ‘Television Producer’ (and you can guess where this is going!)
“Woolas joined the Labour Party at the age of 16 and became involved in student politics through the Anti-Nazi League. Before becoming an MP, he was president of the National Union of Students from 1984 to 1986, a television producer for the BBC on Newsnight from 1988 to 1990 ”
So no surprises there then!
‘a television producer for the BBC on Newsnight’
It’s turning into an alma mater cross between ‘St. Trinians’ & ‘School for Scoundrels’.
Which would be funny, except they keep getting things wrong and/or deliberately targetting ideological foes to smear.
Which does not seem the way public funds should best be used.
Maybe something any media plurality consultations need to bear in mind when being told by certain parties how professional, objective, impartial and accurate they are… trust them on this.
Most people have no idea just how compromised the BBC’s laughable ‘impartiality’ actually is by the presence of ranks of unapologetic common purpose Marxist trolls in its employ. A while ago I invited readers here to – you know, just for laughs – investigate the backgrounds of some of the more well-known BBC comrades to discover for themselves the depressing litany of socialist infiltration present at the BBC. It truly makes for startling reading. And that’s just the upper echelons; the familiar faces. God alone knows how deep the infection goes into the lower ranks of the Politburo…
How anyone with even an ounce of perspective/common sense/comprehension can these days suggest the BBC is not a hot-bed of rampant doctrinally-narrow visioned lefties is quite beyond explanation.
Which is exactly why it is futile to complain to them and counter productive to argue with them.
In fact a conservative should never ever appear or speak on the BBC .
They can have as many Tories on as the like. They are not conservatives.
Totally agree, for starters they could check out Nicolai Gentchev Question Time editor and then maybe check out who is the BBC Head of Religion & Ethics….
Newsnight may be the most prestigious and trusted of all flagship news programs, but one of these days somebody’s going to do a chart showing just who has been through that particular proving ground over the years. I imagine the legacy behind the scenes would be interesting, to say the least.
Re the attitude of supposed ‘liberals’ to the Muslim Brotherhood, I recommend Roger Simon, ‘Obama’s Strange Love Affair with the Muslim Brotherhood,’ PJ Media,
http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/08/19/obamas-strange-love-affair/?singlepage=true
Good piece in the Commentator:
The BBC’s groupthink on immigration stinks. (Not just about its coverage of immigration.)
A good article and well worth a read.
Disagree about this bit:
‘The BBC still does many things exceptionally well, and there remains a solid base of popular goodwill’
What does it do ‘exceptionally well’ that isn’t being done better in the private sector with other media providers that we aren’t forced to pay for?
If there is as he claims such extensive goodwill why not let it go private and charge UKP147 for the privilege? Instead of forcing us to pay the TV tax under threat of a prison sentence.
Much of its content is made by independents anyway so they can’t really claim there’d be a drop in quality.
65% of output across the BBC’s channels each and every night are repeats (don’t believe me?….check the TV guide)
The programs not repeated are the news and current affairs, the racial demographically incorrect ‘Eastenders’, Pro-NHS ‘Holby City’ & ‘Midwives’…an obvious replacement for the other pro-NHS lefty bullshit “Keeping Britain Alive: The NHS in a Day”
Great value for money (Although ‘King Alfred & The Anglo-Saxons’ may be worth watching)
One, possibly decent program per day does not justify a yearly license fee.
Scrap the shit.
When I do a weekly trawl of iPlayer I don’t find one decent programme a day.
2 for the whole week, maybe – 3 is a rare wondrous week.
‘The programs not repeated are the news and current affairs’.
No, it just feels like they are. Same old bias, same old agendas, day in, day out.
Chop – Sums it all up brilliantly.
A good article. I noticed the report on how us natives are reluctant to talk to the BBC about certain topics. That can only become more prononunced. There is simply no point in engaging with it any longer. In the culture war it is my enemy. End of story. it’s vision of the future is not mine.
The Guardian. A journalist. And gay to boot. That punches just every button and a few extra for the BBC to have a real non-stop orgy of liberal left angst.
Delicious.
Please God, let it all go pear-shaped for them.
But then – who would notice? Because in times of emergency, the BBC can always resort to its Memory Hole……
Sounds like an everyday story of ordinary country folk in The Archers.
The BBC knows it is constantly being criticised for being leftie/liberal. Senior executives of the BBC have admitted that “in the past” it was seriously biased.
And it knows that the way this is often put is “The BBC is just the broadcasting arm of the Guardian” – that the Guardian’s agenda is far too often shining through in the BBC’s treatment of news and issues. Especially in what it prioritises, what it downplays.
You would think a prudent large organisation with a responsibility to avoid bias would be under instruction from the top to make sure that such criticisms are avoided. And that these instructions would be enforced.
Yet for 2 days now we have had the ridiculous story of the arrest Greenwald’s boyfriend Miranda as the TOP BBC headline, striped across all its output..
This morning on the Today programme, when the item was mentioned in headlines they droned on for sentence after sentence, more a full story than a headline, parroting everything the Guardian is saying. And when they reported on What the Papers are Saying – it had top headline, quoting again from the Guardian. Even though a scan of the front pages of the UK press this morning showed other stories were given more coverage – the Guardian was alone in its obsession. This item is not the most important news in Britain today – except for the Guardian and the BBC.
So, the BBC is incorrigible, unreformable, and will lie through its teeth every time it claims to be impartial. It is time to cut off the public funding of this organ of propaganda. Partly because of its overt biases, partly because it is undemocratic to have a single news organisation with such a huge control of news output.
John, an excellent post which sums up perfectly my opinion of the Corporation. I think one of the main reasons this wretched, overtly political organisation can never be rescued and reformed is because there are far too many spineless cowards in the mainstream press – some might call them ‘useful idiots’ – prepared to sing the BBC’s praises even while attempting – however half-heartedly – to ‘criticise’ it.
What is needed for real change is for honest critics to speak out against the BBC, free from compromise or flattery in their remarks. The Marxist rot is now so deeply embedded, so completely ingrained into the very fabric of the organisation, that nothing short of a complete reboot can save it from itself. That, or just close it down and have done with it – no misplaced sentimentality or deference to its history, its place in the ‘social fabric of the nation’ or to any calls for ‘lite-touch’ reform, etc.
The BBC is irredeemably compromised, has drifted so far away from its chartered responsibility to impartiality, fair-mindedness and political neutrality that it might be best to just switch off the life-support and either open it up to the vagaries of the free market (where no doubt its self-proclaimed ‘excellence’ will find its subscribers – or not) or to simply let it pass into the history of failed cultural experiments to serve as a salutary lesson for future generations about the self-evident contradiction in a publicly-funded broadcaster attempting to remain politically ‘impartial’…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23761607
Set of meaningless statistics in another attempt by the BBC to show how men are holding back those poor, victimised women who work on average four hours a week less than them (which they don’t mention).
Interesting to note that I up-voted several of the top-rated comments, and their scores DECREASED. Not blaming the BBC for this one but it’s pretty obvious that there’s a person or people trying to doctor the results to falsely endorse their feminist/misandrist view, something that the right is always accused of when the highest rated comments reflect their views (e.g. in the article on Bulgarian/Romanian immigration).
Interesting top rated comments (and these days, who knows who is making them and who is tweaking them to taste?)
When I ran my agency, bonuses were based on company performance, and as a % of salary.
Salaries did vary, based on a juggle between what I thought I could pay to retain the best staff for the role, and what they were happy to accept for a great job.
Sort of ‘market rates’, if you will. The bonus was an extra on top if we as a team did well. People seldom thrive purely on their own efforts.
Thing is, if staff didn’t like this arrangement, they could always quit and, presumably, secure what they felt they were worth elsewhere, if offered.
Seems that in certain sectors, this aspect is deemed a bit risky in case it doesn’t pan out, which may also be why the BBC upper tiers seem so keen too.
BBC Dreaming the Impossible….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b038rj1b
‘Using her skills to uncover long-forgotten and abandoned plans, architectural investigator Dr Olivia Horsfall Turner explores the fascinating and dramatic stories behind some of the grandest designs that were never built. In this episode she looks at two of the most radical civil engineering projects proposed in the last century….’
Apparently the reason we didn’t have a Channel Tunnel during the nineteenth century was little to do with technology, finance or feasibilty – oh no, wait for it….. it was all about England’s irrational fear of foreigners. The ‘popular press’ got a special mention.
This could only have been a BBC show. Six instances of that Leftist slogan word “Xenophobia”!!! And I switched off.
Lefty. Guardian-lite. Predictable. BBC.
And of course, the French were never ‘xenophobic’ were they? That nice Mr de Gaulle tried to get us into the Common Market, didn’t he, in return for us giving him a safe haven in London then saving his country and what have you.
Oh, hang on…..
Once CAP was finalised the French couldn’t get us into the EEC fast enough. Not that you hear that on the partly EU financed BBC, nor the fact that the French are one of the biggest thieves of our fish.
Title for an assignment essay for Beeboid College of Journalism’s young intake?:-
“Compare and contrast BBC impartiality this week in the expression of political sympathy for:-
1.) Muslim Brotherhood, proponents of Sharia state in Egypt.
2.) Undemocratic anti-Cuadrilla occupiers.
3.) ‘Liberal’ media disclosure of West’s secrets on security.”
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/police-appeal-help-identifying-man-5757048
One of the funniest tragic stories, but see if you think you’d be able to identify this man from the photograph the Police have released ?
One has to wonder who is composing ‘news’ stories these days, and who is whisking them through editorial.
Also who is getting paid what to crank out the #prasnews PC-box-tick release upon which they are based.
Circulate the photo round the bBBC: most of them are keen on naked men’s bottoms.
I wondered what was keeping Scott from posting.
I’ve stumbled across some forum for ex-Beeboids and discovered this moment of clarity from a former BBC journalist. One of them started a thread about Lord Hall hiring one of his cronies at an enormous salary entitled “OH Dear! Bad start for Tony Hall”.
First ex-Beeboid: Sorry AGAIN for the source but it does make disturbing reading when hopes were so high. Guess what newspaper he’s cited.
Second ex-Beeboid: I’d rather the job went to the best person/company. If anyone TH knew or had worked with was excluded from consideration for any post I’d consider that a Bad Thing. Reading the article, it appears that the proper procedures were followed. After all, doing things the right way gave us Entwistle! And why do you apologise for quoting the Daily Mail – that only gives credence to the view that we’re all lefties.
YCMIU.
Well those two responses will, so far, ensure that the picket line here needs not be split just yet.
The reply (that’s currently ‘the’ reply – putting it on par with the BBC ‘The Editors’, vs. certain sites no one reads or pays attention to) to this one may see a swerve, mind…
http://www.ex-bbc.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1376558610
Or maybe another cubicle needed soon?
Sadly, nothing inspired by this one:
http://www.ex-bbc.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1375266569
But it’s all kicking off here at least:
http://www.ex-bbc.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1371915815
And it seems they too, can effect change, and outside of ‘channels’.
Bravo.
ps: I’d love to know the basis on which ‘gender’ is felt necessary to have an opinion.
‘…ps: I’d love to know the basis on which ‘gender’ is felt necessary to have an opinion….’
“Check your privilege” – coming shortly to a BBC near you..
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jun/05/check-your-privilege-means
You’ve lost control of this site. Do away with the open thread and then perhaps people will stick to the issues you raise instead of their own irrelevant ego trips!
This ‘you’ve’ being?
Maybe better directed to site owners?
Who can acknowledge your views, however at variance from other ‘people’s’ reality, and indeed facts they may be.
Assuming ‘you’ are you, of course.
No, the open threads are often where new ideas and interesting analysis of BBC bias can be found. This one is full of good individual contributions. Why would you want to severely limit this to the opinions of a single person?
Topical threads are clearly not immune from personal rants which have nothing to do with BBC bias, or getting hijacked with name-calling exchanges with some defender of the indefensible, so your logic fails there.
In these uncertain times while the masquerade ball is in full flow still, it may serve more now than ever to only read the words and then wonder what they may mean or who they may serve?
‘Sticking to the issues’ selected by editorial may seem an appealing prospect to a unique few, but that would of course remove any citizen journalism scoops that may be discovered, and so many diamonds always reward the effort of panning.
Except, maybe, to those who don’t want them found.
Are you the real Doh or a fake one? So difficult to tell these days.
‘Doh!’
In one pith-packed sentence, you’ve destroyed all those carefully thought-out, fact-based examples of bias in this thread. Phew! How do you do it? Respec’, man, an all that……
P.S. Any chance of calling yourself Pith Packer in future?
“A new ‘Battle of Britain’? Caving in to the anti-fracking fanatics is a craven surrender to mob rule”
By CHRISTOPHER BOOKER
-who appropriately gives BBC a dishonourable mention.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2397518/Caving-anti-fracking-fanatics-craven-surrender-mob-rule-says-CHRISTOPHER-BOOKER.html
“Fracking: tiny protests, major panics”
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/fracking_tiny_protests_major_panics/13935
I have just ordered my own DIY fracking machine thingy from Amazon, It should be here tomorrow (special delivery). Once set up in the garden I will have free gas for life. Mind you a couple of good pickled onions can usually set me off with enough methane to keep the bedroom warm on a cold night. And I know it won’t please the Greens but then they have the same effect on me as the onions.
Anyway, if Ms Lucas or any other ladies under 75 want to come and protest in my garden they can. I shall be pleased to explain that they can come in for a cup of tea, and so on, but only one at a time at my age.
Now you may wonder what this has to do with the BBC and if you don’t wonder then I’m sure those annoying little trolls will. The thing is, if the BBC doesn’t like my fracking what do they propose to do about keeping me and the Mrs warm in winter when that expensive Russian gas runs out or, Haly Hackbar blows up the pipe line? It’s for sure a few windmills won’t keep 60 million of us snug and warm on a freezing cold windless night.
As Booker says at the end ‘And the day when Britain simply runs out of power will draw ever nearer’.
Every time I see the socialist ecoloons dominating the debate on the BBC I wonder whether we as a nation will wake up in time to make sure Booker’s fears do not materialise.
If we don’t, the BBC will have to take a large share of the blame – and hopefully they’ll be suable.
Just listened to nauseatingly uncritical eulogy to Indian poet Tagore! They even read one of his peoms in Bengali! How ridiculous on Radio Four. Surely this should be for the Wotrld Service or Asian network?
http://allpoetry.com/Rabindranath_Tagore
We licencepayers will be subjected to more and more of this.
Oooooops!
Time for some sports news. Hope Powell – remember her?, the England Wimmins Football Manager who the BBC had been ramming down our throats all year. She, the one the BBC were speculating could step into and manage a Football League team. Well as you probably know by now, after 15 years of achieving almost eff all, she’s been sacked.
When the news came in you could feel Five Live start to bristle with indignation. Even worse they interviewed, England player Rachael Unitt who said Powell had her favourites and for the future she’d prefer a MAN to manager the side.
A MAN? asked the indignant Beeboid, a la Lady Bracknell, forcing Unitt to defend herself. Not politically compliant and not what the BBC wanted to hear.
Oooooops!
Should/Would have happened years ago for her cliquey selection, outmoded tactics and incredibly poor ‘person’ management’ – leaving aside the poor results when it came down to the crunch. Natasha Dowie, top scorer in the league, incredible goals to matches ratio, but unwilling to genuflex/kiss St Hope’s ring or anything else? (Yes related to Iain but comparatively more like Shearer!) not selected for the Euros because she can only play in one position and (Hope likes us to be more flexible ):Quote from a squad member on 5Live prior to the tournament.
Any one who watched the matches will be shuddering in horror at Hope’s advice from the touchline – “Get stuck in” and assorted cliches from Sunday League.
Hopelless at her job, over promoted for all the wrong pc reasons and retained beyond reason (1- 0 up, 5 mins to go substitute both fullbacks for ‘flexible’ forwards (wanted too let her faves have a taste of glory? resulting in late equaliser loss in extra time!)- Person of colour, lesbian, woman – to be found subsequently in most influential women UK top 50.
This manipulative empire building woman through jer intimidation via pc top trumps legacy will be setting the England team back 10 years despite the huge improvement in womens’ football.
Can only imagine how much the payoff was to avoid the tribunal from multiple anglwes
Expect her to pop up as an ‘expert summariser’ on the BBC anytime soon
Cock on!
sorry for typos – fat fingers, eyesight, impatience
Women’s hockey with male coach doing great
On the day in which INBBC’s chums, Islamic Al Jazeera, (owned by Muslim Brotherhood-supporting, Emirate of Qatar) launches Islamic ‘Al Jazeera America’ TV Channel:-
“OOPS? AL JAZEERA AIRS FOOTAGE OF APPARENTLY INJURED PROTESTER MIRACULOUSLY GETTING BETTER”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/20/on-week-of-u-s-launch-embarrassing-video-surfaces-showing-al-jazeera-airing-apparently-fake-protester-footage/
That’s a bit like a carry on film.
Hows about carry on up the Nile?
Could the Evil Brits in their Kilts , the burpahs have done the deed, led by bunged it in?
Only Sid fucking James is missing from that scene.
“Only Sid fucking James is missing from that scene.”
I’m sure Stephen Fry is working up a protest as we speak.
He may be working it up somewhere.
Children/Bonuses
make up your effen mind.
LOL very funny !
The PM program interviewing a Russian on Gay issues.
“You should perhaps respect the views of those who disagree with you ?”
Pardon? did I hear that correctly? When are the BBC going to begin to respect the views of people who disagree with them?
Exactly how much “respect” was afforded to Isinbayeva’s dissenting opinions last week by the oh-so tolerant armies of the righteous ? Yup, just so: it’s our old friend the one-way street wheeled out once more.
As ‘belief’ is all the rage now, this introduction on my FaceBook page cranked an eyebrow..
‘BBC World News
Professor Ramadan, a Muslim theologian whose grandfather is one of the founding members of the Muslim Brotherhood, told the BBC’s Mishal Husain that he does not believe that its members are behind the recent attacks on Coptic churches.’
It linked to this:
To be fair, Ms. Husain did get a word in edgeways at one point to probe this headline statement a bit further, but it seems… unfortunate… that he was basically dominating from lead in to cut off.
Leaving the casual viewer, especially the main sampled text, with what impression?
Be interesting (if FOI-exempted) to know who edits these efforts these days.
Amazed the fascist bigot agreed to be interviewed by a woman – unless of course he thought he might make ‘Dishy Mishy’ – seems to have changed her name a few times – his next wife. Culturally does she feel able to fully challenge this type of misogynist nutter?
Tariq Ramadan (whose family founded Muslim Brotherhood) is a long-time INBBC reference point for all things Islamic; and, of course , now INBBC’s newly promoted Muslim, Ms Husain, extends his Islamic political game.
“Tariq Ramadan Fantasizes: ‘Je Suis Européen De Culture’.”
By Hugh Fitzgerald.
[Excerpt]:-
“But Islam, that collectivist faith that teaches and enforces, sometimes murderously, mental submission, that discourages free and skeptical inquiry, that narrowly limits the possible ways of artistic expression, that is crude and primitive in its every aspect, represents everything European culture has not been; it is the un-Europe, the anti-Europe, the thing which may, if its adherents are not checked in time, undo Europe — with help from the snake-like Tariq Ramadan, who believes himself to be ‘européen de culture.'”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/50050
For INBBC’s promoted Muslim, Ms Husain:-
“TARIQ RAMADIN”
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1884
Tariq Ramadan.
More on INBBC’s Islamic chum, TARIQ RAMADAN:-
“Tariq Ramadan:
Mohamed Merah not ‘driven by racism and anti-Semitism'”
(2012).
http://hurryupharry.org/2012/03/24/tariq-ramadan-mohamed-merah-not-driven-by-racism-and-anti-semitism/
Talking of the Muslim Brotherhood:-
“MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD CAIR-CANADA STRONG-ARMS HOTEL TO CANCEL PAMELA GELLER/ ROBERT SPENCER EVENT”
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/08/muslim-brotherhood-cair-canada-strong-arms-hotel-to-cancel-pamela-geller-robert-spencer-event.html
That could have read –
“Heinrich Himmler, the head of the SS, told Der Sturmer’s Julius Streicher that he does not believe his members are behind any so-called ‘final solution’. ‘It is all Jewish lies’, he added.”
We are typically moving towards the situation whereby the two unfortunate girls in Peru are portrayed as being BBC “innocent” (because they say so) and that the judicial system of Peru cannot be trusted to deliver the “right” result and their gaols are horrid horrid horrid. R5 on now 1845 Tuesday with Fair Trials Abroad and some bloke who was “innocent” saying how desperately rubbish their system in Peru is …….
I can never understand the bBBC approach on this subject. In their corporate view, for everything else, foreigners are better than British, except – apparently – when it comes to holding British criminals in their jails. Could some leftie beeboid please explain?
I’m not a lefty beeboid but my take on it is that they get beeb brownie points :
1. just for being ‘vulnerable’ wimmin.
2. the beeb hates the idea of countries trying to actually stop drug taking and trafficking.
3. being Scots/N. Irish is better than being English.
Just a swift observation about the two young female drug traffickers in Peru (which the BBC seem determined to have us believe are as innocent as Angels, natch).
These shit hole jails the BBC keep managing to get access to along with interviews with inmates that inform us how there is no respect for yuman rights. But by God, they never, ever want to go back.
Can’t help thinking that if our jails adopted a bit of the “shit hole” approach maybe they would have a similar deterring effect?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23769524
A balanced look at the gender pay gap in which five women and one man are asked for their thoughts on whether the state should enforce equal pay for unequal work.
Once again the highest rated comments tell their own story, the readers have had enough of the gynocentric egotism of the BBC.
“The reaction to David Miranda’s detention is completely ridiculous”
By Douglas Murray.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2013/08/the-reaction-to-david-mirandas-detention-is-completely-ridiculous/
I agree. Since when is ‘man who may be in possession of stolen property gets detained by the police for 18 hours’ a front page story?!?
Jeff
Well done Louise, what a Mensch. And thanks for bitch-slapping the BBC and the vacuous Victoria Derbyshire.
This is still top story for the BBC across all its outlets.
Just to be categoric –
In today’s UK press on;ly the Guardian had this on the front page.
It did not even get a mention on the front page of :
The Times
The Independent
The Telegraph
The Mirror
The Daily Mail
The Financial Times
The Daily Express
The Sun
The Star.
I cannot think of a clearer example of the BBC being led by the nose, day after day, by the Guardian. Promoting lots of falsehoods, whining about an obvious accomplice in attempts to damage British security. If Miranda has any guts he will stay in Britain, But I expect he will scuttle back under his stone.
BBC News Channel 10.30pm review of Wednesday’s front pages – only the Guardian leads on Miranda – they start the review with the Independent (would be too obvious to start with the Guardian) but ignore the big headlined story & go to ,the side column story about the government & Rushbridger.
I heard something on Radio 4 this morning that absolutely shocked me. Apparently over 20,000 British citizens die every winter due to “fuel poverty”. This seemed so extraordinary I didn’t believe it, but after a little googling, it would appear to be true. This is an annual expectation.
It will be mainly the elderly. ie those that risked most to defend this country during its darkest hour. Due to the poisonous politics of Westminster we’re far more concerned about looking charitable than looking after our own people.
We’re shovelling billions abroad to countries that have nuclear weapons and a space program whilst OUR people freeze to death.
Better get fracking then!
Greens know all this – infact, it’s a deliberate part of their strategy in opposing all fossil fuel (the cheapest, most readily-available and efficient form of energy).
One might reasonably imagine they’d feel ashamed of their duplicitous behaviour in opposing such things as fracking (which promises abundant energy at cheaper prices for all – especially for the poor and the elderly – for decades to come) instead of ‘protesting’ against it on spurious, scientifically unproven grounds – but in the end this is just not about ‘renewables’; this is about a grim socialist, Malthusian agenda (oh yes, don’t imagine for one moment that Greens don’t support, to a man (or woman) the hysterical claims of the over-population doomsayers) – an agenda which priorities ‘Mother Earth’ above the essential needs of society’s poorest and most vulnerable and views all of humanity as a pernicious virus to be eradicated (except, one presumes, for themselves).
The BBC don’t report it, but at the Conference of the Parties (CoP) climate jamborees the usual suspects (Greenpeace, WWF and Oxfam to name but a few) can be found lobbying their common purpose chums in the UN to introduce legislation creating international ‘climate courts’ to try anyone they deem to have ‘offended’ against the supreme rights of Mother Earth. I kid you not. This is a fact.
Greens = watermelons. Green on the outside, Red on the inside.
UN Agenda 21, a blueprint for a not-too-distant future totalitarian world eco-socialist government, includes proposals for licensing people to have children.
And we all know who the ‘chosen few’ would be…….
Try explaining that proposal at your friendly local mosque.
Dear Jeff,
Thank you for your recent application for an exec producers job at al-beeba. I have noted your concern for the ageing population, especially those in fuel poverty.
Our HR HO dept has rejected your application, as such views as those could only emanate from the Daily Fail.
By the way, David Bellamy and Johnny Ball thought the same way as you, look what happened to them! Boom boom.
Viewpoints: Should equal gender pay be enforced? – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23769524
Another politically unbiased article brought to you by the BBC.
The article doesn’t explore whether differences is pay between men and women might have nothing to do with discrimination…
Jeff
The BBC are too detached from the real world of work to understand that there are factors other than discriminatory ones which dictate levels of pay.
FOI inquiry to the BBC comparing average salaries for men and women?
Top Boy on C4. Cracking drama, and scary. Would NEVER get made by the Beeb – too un PC.
How the bBC loves to play devils advocates with a cake tray full of Double entendres.
The Great British Bake Off
“Ali loves to combine flavours that reflect his travels and his culture, pushing himself to invent new baking hybrids.”
Of course Ali loves to show off his cultural skills. I mean here is what the bBC has to say about him:
“He lives with his family in Birmingham. He’s been baking for four years and is the only one in his family who bakes. His favourite things to bake are tarts, specifically his white chocolate crème brulee tart.”
Gee a good Pakistani boy who love white tarts, Gosh you’ve got to love the British sense of subtle humour ,nice jumper by the way, i wonder if the bBC would have allowed somebody to wear a union flag one, never mind an Israeli one.
The bBC, the traitors within your midst
thanks Pounce – trouble is you have spoiled the Bake Off for me. Whilst I had realised that there had to be some ethnic minority contestants – I hadn’t realised the significance of Ali’s pully.
“i wonder if the bBC would have allowed somebody to wear a union flag one,” You have seen “The Great British Bake-Off” right? Most of the set is covered in Union flags. They’ve had Union flag cakes. Contestants in red, white and blue would be encouraged not banned.
The BBC wonders if a republican born in Canada could run for the US Presidency
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-23771433
This article is quite humerous considering the view held by a significant minority of people that there is something strange about the way that Obama has obfuscated questions around his own birth certificate.
Perhaps more noteworthy is that the BBC only lists examples of political candidates from the republican side – I guess all democrats are automatically natural born in comparison due to their correct political views.
In this case it’s just the Beeboids having a giggle at the evil racist Republicans trying to gin up a way to promote a token Hispanic so they can pretend they’re not the party of old white America. They’re especially pleased with themselves because it would give them a chance to ridicule Cruz supporters whom they’re quite sure were racists who questioned whether or not The Obamessiah was a natural born American.
Notice that Gheoghegan doesn’t dare ask the question of how wise is it to elevate to the White House a newbie, first-term Senator with no administrative experience.
Also notice that Gheoghegan is either ignorant or reading ignorant sources when he claims that Alexander Hamilton wouldn’t have been eligible for being born in the West Indies to non-American parents. There’s an extra bit about being a citizen of the US “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” specifically because only a moron would make a law forbidding everybody alive at the time from becoming President. Hamilton would never have won an election, though, as he had pissed off some influential people and had some controversial views, not the least of which was the desire to have a system with a President-for-Life.
As usual, don’t trust the BBC on US issues. Especially when Presidents and Presidential politics are involved.
And speaking of correct politics, heres another funny BBC article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23772194
This one asks if we should judge people from the past over their moral ‘failings’.
The article is hilariously blind to the implications of history for current left-wing/liberal thought, though the author does ponder if in future people will look back and blame us for our views on the environment or on poverty – both causes that are of course strongly championed by the leftists that the BBC itself employs.
If I didn’t know that the BBC is impressively neutral on all matters, it would almost seem as if the article is a thinly-veiled attack on current non-liberal thought; and I must say with such strong arguments as presented here its a wonder anyone still fails to toe the BBC moral line.
I’d like to point out that the ancestral Bugs looked nothing like the filthsome proto-pikeys in the piccie accompanying the article, but in fact were wearing smoking jackets, Church’s brogues, and moleskin trousers way back in prehistory. No waving crude spears about either: having invented an early form of field gun, my forbears are generally held responsible for the extinction of not just the woolly mammoth, sabre-tooth tiger and Gigantic Masurian Stoat but most of their human neighbours also.
From Richard Toyes Twitter Account….And this link below is Richard Toye from the Daily Mail tonight on Winston Churchills speeches…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2398032/Winston-Churchills-wartime-speeches-did-inspire-thought-drunk-famous-finest-hour-address-claims-academic.html
We find the BBC’s “Horrible Histories” so called “Historical Consultant” Greg Jenner calling, what one could only presume the Biased BBC blog an “EDL supporting website”
Greg Jenner @greg_jenner 40m
@RichardToye yes, we on Horrible Histories have been accused of commie propaganda by an anti-BBC EDL-supporting website. Odd.
Collapse
1:50 PM – 20 Aug 13 · Details
Expand the conversation from 1.50 P.M. where Jenna is calling Toye a “Communist”.. I.E.
@greg_jenner Although I had not previously known that Exeter was a commie hotbed. I guess whne you’re a fish you don’t notice water.
Tweets by RichardToye
Exeter again. That university where Israel can always be sure of a sympathetic hearing. A truly appalllng place.
So politically correct even the trees bend to the left.
Oh dear, I appear to upset the liberal chattering classes. Yes the civil right champions who remain silent on:
Islamic rape gangs
Islamic terrorists,
Leftwing arseholes dancing at the death of a former PM
The reasons why Spain is pushing the Gibraltar issue (graft)
Any country which has a gripe with the Uk
Any MCB wanker who promotes the killing of British service men
FGM
Terrorist attacks on Israel
and the rest
Gets upset over how I an ex muslim (Which entails a death sentence from the bBCs fav religion of peace) got angry over how 2 Muslims (yes Muslims) Murdered a British soldier in broad daylight on the streets of the capital.
But that’s just it, oh how they love to silence anybody who speaks ill of their favourite racist bigoted religion of Allah.
They silence white people by playing the racist card and you know what, you people do exactly that . They do this everytime and you people fall for it everytime. You people are not racist, Islam isn’t a race, its a gay death cult. Not only that but arse bandit Dez (Oh he’s Scott by the way, he gave himself away by his love of strictly dancing or what ever its called) will hit a thread at the begining and you folks not willing to be seen as racist will discust the subject at hand, In this case, Is pounce a racist? Err, I’m married to a white redhead, how the hell can I be racist. My family are white. My boy is white, (OK he’s olive) But hey cunts like Dez ensure that people who gravitate to this blog see only what they want them see.
Pounce is racist and numerous posts about how posters to this blog are racist.
What makes me laugh is how people like you jump to Scotts agenda of disinformation. He’s playing you for fools and in your attempts to not be seen as racist you dance to his merry tune. Be yourself, don’t bother trying to defend others whom Nancy boy attacks. Leave him be. Let be honest here, if these wankers really despised everybody on this blog, they wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole. But yet they post here.
Ask yourself the question Why?
I frequently ask that same question, why would an organisation that runs a £4 billion protection racket, not set up and finance a team of saboteurs.
My answer is they would be dumb not to.
I try to urge folks not to feed the trolls, whether false flag ir not.
The threads are allowed to descend into depths of arguing sweet fuck all by those who wish to engage with the trolls, however mistakenly.
DO NOT feed trolls guys.
Trolls can be starved or shot but never fed.
( the ‘shot’ metaphor s derived from the old monkey on back management training.)
I agree .Why do they post?
If we are so dreadful they should not soil their hands with us.
I can see no reason to engage with them. They have nothing to say any more that I need to hear.
This is a culture war not a debating society.
The liberal elite does not like pushback. It assumes it has the moral high ground and that those who are conservative and counter liberal are morally deficient or just plain evil.
They need to take the beams out of their own eyes and look at the moral devastation they are bringing to our society and to our children’s world.
It is time to turn our backs on them and wait for the pendulum to swing.
My question isn’t so much about why do they post, but why do it here and not at major websites which get serious attention and have influence? And why do we never see any of our friends tearing the likes of Rod Liddle or Charles Moore or Ed West or James Delingpole or Janet Daley (etc., etc.) a new one every time they say the exact same thing about BBC bias people here say?
Perhaps we’re more influential than we thought…
(Wait for the put-down.)
Ok, time to re-parapet again.
Pounce, if this is indeed you*, when you post calmly and factually with links and insights based on experience I will never have, they are some of the most insightful and useful counters to BBC bias and inaccuracy on this forum, for which I am grateful. And more than happy to add my ‘like’ to those of many others.
But as a passionate defender of free speech, unlike some I am sure you will be first to acknowledge my right to have another view on occasion, or even point out when things don’t really work as well for me. For example:
‘you people do exactly that . They do this everytime and you people fall for it everytime.’
When others do this I often raise a flag, as I do here. Who, exactly, is ‘you people’ on a forum comprised of simply a bunch of independently-minded… people? And where posts should only matter for what is written, the power of argument, etc.
Now I can live with such expression. Just sayin’… in passing… for me it represents compromise to the power of any other point being made.
Which is why I raise it with the Flokk Staffel when they can’t resist illogically claiming that their presence here as posters sets them somehow apart as posters about the site but not on it.
If that for you places me in the same camp as pNG, PNG, etc, there’s irony aplenty.
*Speaking of what is said being all that should matter, I do however remain more than concerned at the evident ongoing compromises that exist to associations with who might be saying it.
Mood swings and errant posts are not unheard of, but sometimes I find myself thinking ‘Woah… that’s out of character’. Plus bracing for the penalty such open goals present.
My IT knowledge is limited, but I recall signing up with a name associated with an email (can’t recall if it was confirmed). Ages ago there was a glitch where I ended up as ‘My Site (click to edit)’, and so did a few others too, which was more than confusing. That, luckily, was resolved. I can also vaguely grasp how those who would wish to mess about can cycle names at whim. Less sure on emails associated, especially in cases of bannings (that are clearly not), but that’s rolled into proxy server stuff I guess.
Where I remain totally confused, and concerned, is where a person can become another by hijacking their name, which is what appears on screen above the post. How is that possible? It happened when I was debating a Dr. Foster, and now has happened again with Albaman. Who is to say this cannot happen to all of us? And if the best defence is a threat to ‘hunt down and ban’ (like that works) or a ‘please don’t’, the concern for me remains.
As to starving trolls, it’s a nice theory, but I’ve seen promising threads poisoned or clogged by human waves, and posters driven away just as much by engaging. I have also seen those who tell others to resist succumb too.
I seem to recall demonstrating a while back how easily I could post using your name, GW. I won’t go into detail here as to what you need to do, as I’d hate to encourage others, but rocket science it ain’t.
And I would add that I don’t think Pounce helps himself or this site with intemperate language, however justified his grievance.
‘I seem to recall’
I don’t (age a terrible thing, but I must have been disconcerted to say the least, which is why it’s odd to forget), but appreciate why pointing to a saboteur’s instruction manual may not be wise.
If the ability is easy, maybe the means to prevent its repetition is too?
And I would add that pounce is perfectly entitled to express himself any which way he wants. His contributions are superb.
The BBC tells us via anecdote how we should react if a black teenager kills a loved one:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23716713
This cretin’s complete lack of desire for justice for his grandmother is not even worthy of any scathing analysis; it would be like punching a retarded child because he did something stupid.
Say, how about when two black teenagers do it (with what appears to be a white accomplice) (google the Australian coverage)?
Aren’t we the lucky ones, that this isn’t REALLY a racially motivated killing, owing to the presence of the white kid– why, can’t you see the outcry from the white community of no-justice-no-peace, being aided and abetted by the MSM, such as the Beeb (who cannot be arsed to show us the photos, nor provide any possible motive for choosing a white victim besides “We wuz bored.”?)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23771858
Me neither.
Something strange about the identification here, various blogs are showing pictures with all three murderers being black:
http://www.amren.com/news/2013/08/pictured-teens-who-shot-dead-australian-student-in-the-street-because-they-were-bored/
No, no, no. It’s about gunz. If law-abiding citizens didn’t have so many guns, these kids would still be home playing My Little Pony games.
Photos have now been added to the Beeb’s report. The trial of De’Marquise Elkins has started. This is another one we need not worry about because the motive was attempted robbery. The BBC’s report of the arrests has no photos of the suspects.
I wonder if Doreen Lawrence has a view on that.
Newsnight, the story of the hopeless performance of Ed Milliband and his inability to get any message across. His message is partly concerning zero hours contracts the problems and issues of this peppered the whole program.
When it came to interviewing Chucker Umoon ahhhh, the subject wasn’t millipedes performance, it was back to zero hours contracts again.
So we now have the BBC pulling together to publicise what Millipede has failed to do. I expect as the pressure builds on the Labour leadership there will be more desperate policies which need promotion, and the BBC will be only too happy to oblige.
“Exclusive: Latest BBC scandal? Broadcaster ‘faces 140 allegations of bullying.’
“NUJ report claims scores of cases still unresolved despite review in wake of Savile revelations.”
By IAN BURRELL.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/exclusive-latest-bbc-scandal-broadcaster-faces-140-allegations-of-bullying-8777041.html?origin=internalSearch
Interestingly, Ask,fm, hounded by the MSM after essentially external issues mainly beyond their control (including possible self-inflicted victim behaviours) seems to have reacted quickly to the situation they found themselves in.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23752923
So it’s interesting that when one of those MSM pressing them has internal issues (one possibly leading to a suicide) too, over which they have much more rapid and extensive control, they seem less keen to move quickly or with determination. Months of fudge mainly.
‘A BBC spokesperson said…
F-all, per usual. Not what they tend to allow others to get away with.
Uniquely.
A snippet from Wednesday’s ‘The Times’ (£) frontpage :-
“Fracking will cut energy bills, says poverty chief”
By Tim Webb.
“Protesters against fracking risk worsening the plight of the five million households struggling to pay their energy bills, Britain’s official fuel poverty adviser has warned. Ministers have a ‘duty’ to promote the extraction of shale gas because it has the potential to drive down the cost of energy, according to the chairman of the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group. Derek Lickorish says that ‘the voice of the fuel poor has been lost in the current frenzy’ at Balcombe, West Sussex, where the energy company Cuadrilla Resources has been targeted by anti-fracking protesters. The company wants to resume drilling an oil exploration well in the next few days now that many of the activists who flocked to the picturesque village have gone home. ”
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/
Except that fracking won’t cut energy bills at all !
I’ll not expand on that because there’s a lot of typing to be done, suffice to say it’s all about the government and the way they’ve already decided any finds will be used.
‘I’ll not expand on that because there’s a lot of typing to be done’
After such a claim in the first sentence, one looks forward to that typing being done, and shared soon to see the facts and argument behind it.
Otherwise such trails mirror the BBC way of conveying information that often seems more opinion-driven than fact based.
It’s a long and complicated argument which would require more of my time that I’m prepared to put into it.
The gist of it though is that all of the gas extracted is earmarked for electricity generation where it will be supplied at market price with the profits going to the exchequer. The tax from the carbon (thanks Labour) will go onto domestic bills.
It will actually increase energy prices.
But it will give us energy security, bridge the looming energy gap and cut the deficit, points that those who believe in money trees and/or a medieval way of life, think are irrelevant.
I think the basic raw material cost should be the main factor looked at, not government gerrymandering of market prices and taxes, which undoubtedly adds confusion and costs. Also as johnny says above the security of supply is absolutely critical to this country. We are currently relying on Russian gas coming through thousands of miles of pipes through very unstable countries, a few old nuclear power stations and swindling North Sea reserves. I will not mention the windmills again, they are a useless plague on the countryside.
As for the BBC, and to be fair the other broadcasters, lending a sympathetic ear to the rabble protesting against fracking, they should be taken to one side and have their fortunes told PDQ by large patriotic men from the Met. To put the energy needs of this nation at risk due by a couple of has-been celebrities and a few dozen unwashed commies should be classed as treason. Even if there is a risk of earth tremors or other environmental damage, (none of it proven of course) it is a small price to pay. Even the Community Organiser currently usurping the position of President of the United States of America has given the green light to fracking. So it must be OK.
On the other hand the first bloated corporation to be shut down should be the BBC when the electric runs out.
“swindling North Sea reserves”
As Freudian typos go, that’s a good ‘un.
All you need to do to cut the deficit is to tax the evil bankers – then you can carry on frittering money away on any pet project that bribes votes
What’s missing from this article (it’s not on the BBC front page as a headline by the way, nor word service as a headline)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23771858
Pictures, of course!…Pictures of the perpetrators!
A little googling tells you allll you need to know….y’know, if Obama had 3 sons, they would be just like…
Now then, where are all those race hustlers we couldn’t get off the telly a few weeks ago?
‘What’s missing from this article’
Given evident confusion around the MSM on confirmed facts this may be a worthy omission at such a time, but rather highlights when the BBC rushes to speculate with the rest or… rushes to watertight oversight to ensure justice and rights are served.
I might add that, at time of my viewing, there are (now) pictures featured.
these guys were news yesterday late afternoon/early evening, pictures everywhere.
What does not add up so far though, is this…
Look at Micheal Jones on l1st link:
http://www.amren.com/news/2013/08/pictured-teens-who-shot-dead-australian-student-in-the-street-because-they-were-bored/
Now look at him on the 2nd link:
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/victoria/three-teens-charged-over-murder-of-melbourne-baseball-player-chris-lane/story-fnii5sms-1226700172461
WTF?
note tweet etc of Piers Morgan in that 2nd link. They’ll be another deportation poll soon.
Yes, because of course Piers, criminal murdering scumbags adhere to gun laws, don’t they, old bean?
Seriously, what is wrong with that mans brain?
Bit of a problem there mate!
Unlike Trayvon Martin, this will be swept under the carpet, black on white crime is off the scale.
The bBC and its daily message that their is only one god and his name is ‘Allah:
Latino Muslims: Hispanic Americans leaving Catholicism for Islam
With more than 50 million Hispanics living in the US, the Latino community is now the country’s biggest minority. While most are brought up within the Catholic Church, a number of them are turning to Islam.
Precise figures are difficult to pin down as the US Census does not collect religious data, but estimates for the number of Latino Muslims vary between 100,000 and 200,000. The BBC’s Katy Watson went to Union City in New Jersey – where the population is more than 80% Hispanic – to meet some converts.
Watch on how:
Islam is a victim, Non-Muslims just don’t understand and wait for it Proud Americans can only be…..Racist.
The bBC, the traitors within our midst
And here’s the same message from yesterday:
French brothers seek jihad in Syria
“The bBC, the traitors within our midst
Forgive me if I’m being a bit thick but why is it bBC and not BBC in your slogan? Don’t misunderstand me, I’m on your side, just don’t understand.
Replace their with there,sorry
How many of those Latino converts have stripy tans?
And just for balance, in the next bulletin I’m sure the Beeb will be interviewing some of the hundreds of thousands of Muslims converting to Christianity each year across the world. Perhaps making a special trip to visit them in one of the nice prisons where they put such people in Iran.
Anyway, so what if a few Latinos are going all Mohammedan? From the first article linked: “According to research carried out by the respected Pakistani-born American Muslim Dr. Ilyas Ba-Yunus (1932 – 2007), 75% of New Muslim Converts in the US leave Islam within a few years.”
The story has also been run on Radio 4’s “The World Tonight” (21 August).
Putting the BBC’s most optimistic spin on this, the converts represent 0.4% maximum of the Hispanics. Starting from such a low base it is hardly surprising if the numbers are ‘increasing’. I do question why Katy Watson sounds so enthusiastic about it though, hardly a mass movement is it?
Maybe they are the ‘right’ sort of Hispanics? Spanish speaking in the USA, ‘good’, (let’s get rid of English!), Roman Catholics, very, very ‘bad’. Muslim converts? Very, very ‘good’.
Shame Zimmerman hadn’t converted that would have complicated things with St Trayyon Obama wouldn’t have known which way to jump let alone the BBC
Thoughtful comment on the magazine section of the BBC news website: “Should we judge people of past eras for moral failings?” (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23772194). The subject relates to moral relativism (belief in which is de rigeur at the BBC), expressed in the questions of whether it is right to judge our ancestors by our own moral standards and how will future generations judge us. Some it is slightly ironic; for instance it quotes Kant: “Women should leave reasoning to men. And they are not fit for serious employment. Happily not sentiments one hears very often these days.” Well, actually we do hear these sentiments on the BBC, expressed by the more reactionary Muslim elements that they are keen to promote. We also have a couple of examples to help us think ‘correctly’: the treatment of computer pioneer Alan Turing over his homosexual behaviour and whether Britain should apologise for its role in slavery. And when it comes to the future, it is helpfully suggested that our descendants might castigate us for our treatment of the environment, our acceptance of poverty and our treatment of animals (no references to ritual slaughter of course). How very dull and unimaginative. Here’s some other things that future people might be shocked by:
(1) The imposition of a tax on citizens to permit them to watch television. (2) The belief that it is appropriate to have different standards and laws for people depending on their ethnicity and religion. (3) The creation of supra-national government entities without the authority of the people, run by unelected officials. (4) The use of hyper-immigration to change the population of countries. (5) Moral relativism.
If there is a future.
This was an agenda posing as a nice philosophical question. The closing line gave the game away:
What else might our descendants condemn us for? If enough of us know the answer to that today, we really have no excuse but to act on it today.
And the BBC will be right there to tell you the answer and shame you into acting.