Time for a new on-time Open Thread. Seen bias? Report it here please!
WEDNESDAY OPEN THREAD….
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Nibor May 18, 2024 at 9:13 pm on Weekend 18th May 2024Here we go again . Please tell us the ‘ going rate’ , please also tell us who you know...
- Fedup2 May 18, 2024 at 8:51 pm on Weekend 18th May 2024Thank you marky 21 minutes worth the listen . I was wondering whether mr Murray would be able to express...
- MarkyMark May 18, 2024 at 8:00 pm on Weekend 18th May 2024Douglas Murray Speech: We're Dealing with a Death Cult... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnpaNMpmvaY
- tomo May 18, 2024 at 7:49 pm on Weekend 18th May 2024https://twitter.com/Rod__Mason/status/1791804039832727968
- MarkyMark May 18, 2024 at 7:44 pm on Weekend 18th May 2024Can Tony do it first? Can we see his bank accounts? “The World will move to Biometric ID” - Tony...
- Thoughtful May 18, 2024 at 7:37 pm on Weekend 18th May 2024People like it this way including many on here. Rather than pay politicians the going rate they prefer countries in...
- digg May 18, 2024 at 7:16 pm on Weekend 18th May 2024Any respectable human would call people who murder innocent citizens while they are held hostage “terrorists” at the very least,...
- Eddy Booth May 18, 2024 at 6:36 pm on Weekend 18th May 2024"Body of hostage recovered from Gaza, says IDF" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxwwlnrgw7go "About 1,200 people were killed during the ...
- tomo May 18, 2024 at 6:36 pm on Weekend 18th May 2024https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1791758488147804345
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
Came across this about Hillsborough: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/sheffield-council-and-owls-face-criminal-probe-over-hillsborough-1-6038665
The main differences between this and the propoganda news from the bBC is 1) just says pocket books have been found does not say anthing about the being tampered (the possibility of tampering should not be stated until proved!) 2) That all possible miscreants are being investigated, including the local council and the FA.
good to see that the Beeb are giving as much coverage to the left-leaning Mirror Group being investigated for phone hacking as they gave the Murdoch story.
Oh, no, wait…
Colonel Blimp,
Oh, no, wait…
“Sunday Mirror phone-hacking claim revealed by Newsnight”
http://bbc.in/14KvGyZ
“Strange memory loss experienced by B-BBC regulars shock”.
at the time I posted it was one minor story buried halfway down the front page – compare that with the wall-to-wall lead stories when that nasty Murdoch chap was implicated
Wow! One story! Well, that equates to as much coverage as Murdoch, doesn’t it.
By mistake, I fell upon a programme called ‘My Teenage Diary’ in the ‘comedy’ slot on Radio 4, 6.30-7.00pm.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b039q5ff at 13m 48s. ‘Let’s keep politics out of this’ says Rachel Johnson, too late…
I am not ‘of the faith’ but I would definitely stamp my feet at this lazy stereotypical race assassination by someone called Rufus Hound.
Who he? I looked him up, Robert James Blair Simpson is his real name; he proudly voted Liberal Democrat in 2010 election.
Another good use of my Licence fee tax I have paid over.
I had missed this encouraging news – the Culture Secretary has decided that the National Audit Office must have full access to the BBC’s accounts. The BBC had up to now kept clear of close scrutiny.
I would expect there are plenty more nasties to be found – and at some point in the next year or so the NAO will serve up another damning report on BBC profligacy. For instance – on dozens and dozens of overpaid presenters. So we can have more public fuss – all timed for the run-up to the review of the Royal Charter that starts next year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10303072/Government-auditors-to-get-unlimited-access-to-BBC-accounts-after-pay-off-scandal-says-Maria-Miller.html
Thanks to some paywall-dodging tips (for which thanks to all) it’s always fun to see how the BBC gets reported in such matters, by default hiding behind anonymity at the drop of a quote.
Because I’d love to know what is meant by: ‘We will look forward to talking about this further.’
I don’t get the impression there will be anything to talk about, save handing over on demand.
Lizzi Watson, scion of Hodge and BBC Newsnight person, is an inoffensive tweeter on the whole, mostly tweeting about what’s coming up on Newsnight. But back from when he appeared before a Parliamentary Select Committee, I did find this tweet amusing.
When you’re eighty years old, as he was at the time, I would have thought the ‘old man appearance’ is quite hard to avoid, but then this is the evil Murdoch…
Now I`m as opposed to the Royal Mail sell-off as anyone!
But I would like to hear the arguments for why it`s being done.
I really DON`T need to hear why Billy Hayes-union leader of the UCW-opposes it. He would…that`s his job, and he`s very well paid to do this( even including scouse/working class elocution lessons, should he need that-the BBC sure as hell like to hear it!).
And-if Hayes IS allowed on to play pat-a-cake with Humprys-then might it not be possible to put somebody up against wee Billy?…and might they be allowed on to speak before the roll up of the show at 9p.m…as if that`s the final word on the subject, and a more telling Thought For the Day than the wooly guff we`d have got before 8a.m.
Sheer bias-no reply, no debating-just a cosy union bloke fresh from Bournemouth, and about to call for a strike…which the BBC leve(unless it shuts them all up for the day).
Will the Tories EVER grow a pair and take Fred Kites sock washers on, there at the BBC?…or was Terry-Thomas as good as they can hope for these days?
Pathetic!
This is happening more and more and now seems to be the BBC’s modus operandi.
As I said yesterday the BBC play a sound-bite from a minister and then invite an opponent, live, to demolish their position, uncontested.
The BBC will say that that’s balance but it’s not, there’s no actual dialogue or discussion taking place. Yes, a Beeboid may make a perfunctory couple of challenges – but the left usually get an easy ride in the studio.
Twice this week with HS2, earlier in the week with the economy, a few weeks ago with fracking, expect more of it as the election approaches
BBC had lozatex howling about the sell-off.
Sky had loads of emails but amazingly some of them seemed to be pro- the sell-off. There’s a thing.
Perhaps a CEO groomed in the ways of the private sector can abolish all the Spanish practices in the Royal Mail. I hear, for instance, that in some other countries they actually sort the mail by machine.
Leve-love ?…sorry Albaman-my point now null and void…can`t spell woolly either…so no need to bother your arse with any of this!
The Salters Chemistry set that nanny left the BBCs hacks with before scooting back to wherever, will surely confirm that there are “chemical weapons”…mace spray, stink bombs and car exhausts…and ther are “kemical” weapons that are mere laughing gas for liberals, such as napalm and anything lobbed at Halabjah…until Saddam got his black hat and was “discovered” to have used them.
All boils down( or is that evaporates down) to who does it-Reagan?…nah, bad
Obama?…with a sad face, but he`s Obama…so he decides whats good chemistry(usually Islamic, because they of course discovered chemistry)and what`s bad chemistry(Israeli,basically).
Give him the Nobel Prize for Science too…for only he knows…and Agent Orange would only be bad if a Reagan or a Bush had used them.
Thank God that the BBC know no science-or else we`d be as ignorant as they are.
Confused?…confusing?..like this rant?…all that passive dope smoke from Salford is having its effect!
But….but….but…The Obamessiah has saved the children! He really has made the bad man give up his unapproved weapons, without firing a single shot in
angstanger! No longer will Syrian children die in less than photogenic fashion. They might continue to get blown into tiny bits, but that’s not a humanitarian crisis because Assad will use the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch and similar conventional methods.I hate it when I agree with Rod Liddle, but:
Well said Ian Katz. It’s Labour who should be ashamed, not you
I see the new Newsnight editor, Ian Katz, is in trouble for having ‘tweeted’ about the performance of one of the programme’s guests in an ungallant manner. He described the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Rachel Reeves, as being ‘boring snoring’ during her interview with Paxo. The Labour Party has demanded an apology and suggests that Katz’s comments ‘undermine the neutrality of the programme’.
As a party member, could I just be allowed to say ‘piss off Labour?’ Katz’s tweet – and why he feels the need to utilise this medium Christ alone knows – revealed no such thing. In fact, I suspect Katz is a Labour supporter. He said Reeves was boring because she was truly bloody boring, a head office apparatchik determined to recite robotic anodyne idiocies instead of addressing properly the questions she was being asked. Paxo was bored, I was bored, the rest of audience was bored and somewhere way above us all God was bored stiff too. So well said, Mr Katz.
This is a former Beeboid – Today boss, no less – saying it. Yet Katz was forced to apologize due to the BBC’s reflexive bowing to pressure from Labour. Or did Katz voluntarily apologize for nothing because of his own party loyalty? Either way, Liddle is correct. Katz did not say anything that could construed as damaging BBC impartiality. He was speaking (tweeting) as the TV producer that he is, unhappy about a guest boring his audience.
Does the BBC cave in to similar demands from the Conservatives? I don’t remember the BBC forcing Eddie Mair to apologize for what he said to Boris Johnson, for example. Over to you, professional journalists.
Top, top comment…
‘”I suspect Katz is a Labour supporter.” Suspect?
He edited The Guardian and now runs a BBC political show. I know he is a Labour supporter. How else could he get those jobs?’
Professionally daft, as Newsnight’s rep as a backstabbing nest of vipers to any ‘guest’ is now legendary (explaining perhaps the volume of gushing musos to fill the content void), but no anti-Labour bias.
As I have said before, it came across more as the frustrated bleat of a loyal PR man who has got their client the best gig in town only to see them stuff it up royally.
And yes, how come Labour get full prostrate, public groveling by return?
Talk about loving the sound of your own voice….
Richard Bacon plays host to Alastair Campbell
Books to sell, Tories to bash
Our Alastair reckons he gets offers to appear by the bucket load, day-in-day-out – but he has to turn almost all of them down (poor laddie!).
Just for a moment one begins to wonder from whence these offers come – but on reflection… there’s Kirsty, Marr, Dimbleby QT on TV, Dimbleby AQ on Radio, Humphrys, Vine….
You remember how the Mayor of Gotham City had a Batphone?
I’m assuming Mr Campbell has a Beebphone.
He switches on a searchlight and the image of a giant cockwit appears in the sky!
SOMALIA.
INBBC has quite an important story here, but it is marred by at least two key weaknesses:
“Al-Amriki and al-Britani: Militants ‘killed’ in Somalia”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24060558
1. the Islamic jihadists are misleadingly termed mere ‘militants’;
2. and about halfway through the report, INBBC tells us:-
“BBC Somali analyst Mohamed Mohamed…”
I’d actually be interested in seeing how ‘analysis’, and especially objective efforts at it, tally between the growing population of BBC bylined reporters and experts who now seem hired less on ability and more at the drop of a diversity lawsuit. As I recall young Tulip t’other day seemed to be erring on lack of challenge complemented by pushing of narrative based more on cultural empathy than journalistic rigour.
YIPEE!! a bBC survey has found out the average cost of football has gone down! (except the Premier League)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24052562
The survey included the Wimmin’s Super League.
why not include table football and the Subbuteo championship and get the average down even more?
Your licence fee in action.
“The Women’s Super League remains one of the cheapest places to watch football, BBC Sport Price of Football found. ”
From the “No Shit, Sherlock” files.
One might attempt the mental exercise of getting one’s head around the uniquely BBC concept of the ‘average price of football’ but then viewing BBC competancy at anything to do with economics is inevitably akin to watching a haddock aboard a bicycle.
I recall last week’s agenda that soccer was the evil preserve of rich millionaires.
Now the PC equality agenda kicks in and the expected exorbitant ticket price figures are thrown all out of whack.
In the week that we enjoyed the BBC management Out-To-Lunch and Judy Show at the PAC – would it be too mean to say the left hand doesn’t seem to know what the right hand is doing?
Comrades! Get your act together! You’re making it too easy for us here at b-BBC
From Guido Fawkes:
Naturally, he posts this to wind up his readers who see Zionist Puppet Masters under the bed, but it raises a valid question. Actually, Galloway raised it himself. Why did the BBC bring him on the show? If it was just to tell him he’s an idiot, that’s a waste of everyone’s time. It’s not like Coburn could actually address the theory – which, by the way, is expressed a lot in certain quarters, and let’s not pretend it’s a tiny minority – in any useful fashion.
Does it really even make for good entertaining TV? Galloway gets more air time for his deranged fantasies than any so-called “climate skeptic”. Value for money? Delivering quality first?
Having said all that, let me point out that there are a number of Protocols of the Elders of Zion fans posting comments over at Guido’s on a regular basis, as well as at the Spectator. These are both very well-read, high-profile, and one might even say occasionally influential – media websites, yet we never see any of our resident defenders of the indefensible scolding people over there, demanding comments be deleted lest the editor face legal charges, or that those comments discredit the entire operation the way they do here.
This leads me to suspect that these defenders of the indefensible have different priorities than they claim to hold.
‘Why did the BBC bring him on the show?’
Actually he asked, but it got cut off.
Not sure his expert new ‘analysis’ was correct, which the voice off agreed with, so the BBC’s would have been interesting.
I guess that will be FOI exempted by now.
Oh dear the Royal Fail privatisation has really wound the biased bunch up, and they’ve even resorted to using the recordings of Margaret Thatcher in their desperate bid to show how wrong it is.
Personally I can’t wait, 6 letters sent over the past 2 months by recorded delivery and not one of them has got there! They are utterly useless, I can remember how bad gas electric and the GPO were before the first round of privatisation and I can’t imagine anyone wanting to go back to those bad old days, not if they truly remember them.
Royal Mail?
Envy of the World mate.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/leading-article/9019161/saving-the-bbc/
The court did not have much time to hear his case, or anyone else’s
One might even suspect a not very efficient, revenue-obsessed public sector legal system is more than empathetic to a not very efficient, revenue-obsessed public sector broadcast system.
There’s at least one major flaw in the Spectator’s argument: the claim that there is no management hierarchy at the BBC. We know there is on things that matter from things like 28-Gate, Savile, and Thompson’s admission that the BBC treats the Mohammedan religion with kid gloves. He wouldn’t be able to say that if there wasn’t some policy from on high.
None of this talk of salaries and pay-offs and back-stabbing deys and mandarins will fix or even begin to address to the problem of endemic bias at the BBC.
“Maria Miller: BBC has had ‘annus horribilis.’
“Culture Secretary describes squabbling between senior figures over who knew what about £3 million of excess pay-outs as a ‘grim day for senior management.'”
By ADAM SHERWIN.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/maria-miller-bbc-has-had-annus-horribilis-8809868.html
Syrian refugee opinions you will not hear from the BBC:
After cursing the American president in Arabic, he continued, “Obama is ‘Hussein’ – son of Muslims. If he were a Christian he would support us. But he’s a Muslim.” He shakes his head and his eyes tear up. “It’s always Muslims against Muslims.”
Many of the Syrian refugees I spoke to are resentful for two reasons: First, they feel the United States has abandoned them. Why intervene in Libya but not Syria? That suspicion fuels numerous conspiracy theories.
Presumably not the kind Galloway and others are pushing. The other reason is that they don’t like the situation in the refugee camps. Nobody ever does, so that’s not really something that can be blamed on the President.
Even Syrian children apparently notice the hypocrisy regarding Libya. When will the BBC address this openly and honestly?
https://www.politicos.co.uk/books/when-reporters-cross-the-line-hardback
May soon need updating.
PM this evening at 5:45 a case of a Muslim woman refusing to remove the veil to enter a plea in court and a judge who refused to let her until she uncovered her face.
BBC hack claimed that it was a religious requirement for her to cover her face, which gave the impression that the woman’s religious rights were being compromised and that the judge was being ‘islamophobic’.
The truth of course is that there is no religious requirement to cover the face, and to be honest not much clear instruction to cover the hair in the Qur’an.
This would have put a completely different angle on the report with the Muslim woman being made to look unreasonable as she was being, and not the judge.
Was the story bylined?
There seems almost a flowery vibrancy to who is sent to empathise vs. report.
I have yet to hear back from Ch4 on this story, that anchor Krishnan was also most keen on Ms Manji’s ‘take’, despite the ASA confirming they did not provide the quotes she claims.
http://www.channel4.com/news/anti-immigration-home-office-van-campaign-advertising-asa
The BBC article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24068271
A similar type of article, this time affecting christians: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21025710 , and a more detailed summary of the cases at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19467554
What is noteworthy in my view is the amount of justification being provided in the muslim-slanted article, and how it tries to reframe the issue as one of tolerance of other people’s beliefs. There is a quote taken from the ‘Equal Treatment Bench Book’, a manual for judges we’re told, that says “[a niqab can be] an important element of their religious and cultural identity…[and that] To force a choice between that identity and the woman’s involvement in the criminal, civil justice, or tribunal system… may well have a significant impact on her sense of dignity”. One gets the impression the Beeboid approves of this approach.
Now, compare this to the BBC’s report on the christian cases – one woman was successful in her claim that BA was wrong to discriminate against her by saying she couldn’t wear a cross. The other 3 christians mentioned were not successful. One of them was a nurse who was not allowed to wear a cross, but the other 2 were denied because they refused to compromise their christian beliefs – one for refusing to provide counselling to gay couples, the other for refusing to marry them.
The BBC glosses over these by stating the facts that the European court of Human Rights denied the claims, but doesn’t really offer any further analysis.
Funnily enough, in today’s article, the beeboid also fails to connect the dots on the quote from the Bench Book, in that christians are now denied participation in various occupations because of their beliefs. I guess dignity must be less important to christians.
As has been stated on this site before (and in other places too), the acid test will be if we ever see a case where a gay couple sues a mosque for failing to grant them a marriage. Whilst I can’t see such a case coming up, it would be instructive to see which way the BBC went – would they support the homosexuals, or the muslims?
Thing is that Muslims don’t get married in the mosque, they marry at home with the men downstairs & the women upstairs. The bride & groom might not actually have any contact until after the ceremony & the celebrations are over. In fact it isn’t even necessary to have an imam present to oversee proceedings.
It’s a very alien culture which does not transfer well to a Western ideal.
Thoughtful,
“Thing is that Muslims don’t get married in the mosque, they marry at home with the men downstairs & the women upstairs.”
You mean they have a traditional ceremony at home. But they are not legally married in UK law until after a trip to the local registry office.
“It’s a very alien culture which does not transfer well to a Western ideal”
Heaven forbid that any “Westerners” would hold a ceremony at home before or after a trip to the local registry office…
Fair point. Jews have the same deal. The more orthodox ones even have one of those “red sheet” moments. Definitely not thoroughly modern attitudes.
Thoughtful,
“BBC hack claimed that it was a religious requirement for her to cover her face”
Not exactly. He said; “[The defendant] says that her religion forbids her from removing her veil…”. He then went on to say that it raised questions about a legal system; “that clashes with a religion that forbids a woman revealing her face”.
“The truth of course is that there is no religious requirement to cover the face…”
Not true. In certain religious denominations of Islam there is a requirement to cover the face. Arguing that it doesn’t say say so in the Qur’an is about as useless as telling a Catholic there’s nothing about condoms in the Bible.
dezmong said: Not true. In certain religious denominations of Islam there is a requirement to cover the face
utter rubbish
there’s nothing in that violent book called the koran that requires a female muslim to dress up like cousin it from the adams family. therefore nothing to do with religion
“Niqabs and Burqas as Security Threats”
By Daniel Pipes
(2006).
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2006/11/niqabs-and-burqas-as-security-threats
And:-
“Niqabs and Burqas – The Veiled Threat Continues”
by Daniel Pipes
( 2009).
http://www.danielpipes.org/7585/niqabs-burqas-veiled-threat
Cool Story Mo…..
Every time this sort of thing happens it hardens attitudes . It is idle to pretend otherwise.
In a court of law you face your accusers. It has been this way in England from Anglo Saxon times and probably before that.
Religion does not come into it. All this case does is highlight the incompatability of Islamic fundamentalism with Western law and society.
Either we all have to adhere to a common legal system that requires face to face contact or we risk a fracturing of the rule of law.As usual liberal cowardice masquerading as caring inclusiveness lets us all down.
“…liberal cowardice masquerading as caring inclusiveness…”
Excellent. I shall have to borrow that phrase some time, if I may.
Oh you blockhead Desmond!
To equate the burqa etc with condoms is idiocy…no Catholic would threaten to bomb a pub that had condom machines in the toilets, nor would they refuse to face a jury without one on his head.
Do tell me-which branches of Islam require this veil of which you speak?…it`s Friday prayers now, so maybe a couple of upraised bottoms might give you your answer-you`ll not be able to ask any of the women though..but hey, that`s cool!
Blockhead sir!
BBC News at ten talking about Prince William – moving into the apartments at Kensington Palace which have been refurbished AT PUBLIC EXPENSE !!!!!
Then moving onto how he’s finishing his career with the RAF and basically sneering at his Royal duties.
And the BBC moved onto New Broadcasting Palace…at public expense
Then found it too small, rented and decamped back to TV Centre…at public expense
And lost almost £200m on its digital archive…at public expense
And paid off its favoured fat cats at a cost of £50m…at public expense
Very good.
So know on the pro war lobby group on question time, says, images on Tv is evidence. So now second hand knowledge of churnalism is considered as proof! So when Uk n Us pro-war experts say it was Assad it done it, who are the public to deny the corporate global war machine on being the Wahhabi-al qaeda-jihadists air force! George bush jr, Henry Kissinger, wanted on International law charges, but conveniently ignored by the by western media and the Us. Ironic how it seems to be independent nations who don’t want central IMF control, deems always to be the axis of evil, towards “their Global Order” as Hilary Clinton makes clear. The communist oath breakers in Uk and Us cant even get common law correct in their own lands, never mind International law. Which if was followed, from the Nuremberg trials, would see a lot more Uk and Us oath breakers in International law, docks.
BBC-NUJ: pro-E.U and unable to criticise unelected BAROSSO.
It is clear where the BBC-NUJ’s poltical loyalty is in any conflict between the elected British Conservative Prime Minister Cameron, and a federalising, unelected E.U. President, Barosso.
The ‘Daily Mail’ raises this issue, but BBC-NUJ remains quiescent:-
“EU President’s thinly veiled attack on Cameron as he warns of returning to ‘the war, the trenches’ by reversing European integration”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2417384/EU-President-Jose-Manuel-Barrosos-thinly-veiled-attack-David-Cameron.html
“Barroso reminds us why we need to leave the EU”
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/428791/Barroso-reminds-us-why-we-need-to-leave-the-EU?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+daily-express-express-comment+%28Daily+Express+%3A%3A+Express+Comment+Feed%29
BBC-NUJ is apparently disinterested in unelected federalising E.U President Barroso interfering in British politics.
Is it because TUC and Labour Party policy are pro-E.U?
“‘Don’t lecture us on Europe’: Annoyed Cameron hits back at Barroso for attacking Tories and tipping UKIP for success”
By MATT CHORLEY, MAILONLINE POLITICAL EDITOR and GERRI PEEV
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2418961/David-Cameron-hits-European-Commission-President-Jose-Manuel-Barroso.html
Cameron is an embarrassment. He belongs to the school of politicans that believes in their hearts that they know better than the electorate, and are quite happy to mouth what they think voters want to hear whilst they ‘secretly’ cross their fingers behind their backs.
Going back on promises to hold an EU referendum shows exactly what the nuTories stand for these days – they seem to believe that in order to win power, they have to be like nuLabour was under Blair. They want to govern even if it means abandoning their own principles (being charitable and assuming they have some of course).
At least Farrage calls a spade a spade.
Even though Barroso is a pompous Eurocrat, in this particular case he’s right to call the Tories on their extremely cynical move towards the UKIP stance (whilst probably knowing they intend to renege on any promises made if they win a majority).
And Cameron’s response is instructive; rather than take the fat eurocrat to task for his ridiculous analogy about going back to a WW1 state, he elects to play the ‘my feelings are hurt that you don’t respect the Tories enough’. The only possible reaction to this is pity.
Completely idiotic piece of reporting from Tim Bowler where Darling tries to blame everyone but Labour for not foreseeing (creating) the economic situation. Labour will always be blamed for it and rightly so.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24057152
In today’s Mail:
Harriet Harman attacked the BBC last night for ‘pushing women out of the door’ as they got older.
The shadow culture secretary complained of double standards, adding: ‘It’s fine for Jeremy Paxman to go grey and grow a beard, but not for a woman.’
I’d just like to say that I think it’s absolutely fine for Ms Harman to grow a beard and I wouldn’t be too surprised if she did.
The weather is somewhat autumnal so I suppose it is only fitting that Nicky Campbell and his chums at the BBC will select a nice fat old chestnut to offer up to us for their after 9am phone in.
I do get the impression that Nicky’s editor has about three fingers on his left hand….
Drugs : legalise it – we’ll advertise it.
Sport : isn’t it horribly racist and sexist – except the Olympics
Multiculturalism : gosh we do love it and how well it’s working (in theory that is)
So what tasty morsal is Nicky serving up for debate today on the end of his expensive BBC toasting fork?
Selling arms: an essential part of the UK economy or morally wrong?
I’ll let you into a little secret here. These so called phone-in debates contain the voices of very few actual callers. 90% of the time goes to the invariably leftist campaigners and politicos. Whenever the drift goes the wrong way our Nicky can read out a right thinking ‘text’.
And our impartial gameshow compare? He dresses so far to the left that he sounds like a trendy 4th form supply teacher.
So that I’m not too irate that all this goes on funded by my Licence Fee I console myself that at least the BBC serves as some kind of outreach reassurance service to:
Liverpudlian comrades who still can’t get over the Spanish Civil War;
the voluntarily insane;
40 something ex-SWP-ers (those few who don’t actually work for the BBC)