279 Responses to Open Thread Tuesday

  1. Alex says:

    I see the BBC, with its ever-burgeoning quota of ethnic minority reporters, just had to ‘slip in’ a mention of Travor Martin in its gushing coverage of the Obamas’ attendance at the Martin Luther King commemorations. The colour of your skin (so long as you have the right colour, of course) is more important than whether you’re competent at your job.


    • Aerfen says:

      Talking of ethnic minority reporters I was stunned tonight to see on Channel Four news, a b***** hijab clad reporter! No face covering – yet!

      Channel 4 is every bit as bad as the BBC.


      • Rufus McDufus says:

        And C4 also receives a certain amount of TV licence cash too don’t forget.


      • Alex says:

        Yeah, Channel 4 really is a disgusting extremist Left-wing propaganda outlet. If ever you needed a model of an overgrown, left-wing, middle-class self-loathing liberal, Jon Snow would suffice excellently. Its metro-trendy decision to air call to prayer made very close to slamming the TV set out of the window.


    • Rufus McDufus says:

      Which is pretty much exactly what MLK didn’t preach. Seems his message has got hijacked.


    • Sir Arthur Strebe-Grebling says:

      “I have a dream”, Martin Luther King Jr, 28 Aug 1963

      “I have a drone”, Barack Hussein Obama, 28 Aug 2013


  2. Jeff says:

    I feel as though I have over dosed on Martin Luther King today. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard the familiar, “I have a dream…”speech. All very emotive and superb rhetoric and very worthy but now some xxxxhead has linked it to the “innocent slaying of black teenager Trayvon Martin”. You just knew it was going to happen. Alas no-one at the Beeb or Channel 4 points out that the boy was actually a violent racist thug and the last person doctor King would have wanted to be associated with. It’s just poisonous and dangerous propaganda. Still, they’ve never let that stop them.


  3. Mark says:

    Oh, just something I’ve noticed from two Guardian journalists recently and therefore will no doubt be bounced up (or is it down?) to the BBC.

    Its the new “Let immigrants stop working for one day and see how London can function” argument.

    Which is rather like someone stealing your washing machine when you’re asleep replacing it with one you didn’t want or ask for and if you complain saying “If you don’t like it I’ll take it away and then what will you do?”

    Wait till the immigration issues comes closer at election time and it will pop up I bet you. It may be a good opportunity to see where the BBC get its arguments from.


    • chrisH says:

      Oh I love this idea.
      I`ve often hoped that Christians would all scoot off from their voluntary, charity stuff on Easter Saturday to show the world what life without Christians would be like.
      As it is, if the Guides stuff and Buttiglioni are anything to go by…it`s all happening anyway.
      The Church should roll up its tents and let it rip…let Dawkins lot take in the homeless for example.
      Could be fun.


    • uncle bup says:

      Its the new “Let immigrants stop working for one day and see how London can function” argument.

      Ah yes ‘they do the jobs the British don’t want to do’.

      You have ten million people of working age ‘economically inactive’ and you have an economy that creates 2.5 million jobs. Immigration is only the answer if you are an utterly rank excuse for a government.

      Tony, Gordon, John, Alastair, Alistair, Peter, Harriet – take a bow pals.


      • Sir Arthur Strebe-Grebling says:

        But it was win-win for Labour. Their beloved doleites still got paid (by us) for doing nothing, and they could import millions of workers who would also vote Labour.


        • Albaman says:

          More sweeping generalistions!!

          What evidence can you present that shows that the unemployed predominately vote labour (or that the long term unemployed/unemployable even vote)? Does that mean that those on the right, and in work, would sudddenly become labour voters when made unemployed and vice versa?

          Bearing in mind current UK legislation on voting entitlement how many immigrants are actually allowed to vote in a General Election?


          • Arthur Penney says:

            You could read This paper which looks at voting patterns by class from 1964 to 1997.


            • Albaman says:

              What does class have to do with your generalisation as to how the unemployed vote?

              Are you not going to answer the question on immigrants and voting entitlement?


              • Guest Who says:

                ‘Are you not going to answer the question’
                Now that’s comedy.


              • Arthur Penney says:

                I was not asked the question. I provided evidence to show how class affects voting patterns – or didn’t you bother reading the paper or looking at the diagrams? Or are you now so embarrassed that evidence has been produced refuting your ill-thought-out rantings?


          • Sir Arthur Strebe-Grebling says:

            Ethnic minority voters could hold key to 2015 general election result.
            Operation Black Vote study reveals problem for Tories as they struggle to connect with black and Asian voters.
            According to one new estimate, the change in Britain’s ethnic makeup may already be enough to cost David Cameron the next election.

            I’ve taken these quotes from a comic that will be very familiar from the bBBC corridors: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/11/ethnic-minority-votes-decisive-general-election


    • Ian Rushlow says:

      A favourite cliched line rolled out by liberals is that “the NHS would collapse if there were no immigrants working in it”. As it might also, for instance, if there were no left-handed people or people with blue eyes working in it. The implicit racism in the liberal viewpoint is that it is okay to exploit immigrants on the basis that society makes “a profit” on it i.e. they provide more services than they consume. A similar warped attitude was displayed in the fantastic claim that “the population is ageing and we need immigrants to look after us when we are old”. In essence, mass immigration from the Third World and poorer parts of Eastern Europe is no more than a legal sanitised version of slavery repackaged in a way that liberals can feel comfortable with, big business can benefit from and Labour can collect voters from.


    • Joshaw says:

      “Its the new “Let immigrants stop working for one day and see how London can function” argument.”

      That would be a fair question if you removed ALL immigrants from the equation, working and non working, providers and consumers.

      Last time I was in King’s College Hospital, waiting for my wife and observing the goings on, it was certainly clear that many of the employees were immigrants (in the widest sense), but a hell of a lot of the patients were as well.

      The fact remains, London survived for centuries without an influx on this recent scale.


  4. F*** The Beeb says:

    Just listening to Midweek Final Score, which included a news update on the Syria situation. It made it clear that there will be no direct intervention from the UK until or unless the UN confirms the reports on chemical weapon use (which is obviously a good thing) but Labour, the same party that led us into war in Iraq without waiting for the UN’s confirmation on WMDs, is now claiming victory on changing the government’s stance and the BBC report agreed with this, not even considering that maybe the government listened to internal pressures brought on by the public. No, it must be Labour’s work. Labour’s brass neck is amazing, criticising the Tories over not being able to handle the immigration crisis that Labour caused, and now this crap.


  5. Gunn says:

    The BBC reports on a science experiment that they think supports left-liberal ideas on the evils of money, and the good of global exchange:


    This struck me as the journalist doing the report being an idiot, so I decided to check the abstract of the study in question:


    Where we learn that what the study actually demonstrates is that as groups become too large for homogeneous behaviour to be expected (e.g. different cultures etc), the only way that cooperation within the group is stable is through the adoption of money.

    Pretty much the opposite of what the BBC article tells us.

    I don’t know if this is because the BBC employs idiots or dissemblers, but its sad that one has to go back to original sources to gather the information to determine what the truth is – you’d think thats why professional journalists get paid for what they do, but I guess I must have just read that somewhere…


    • pah says:

      Another case of ‘know your history’. In the 1800s a number of religious communities sprung up in the USA that ran on effectively communist ideals – shared property, everyone works, everyone profits etc.

      They all functioned admirably until they hit a population trigger (in the low 20’s IIRC) when it was possible for malingerers and ne’er do wells to profit but not work. So yes communism does work but only if there are 20 of you … which seems to me to be what Stalin was aiming at – reducing the Russian population from 100 million to 20 people …


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        The Shakers had a different obstacle regarding their population, but otherwise, yeah.


  6. chrisH says:

    Would recommend a Dorset Town Crier I heard on a radio station reading the “I have a dream speech” in a voice that screams comedy gold .
    Think it was called Wessex FM and on their 4p.m news.
    Think we all need to read the speech in our local dialects, and put it over the footage of MLK.
    Can I do “Blowing in the Wind” in my Prince Charles impression over Bobs bit?…it was once rated “crap” in 1987 at a dinner party and am keen to improve?


  7. Gunn says:

    Scientists in violent agreement about why the earth hasn’t warmed in the last 15 years, the BBC excitedly reports:


    I was struck by the 100% consensus of the scientists who discussed this amazing (and in hindsight, obvious) reason – thats even better than the 97% who believe in AGW!

    Now we just have to wait for the scientists to refit all their models to fit the full history of data that we have, and we can rest assured that their outputs will once again be reliable for the next 50-100 years out.

    I’m glad science is so cool, a happy group hug of people in total, absolute, undeniable agreement. Not only does it warm the planet, it warms the heart too 🙂


    • Arthur Penney says:

      It might explain the current failure to increase temperatures – but has the same model been applied to previous years when the temperature went up?

      In other words – why has the pacific heat sink just been turned on?

      PS – when did you see the last climate change forecast when the results observed were greater than the forecast? If the models were accurate(ish) there would be as many ‘over’ as ‘under’ results.


    • Adi says:

      Saint Al is already warming the planet by firing coal for his many daily BBQs. If you wondered why there is lasagna with donkey meat in it and where all that beef went–just look at Saint Al.


    • johnnythefish says:

      I wonder if it ever dawns on these BBC numbnuts when they are typing out this crap that they are effectively saying the science isn’t ‘settled’ after all?

      ‘Professor Essex called for “free and open debate on all aspects of climate science, even where hypotheses are put forward for examination that openly contradict the official positions of political entities.”

      He said the panel found persuasive indications that climate models systematically understated natural climate variability and significantly exaggerated the impact of CO2 emissions.

      And how is it the ‘home of the world’s best investigative journalists’ manages to ignore stuff like this, and has been doing for the last 20 years (including Climategate)…..

      ‘On behalf of the climate monitoring panel, Professor Essex also spoke up for scientists who have been bullied, threatened or even dismissed for having dared to question the Party Line on climate. He said: “Our greatest concern at present is that the intellectual climate for scientific investigation of these matters has become so hostile and politicized that the necessary research and debate cannot freely take place.

      “Political constraints take the form of declaring the underlying science to be settled when it clearly is not; defunding or denigrating research that is perceived to threaten the case for renewable energy; or the use of odious pejoratives like “denialist” to describe dissent from officially-sanctioned views on climate science.”

      Professors Bob Carter and Murry Salby, who had questioned the severity of Man’s influence on the climate, were both ejected by their universities this year.’


      But then, we all know the answer: it’s…..

      The BBC – shamelessly pushing a socialist agenda in the name of science


    • johnnythefish says:

      And more, on the Pacific Ocean current claim specifically…

      ‘Anyone with a little common sense who’s reading the abstract and the hype around the blogosphere and the Meehl et al papers will logically now be asking: if La Niña events can stop global warming, then how much do El Niño events contribute? 50%? The climate science community is actually hurting itself when they fail to answer the obvious questions.

      And what about the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)? What happens to global surface temperatures when the AMO also peaks and no longer contributes to the warming?

      The climate science community skirts the common-sense questions, so no one takes them seriously.


      The BBC – feeding you half-baked scientific theories, because they can.


    • Beeboidal says:

      Note the picture in the article with the caption ‘Flowers growing in Greenland as temperatures rise indicating that global warming is having real impacts’. Those flowers appear to be common cottongrass or common cottonsedge, which Wiki tells me can survive in the Subarctic and Arctic, and is found in Alaska, Finland and Greenland as far north as 83° N.


      • johnnythefish says:

        Ah, no crops growing as yet then, as happened in the Medieval Warm Period (go back to sleep, Harrabin et al – you missed your own irony yet again).


  8. flexdream says:

    This is how the BBC treats religious broadcasting.

    Controversial Muslim programme-maker to be head of BBC religion

    Radio 2 Good Morning Sunday
    “Clare Balding, a non-religious lesbian, to host Radio 2′s Sunday religious programme”

    presenter of Radio 4 Saturday Live
    (not a religious programme but presented by a Reverend)
    “Rev Richard Coles: ‘I don’t have any concerns that God is cross with me for being gay and eventually the Church won’t either’ ”

    As a straight Christian is Ed Stourton the odd man out?


  9. chrisH says:

    Re Syria-and all those proud nations of the umma sorting out their own backyard…anti-colonial exploits, pro-self determination for the Arab nations.
    Anybody heard anything from the Arab League then?…or do we have to call them Shami-like in their response to the Big Muslim Issue of the times.
    Why the hell.whitey feels obliged to stick his oar in, is beyond me-let the Arab League sort it out FFS!


    • feargal the cat says:

      The Arab League and the mohamedan bloc-voting UN should sort Syria out. The West can lend ‘aid’ from afar and perhaps avoid being made scapegoat when the camel sh*t hits the wind turbine farm.


  10. johnnythefish says:

    Was looking forward to the new BBC series on Ancient Greece, starting last night with Greek tragedy and its role/influence on politics and society.

    Presented by academic Michael Scott, of the University of Warwick, it was all very interesting and going well until………he twice used the phrase ‘taking the piss’. This wasn’t him quoting some tragedian or politician, an attempt to translate an Ancient Greek colloquialism into its modern English equivalent, it was his choice of words for his very own script.

    To be honest I was gobsmacked, and I’m still scratching my head. This was a serious documentary fronted by a (supposedly) serious academic.

    It was deliberate, and it obviously got editorial approval. The question is: why?


  11. #88 says:

    Irrespective of whether you think that we should or shouldn’t intervene in Syria, I can’t help but notice that Newsnight were up to their old tricks again tonight, giving Miliband their usual leg-up (probably because he desperately needed it).

    A totally dumfounded and hopelessly confused Allegra Stratton (ex of the Guardian) seemed to be saying that Miliband – (having changed his position – and swapped bandwagons – three times in the past 24 hours) was on the high ground, outmaneuvering Cameron. Then there was an examination of the Tories ‘difficulty’.

    No wonder Cameron is angry at Labour’s and Miliband’s cynical opportunism.


  12. John Anderson says:

    I am old enough to remember the years of the Kennedy Presidency, and the awful civil rights troubles in Alabama,, Mississippi etc.

    At the end of the 50th anniversary of the great march to the Mall in Washington, and MLK’s famous speech, I am sick of the way the BBC has twisted a lot of MLK’s humane message.

    On Radio 4 this morning there were 30 minutes of mostly lefties and race hustlers spouting on, trying to twist MLK’s words to their own agenda.

    I would far rather have heard the whole of MLK’s speech – 15 minutes – dignified, resonant, and yes, historic. Whatever the failings of the man, his words were addressed to the better side of America, to its constitutional roots, mixed with Christian sentiments. Proclaiming that the American Dream should be for everybody.

    Simply as a speech, it was gripping and intense.
    But no – the BBC just trots out the soundbites – and then gives the floor to the lefties. And any broadcaster or newspaper which dares to bring up gangsta Trayvon Martin’s name in the context of MLK’s anniversary is plain sick and twisted. MLK’s dream did not include murderously aggressive punks like Trayvon Martin. For much of uts coverage, the BBC has not shown respect for MLK, it has shown disrespect, traducing his message.


    • Roland Deschain says:

      The irony, which appears to be lost on the BBC, is that today it is the race hustlers who appear to be doing most of the judging by skin colour rather than character.


  13. Anders Thomasson says:

    Six o’clock this morning on 5Live: attitudes towards the disabled have not improved since the Paralympics and may even have worsened.

    Anyone care to hazard a guess? Yep, ten points to the Biased BBC reader at the back: it’s due to benefit cuts. I sometimes think that the BBC doesn’t even realise it’s doing it. But then I come to and remember that it is all part of a greater plan.


    • Guest Who says:

      Hard to see how cuts to benefits would translate into a deterioration in ‘attitudes’ to the disabled. I’d have thought the exact reverse as sympathies or admiration were driven by #prasnews stories. Unless the unremitting, OTT woe attempts spun out by such as the grief industry, given full uncritical access by the BBC, have rather backfired?
      Seems more like the law of unintended consequences has bitten them on the bum.


  14. OldBloke says:

    According to John Humphreys this morning on the Today programme, whilst interviewing (or should that talking over, the BBC aren’t really interested in what you have to say) Nick Clegg, (08.15) we were informed by Mr Humphreys that we were about to attack Saddam Hussein in Syria. 😎


    • Guest Who says:

      Really? A gaffe?
      If true (and if so and edit is doubtless being uploaded at Media Guido now), his colleagues will be merciless.
      Won’t they just.


  15. OldBloke says:

    I always wondered what S.H. did with those weapons of mass destruction? Looks like they are beginning to turn up!


    • johnnythefish says:

      There’s many a true word…..

      After all, Saddam did have chemical weapons – he used them against Iran and the Kurds in his own country (not that this ever gets much of a mention on the BBC – promoting him as an innocent victim of needless Western aggression is part of the agenda).

      So……..as you say, they must have gone somewhere.


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        Sadaam used chemical weapons but “we” gave them to him, so couldn’t get upset when he used them. And even so, we were told by our betters that we couldn’t go after him no matter how many of his own people (or Kurds, or Marsh Arabs) he killed, as it was “illegal”.

        Nobody has yet explained to me why Bush and Blair are war criminals for going after Sadaam but The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate-in-Chief and Call Me Dave are not for going after Ghadaffi. Or indeed why they wouldn’t be war criminals for sending Assad “a strong signal”.


  16. Thoughtful says:

    So there’s a report on a ‘US Major Nidal Hasan’ who shot 45 comrades at Fort Hood. There is no mention on the Radio 4 report that he is a Muslim and no mention that he was motivated to do it by the teachings of the evil Qur’an.

    The webpage makes mention of the fact that he is a Muslim, and that he planned the attack, but there is a complete avoidance of the reasons why.

    Absolutely biased lies by omission.



    • George R says:


      Robert Spencer, who is banned by U.K government because his comments on Islam may upset Muslims, has this in ‘Jihadwatch’:-

      “Fort Hood jihad mass murderer gets death penalty”

      [Opening excerpt]:-

      “Although Hasan constantly explained his act in terms of Islam, the lead prosecutor, following the lead of many prosecutors and judges before him, had to take the time to exonerate Islam from any responsibility for his murders. The absolute unwillingness to examine forthrightly the motives of someone like Hasan continues.”



  17. Thoughtful says:

    So the chemical weapons use in Syria rumbles on, and as I posted yesterday the Biased BBC have moved the story of Labours Ed Milliband into top slot. So determined are they that we should know what he has ‘achieved for us’ that the first words in the News headlines are Labours opposition to a strike on Syria has forced a change to the coalitions intentions (or words to that effect). It’s pretty obvious that the BBC believe that either the Labour intervention is the most important news of the day (even including Syria) or they are blatantly inflating the influence of the Labour party for political purposes.

    Of a lesser note is the fact that Diane Abbot (hideous woman) threw her toys out of the pram and threatened to resign, and that having ‘influenced the coalition’ Labour aren’t even going to support the motion they requested!

    This should show that Labour are incapable of making a decision and they have no party discipline and a weak leader who is not able to control his party.


    • Wild says:

      “This should show that Labour are incapable of making a decision and they have no party discipline and a weak leader who is not able to control his party.”

      How the BBC report this will depend on whether or not they think they can get a new Labour Party leader in before the next election. When they make their mind up – no doubt they are currently discussing it in The Guardian – the BBC will make their conclusion known in how they report Ed Miliband.


      • Guest Who says:

        ‘no doubt they are currently discussing it in The Guardian’
        The way things are going at present the Tories may end up with an alternative to What The Media Say Dave quite soon, and Labour remain lumbered with Bandwagon Ed.
        No idea who the Tories could put up, but if he or she has a pulse and some balls they may yet swing it despite any efforts by the BBC.


      • #88 says:

        They’re already lapping it up.

        Bacon and friends are enjoying Cameron’s humiliation and defending Miliband’s treachery.

        Bacon is aghast with the suggestion that Miliband could be playing party politics.

        The BBC have been puffing Miliband up for the past 36 hours. There is no genuine examination as to how he has fundamentally changed his position and what his motives are.


  18. johnnythefish says:

    They finally did it! Priorities sorted!

    Sports news on this morning’s Today reported that England Women’s cricket team will finally today claim the ‘ashes’. Oh, as an afterthought – the men’s team are also playing Australia.

    Welcome to the BBC’s alternative universe.


    • chrisH says:

      Hey I`ll not have that!
      Didn`t the pliant lady and the gay cavalier Gary Richardson(can we have a second series?) tell us that there were…er…5,000(I`l repeat that..FIVE THOUSAND pop pickers!)
      when the ladies of Oz and Blighty danced around their handbags in Chelmsford(where else?) the other day.
      Now I don`t know if UNITE or the Met counted them…I myself heard “people saying” that there were 100,000 wanting to know if Kylie and Jason might get together to reprise a Torville and Dean thing.
      And no-this is NO disrespect to those decent men and women who play the game at all…it merely pours scorn on the BBCs seeing the Ashes as a mixed doubles affair, by shackling Ian Botham to Rachel Heyhoe Flints buggy and wanting us to think that we see them as the same thing.
      The BBC are so keen to shoehorn a rubber mallet or lavender letter opener into any hideously white arena with the faintest whiff of testosterone.
      Mind you, Garry rather hoped for a bit of girl on girl sledging between the ladies teams…that it was more russets for our autumn/their Spring season seemed to disappoint this sad-eyed , non sporting jock of no-trades…hence his cut out berth at the BBC sine die,
      Send for Paddy Crerand!


  19. AsISeeIt says:

    What a Goon Show… for That Was The Week That Was the public’s Jukebox Jury were saying Ed Miliband is a bit of a Rogue Trader, one of the Inbetweeners, he’s Shameless, a Doctor Who? He’s telling us a load of Jackanorys. There’s just no Audience With the Labour leader.
    Of course from the BBC’s perspective Miliband is Top Boy and his waffle is Top Gear but they’re ready to Flog It because the Weather Forecast suggests that in the next Great British Bake Off – It’s A Knock Out and we’ll all go Blue Peter.
    And the Secret Millionaires at the BBC don’t want to see a Million Pound Drop in the Licence Fee at the next National Lottery Show. They don’t want to be Match Of The Day Two. The Newsnight is that the BBC much prefers another Deal No Deal with Our Friends In The North – after all they are Birds Of A Feather. Oh dear, Thought For The Day: Miliband – Snog Marry Avoid?
    Meanwhile Newsround – Look East, ever since the Songs of Praise for the Spring Watch Rising Damp of the middle East Enders (who can’t wait to come Down Your Way) the BBC have been the Grandstand and The Voice for a DIY SOS.
    Everyone… The Muslim Driving School, The Dad’s Army of the From Our Own Correspondents (who are the BBC Royale Family) all of them agreed with The Grand Designs of the Bad Education Z-Cars listers and The Apprentice back at Fawlty Towers… Oh the Crime Watch… The Rough Justice! Call The Midwife… we must play Dixon Of Dockgreen – never mind our own Casualty Countdown in that Dragon’s Den or the chance of a Total Wipe Out – Early Doors.
    It’s our Test Match Special and Letter From America hasn’t that marvellous Panorama said something – He’s the leader of the whole West Wing. He’s no Antiques Roadshow, He’s Top of The Pops, He’s Pot Black.
    But Just A Minute, Vision On! Curb Your Enthusiasm – Miliband has just had a Total Makeover.


  20. George R says:

    Syria, and the Islamic jihad threat to British people.

    One might expect that the real threat posed by ‘British-based’ Islamic jihadists who go to kill in Syria might get the full critical on-going attention of BBC-NUJ.

    Such Islamic jihadists are willing to turn their violence on British people inside or outside Britain to achieve their ends. Such jihadists should be excluded from the U.K where possible, and charged with any of their violent crimes.

    “How British women are joining the jihad in Syria”

    (inc 8 min video clip).



  21. John says:

    The ongoing trial of the brutal killing of baby Antonio Santiago has now been completely removed from the BBC US news page. Remember – the story where they couldn’t find a photo of the accused for some reason.

    Still plenty of room to report on the perjury verdict of George Zimmerman’s wife though.


  22. Mark says:

    One day the powerless white working class; the old treated like dirt in communities they don’t recognise anymore; those who are attacked by racist ethnic gangs ; the girls raped by predatory Muslim gangs; the working class kids whose education suffers at the alter of equality; the struggling working families paying for benefits cheats; the girls who suffer genital mutilation; the families pushed to the bottom of housing lists to accommodate illegal immigrants; the Muslim girls who suffer forced marriages; The workers brought up in this country out of work because they have been undercut by foreign workers and insulted by the media.

    One day, if there is justice, these people will turn on the liberal elite and its compliant friends the BBC and The Guardian and demand to know why they were never given a hearing.

    Because these people, and many others, are ignored and sacrificed daily to a political ideal that never served the majority (or was asked by the majority) but the vanity of a small class that never suffered the consequences of their ideals.


  23. Aerfen says:

    ‘Net immigration ‘ is up! The BBC is usually very happy to disguise the true i.e. gross immigration figures with this misleading number. Funny then, that now it is ‘up’ that they are quick to draw attention to the fact that this is due to a decrease in emigration rather than an increase in immigration.


    • Mark says:

      The BBC call it “migration” now, not “immigration,” it sounds less threatening.


      • George R says:

        Yes, BBC-NUJ’s use of the word ‘migration’, rather than ‘immigration,’ makes it sound as though the mass immigration into Britain is not permanent (but it is), and only involves transitory bird-like seasonal ‘migration’ to and from Britain, (which it doesn’t).

        And, of course, by using the word ‘migration’ that is the politically erroneous impression which BBC-NUJ aims to give.


        • John Anderson says:

          Isn’t the aqppropriate headline to the figures “Government fails to properly reduce immigration?”

          Because THAT is the key meaning of the figures. The Tories came in with a policy and an electoral promise to reduce immigration sharply from the hugely excessive levels under Labour.

          The level of immigration is still hugely excessive – just down a smidgen. Say 10%.

          That is – a real failure of Government policy.

          Normally if the Tories fail even slightly, the BBC is attacking the failure all over the place.

          But in this case, the BBC is happy there is continuing failure. The BBC WANTS failure, it WANTS immigration to remain excessive. So – no frontal attack on the Government.


      • Dave s says:

        I would like to hear a beeboid explain why the immigration word has been changed. Control the language control the thoughts of the people. The liberals really do think 1984 was an instruction manual. No doubt if we attack Syria it will be justified by the use of words that mean nothing.
        Remember the real words should be- attack, assault, bomb, kill, launch an aggressive war, etc.
        Why is it liberals ( Cameron , Clegg ) etc cannot wait to go to war? Real conservatives always hesitate and only really do so with great reluctance when it is clear that there is no other way.
        Liberals are insane.


        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          The reason the nomenklatura changed the term to “migrants” is simple: migration is a natural phenomenon. The birds do it, the wildebeest does it, the caribou, etc. Even our hunter-gatherer ancestors used to do it. Perfectly natural, it is the way of things. Who can object to a force of nature?

          Immigration is not a natural phenomenon. Well, it sort of is, in the context of human nature, but not in the same way as animal migration, particularly with – and this is key – its temporal implications.

          In this case, the BBC isn’t doing a Humpty Dumpty, but instead is doing an Orwell. I’m sure they’re merely following the conventional wisdom on the issue, following the experts’ lead, no deliberate choice from top management or activist journalists to misdirect the public, yeah. I wonder if any Beeboid has the courage to admit the connotations of the word, even if they insist it’s not deliberate.


          • Aerfen says:

            Good point, however it also implies they are here temporarily and to work, and will go home when the *season* ends!
            It has echoes of John Steinbecks migrant workers.


  24. Sir Arthur Strebe-Grebling says:

    The bBBC continues to emphasise net migration, which is up in the last year (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23878689). The number of immigrants dropped from 566,000 to 497,000 while the emigrants fell only from 351,000 to 321,000 in the year to December 2012.
    Their new-found love of the word ‘migration’ rather than immigration disguises the truth.
    Perhaps fewer people left the UK because the economy is doing so well and they like the government?


    • Span Ows says:

      I note the graph is from 2003. Look at it from 1990 and you see the leap in 1997/98 onward that hasn’t come down yet.


  25. Mark says:

    Oh, one I heard on the BBC Radio 4 Morning programme as a lead in to an article about a month and half ago. Evan Davis (clearly reading from notes) said that George Zimmerman (is) “…Hispanic, but white”

    So there you have it. He is Hispanic but because he is a racist killer he is in fact “white.”

    Imagine George Zimmerman “…white but Hispanic.” No I can’t imagine that being read either.


    • chrisH says:

      Suppose there`s no chance for our gay amateur eugenicist and race assessor to clarify this definition…which would enable him to apply for Pass Law Superintendent for BOSS, should Zimbabawe call upon him.
      Truly despicable race baiting-but isn`t that what the BBC do?
      Did Frankie Boyle starve to death?
      Where`s the Arab League?
      The BBC…when it wants to crawl away and die, do we woodchip it or turn into liquid Guardian slurry?
      The BBC…woody, but moist ? solid…but liquid…Hispanic..but white.
      Easy this stuff eh?…how much do we pay Tinseltown for his racial profiling…and who do we report him to?


  26. Roland Deschain says:

    Say it ain’t true!

    TV presenter Rolf Harris has been charged with nine counts of indecent assault and four of making indecent images of children, police have said.

    Another piece of my childhood goes up in smoke. I was really hoping Rolf was innocent but it’s not looking good now.

    Can you tell what it is yet? Plod seem to think they can.


    • pah says:

      Hmmm? Innocent until proven guilty I’d say.

      Still, it may prove to be pay back for murdering ‘Stairway to Heaven’ a crime, as yet, unaccounted for!


      • Framer says:

        The defendant in this case was pinpointed as an “Australian” on BBC radio news.
        It appears he is not a “man”.


        • Rufus McDufus says:

          Nor British, despite having been resident in the UK for longer than most of our lifetimes. How queer!


  27. Gunn says:

    More on climate change, this time glaciers:


    Whats interesting about this article is that there is an admission buried in the text that temperatures decreased during the 90s. This strikes me as odd, considering that we know that 1998 was a peak temperature year, and the last 15 years have been cooler on average (i.e. warming has not occurred during them relative to 1998).

    Its as if the AGW credulists really can’t see how details like this are simply inconsistent with the big picture they keep trying to convince us of.


  28. George R says:

    Supplementary on Evan DAVIS.

    Beeboid, Evan DAVIS uses his personal preferences in his own interests here:-

    “Help find this lovely man a job – or he’s off back to Latvia! BBC Today presenter Evan Davis in Twitter plea to 124,000 followers”


    “The Radio 4 Today presenter posted a photo of the man this morning with the words ‘Can anyone give this lovely guy I met at a bbq yesterday a job? Hospitality perhaps? Or he has to return to Latvia.’

    “But the post has resulted in people taking to Twitter to discuss whether the broadcaster should
    be using his position as a high-profile broadcaster to help someone into employment. ”



  29. Guest Who says:

    The BBC’s FaceBook teams are in overdrive.
    Via the latest post, with a heart-breaking picture of a young boy suffering the effects of the presumed chemical weapon attack/accident (that last may have been a punt) by Assad/Rebels/someone, I was directed thus:
    Should the UK join military action in Syria? Follow the debate LIVE: http://bbc.in/192kn2X
    Looking at the rolling commentary, one wonders how gems like this are meant to guide opinion…
    Lyse Doucet Chief international correspondent tweets: “The suffering of civilians in #Syria has now reached unprecedented levels and there seems to be no end in sight” says @ICRC
    So, what then, Lyse…. pop a Tomahawk or two hundred Damascus way and the civilian suffering there, and elsewhere, is going to do what now?
    Seems to me the BBC is letting Cameron do some very dirty work for them… and dig a very deep hole for himself for them to exploit at the same time.
    If Cameron and the BBC get caught together in this mess, that may not be a bad thing if both suffer actual consequences. But I fear for any poor sod caught in the machinations the calibre of pols as Cameron, Miliband and Clegg weave, along with the tribal media prodding them.


  30. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Mark Mardell is having a very hard time these days. His beloved Reluctant Warrior-in-Chief is threatening war on Muslim Lands again. What’s worse is that His decision (which Mardell assures us hasn’t been made yet) to attack would be based on admittedly questionable evidence. So he needs to find a way to play that down, deflect, reassure himself that his faith isn’t misplaced. So he digs deep into some White House talking points, and comes up with this

    True, he says no decision has been taken. But in his interview with PBS Newshour he said if there was action it would be to send the Syrian regime a “pretty strong signal”.

    He goes on to say that it would be “limited, tailored” and would not be “a repetition of, you know, Iraq, which I know a lot of people are worried about – but if we are saying in a clear and decisive but very limited way, we send a shot across the bows saying, stop doing this”.

    This is a distinction the Obama administration has made repeatedly – not regime change and intervening in Syria’s civil war, but teaching them a lesson.

    What does that even mean? What lesson would be learned? Don’t do it again? Mardell is certain that no regime change is intended, so….what’s in all in aid of? Keep butchering people, but don’t do it the wrong way? Even the BBC’s US President editor seems dimly aware of this conundrum.

    Some worry that it is impossible to draw a sensible line between the two. The speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, has written to the president with a number of questions, including

    • What result is the administration seeking from its response?

    • What is the intended effect of the potential military strikes?

    • If potential strikes do not have the intended effect, will further strikes be conducted?

    It’s not impossible at all if we know what the hell lesson Assad is supposed to learn in the first place. I mean, just three months ago the President was demanding that Assad step down. Has that changed? Mardell doesn’t seem to remember that. Or doesn’t want you to remember it, because it makes the President look like a dithering fool. So what “effect” are the strikes supposed to have? One would have thought Mardell would need to know that before asking what would happen if they don’t achieve said effect.

    Then there’s the question of whether or not the President will go ahead and order military strikes without Congressional authorization. He got away with it on Libya, in part because the action didn’t last long enough for opponents to gain any real traction. If He does it again, though, on top of so many other extra-legal abuses of His Executive Authority, even the NY Times and WaPo will start squirming. Mardell doesn’t dare go there, so skips over that problem.

    Another problem Mardell sees is that now the British PM is facing some backbench rebellion against going to war sending a strong signal. The President is all about building a coalition, he says, and having to go it alone would be embarrassing. It certainly can’t be more embarrassing than publicly drawing a line in the sand, then stepping back and drawing another, then another, then another….. Is Mardell even aware of how ridiculous this looks? I bet he does, actually, but can’t bring himself to write that the President is inept, confused, and foolish.

    At no point does the BBC’s US President editor tell you that the vast majority of the country doesn’t want this at all. Also notice that this is a practically unique occasion where Mardell isn’t talking about people who oppose the President’s plan as being “enemies”, or crypt-racist, or just partisan trolls who just want to block His every move regardless. That’s because he himself is opposed to it, so doesn’t see any sinister underlying motivations in Republican Congressmen who agree with him.

    But thank heavens we’re no longer talking about anything unsavory like regime change or US boots on the ground, eh? He’s just sending a strong signal, as vague as you like. Nothing illegal or Bush-like, right, Mark?

    But you know what would be really, really embarrassing? For a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate to launch yet another war against yet another country and kill who knows how many more people. As always, His Nobel is never mentioned by anyone at the BBC in this context.


  31. #88 says:

    4 – 7

    Just to explain that.

    In John Pienaar’s summing-up of the HoC debate on Syria on the Bacon show, Pienaar referred to the Prime Minister as ‘Cameron’ four times; but gave the Leader of the Opposition, the courtesy of using his first name, ‘Ed Miliband’, seven times.


  32. Mark says:

    If I try and sell you a car and I tell you its got just 50,000 on the clock and you look at the odometer and see 100,000. You’d naturally say “What are you playing at?”

    “But its okay” I say “My other car has nothing on the clock so the net is 50,000 for the two. So you are actually buying this one at 50,000 miles even though it says 100,000.”

    Rightly you’d tell me to get lost.

    Yet we are supposed to buy the Beebs’s presentation of net migration figures like an incredulous dim-witted car buyer. So we will say immigration is not as big as it seems. Well it is.


    • Geoff says:

      And its hardly like for like is it.
      Decent educated hard working tax payers in exchange for a pile of shite….


  33. F*** The Beeb says:

    No Thursday open thread as yet so this can go here.


    Yet more anti-male propaganda from the BBC. Almost every viewpoint seems to be of the opinion that women are incapable of violence and men are the root of all evil.


    • Gunn says:

      There are always two factors that are completely overlooked when the feminist mainstream media look at this issue:

      i. Rates of aggression against the other partner are more or less equal for men and women, i.e. women initiate abuse about as often as men do. Where discrepancies come in are with injury rates, where women are far more likely to be injured because they are much weaker than men (in the cases where women seriously injure or kill men, it usually involves the use of weapons).

      ii. many women actively seek out abusive men; this is likely because they confuse dominance (which is a strongly attractive attribute in men for the majority of women) with violence. This problem is deeper however than saying that women are asking for it; they’re not of course, but whats happening is that as the traditional family unit breaks down and natural fathers are removed from the picture, increasing numbers of both boys and girls do not see good male role models when growing up and so don’t understand what controlled masculinity is (vs. the feral type that is common in single-mother families, and which results in teenage boys forming gangs and teenage girls becoming groupies to those gangs).


  34. David Preiser (USA) says:

    The BBC is dutifully reporting the outrage over some judge from Montana who gave a very, very reduced sentence to a man convicted of having sex with a 14-year old female student.

    Montana Judge Todd Baugh also said the girl was “older than her chronological age”, as he handed the teacher who assaulted her a month in prison.

    If this sort of reminds anyone of what so many Beeboids and associates said about Jimmy Savile’s victims, read further.

    On Monday, Judge Baugh sentenced Rambold to 15 years in prison, with all but 31 days of the term suspended. He gave him credit for one day spent in jail.

    During the hearing, Judge Baugh made his controversial comments about the victim.

    Some of those controversial comments can be found in the report from the local paper (to which the BBC properly linked):

    While explaining the sentence, Baugh said he had reviewed statements Moralez made to investigators before her death and determined that while she was a troubled youth, she also was “as much in control of the situation” as the teacher.

    Baugh also said Moralez was “older than her chronological age.”

    That sure sounds like the excuses given by BBC staff and others: the girls were scruffy, wayward, eager to bask in the celebrity, etc. It’s also what we were fed about the Rochdale victims (remember the Question Time episode where the nomenklatura blamed victims’ parents and society at large for letting the girls out of the house?).

    So, if the BBC has no problem calling this judge’s remark “controversial”, then every similar excuse given by a BBC employee for either Savile or the sex gangs is equally “controversial”. And wrong, and possible cause for resignation or reprimands.


    • Mark says:

      I recall The Guardian explaining that the Muslim Paedophile grooming gangs just happened to be Muslim because they tended to work as Taxi drivers and in the fast food industry where they were likely to meet young vulnerable girls.

      I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry when I saw that little nugget in the paper stand at WHSmiths


      • thoughtful says:

        Islam the only religion in the world with a codified set of rules for how a woman can be raped.


  35. George R says:


    I wouldn’t expect INBBC to pick up on the importance which P.M Cameron attaches to pleasing what he perceives as ‘Muslim interests.’

    This is how ‘politics.co.uk’ summarises that section of Cameron’s speech:-

    ” What about the counter-terrorism response? The assessment, Cameron tells MPs, is that ‘there would not be a significant cause of radicalisation and extremism’. The PM argues there are many Muslims in Britain who would welcome the UK coming to the support of Muslims in Syria.”


    In the case of the U.K government’s banning of Americans Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, the central consideration, according to Home Office letter to them, is the Government’s estimation of the ‘perceptions’ of ‘the Muslim community’ to the presence in the U.K of Spencer and Geller.

    So too, in the case of the U.K government’s policy for intervention in Syria, on the side of Saudi Arabia, Al Nusrah and Al Qaeda, Cameron gives centrality to the political perceptions of Muslims on this- both in Syria AND in Britain. There is no reference to the ‘perceptions’ or ‘sensibilities; of Christian, non-Muslims.

    Britain now has an Islamised foreign policy, And, apparently, INBBC hasn’t noticed.


    • Dave s says:

      Cameron is a liberal. He really seems to think that intervention will suddenly usher in a golden age of democracy just like ours !
      I don’t think it is an Islamised policy just completely deluded. Where did Cameron really come from? He suddenly appears and says he is a Tory. He is just another liberal left clone . For the life of me I cannot see what the BBC has against him.


  36. George R says:

    Will Tom Jones ever get an INBBC contract if he goes to Israel?

    “Tom Jones under pressure to boycott Israel over settlements”



  37. Dave666 says:

    BBc North West back on the same old try to spread panic mode. They have been out interviewing people if they are worried about their savings in Co-op bank. Just as the section finished a quick voice over stating there is of course no evedince that the bank will fail.


  38. chrisH says:

    I know I`ve said this somewhere earlier…but (in regard of Syria)-has anybody seen hide or hair of those fearless Arab League warriors of Allahs?
    Or-like the Muslim Brotherhood-will they be in charge of liberating water bottles for those about to die…before stepping over the bodies to claim a victory(The Egypt Strategy 2011)?
    The Muslim Brotherhood and the IRA clearly share similar tactics…and the BBC duly writes up their histories as liberators as soon as the streets are cleared.
    Bravo Arab League!


  39. Geoff says:

    Jeez is nothing sacred?
    A woman commentating on tonight’s England v Australia T20 cricket match, Radio 5Live Sports Extra.


    • johnnythefish says:

      Hey! But they’ve won the Ashes!

      ‘The Ashes or the Women’s Ashes is the Women’s Test cricket series between England and Australia. It is named after the Ashes. The series was first played in 1934 and was the first ever women’s Test series. It only became officially known as the Ashes in the 1998 series when an autographed bat was burned before the first Test at Lord’s.’


      If you didn’t laugh, you’d effing well cry.


  40. Geoff says:

    After walking away from the BBC for more £££’s anglo Croatian Adrian Chiles is invited back to present the Radio 5Live’s Drivetime show, they just love to throw our money around.

    Same thing happened with that knob head Chris Evans after walking out on the BBC in his Radio 1 days and after spending days in a drunken stupor, he’s invited back to eventually present the flagship Radio 2 Breakfast Show, Wogan he ain’t….

    If you or I walked out on a company no way would we ever be invited back, but the BBC seem to be in a world of their own spending our money.


  41. uncle bup says:

    The limerick, which Fry recited as the last item of the quote unquote comedy quiz show, went:

    “There was a young chaplain from King’s
    Who talked about God and such things;
    But his real desire
    Was a boy in the choir
    With a bottom like jelly on springs.”

    The BBC Trust’s editorial standards committee concluded that the limerick “would not have exceeded generally accepted standards” given the audience’s expectations of QI and Fry.

    And there yer have it, the droids getting it ‘just about right’ again.

    Once you’ve said ‘fuck’ once and got away with it you’re untouchable. That first ‘fuck’ is when you’re vulnerable.

    Planet Droid for you.


    • johnnythefish says:

      The BBC are pushing 4-letter word usage with some vigour now especially in daytime radio drama, ‘comedy’ programmes and even in serious documentaries, as in BBC 4’s series on Ancient Greece where ‘classicist’ Michael Scott twice used the phrase ‘taking the piss’. I wonder whether he realised that whilst he thought perhaps it was smart or clever or cool it just debased the programme and questioned his credibility as a serious presenter.

      Another BBC leftie student agenda at work. When will they grow up?


  42. Llareggub says:

    Scientists discover a canyon underneath Greenland ice.

    Not long before climate change kicks into the article:
    Says Harrabin
    The canyon was discovered by researchers working on one of the great scientific puzzles – how much will the Greenland ice sheet contribute to sea level rise if, as predicted, the Arctic continues to warm as greenhouse gases increase?


    • johnnythefish says:

      Or alternatively ‘As predicted by discredited climate models which the BBC still insists on quoting’.

      Meanwhile, on an alternative BBC, we might just hear the following for the sake of balance:

      ‘A new paper published in Climate of the Past reconstructs Greenland temperatures over the past 800 years and shows that reconstructed temperatures were higher in the 1930’s and 1400’s than at the end of the record in the year 2000. The paper also finds Greenland temperatures correlated to “solar-induced changes in atmospheric circulation patterns such as those produced by the North Atlantic Oscillation/Arctic Oscillation (NAO/AO).” The Medieval Warming Period 1000 years ago is not included in this 800 year reconstruction, but Greenland ice cores demonstrate that the Medieval, Roman, Minoan, Egyptian, and other unnamed warming periods were all warmer than modern Greenland temperatures.’


      The BBC, stuck in man-made global warming hole with its 28gate mates.


  43. George R says:

    Will INBBC NOW be less partial towards Muslim Brotherhood, towards Al Nusrah jihadists, given the British government defeat (at 10:30 pm tonight) on ‘intervention’ in Syria?


  44. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Remember BBC HR head Lucy Adams, she who gave the excuse for all those massive cash outlays to top BBC mandarins that it was “custom and practice” at the time to do so? She’s given her notice and will gone after March 2014. (The two replies on the thread I’ve linked to are also worth reading.)

    I guess all that testimony she had to hear from a staggering amount of BBC staff about bullying and harassment really was uncomfortable to hear. She probably got fed up after the most recent golden parachute story. Good thing Lord Hall is fixing the management structure, eh?