Here you go, a new Monday thread to complete.
MONDAY OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Scroblene Dec 22, 06:34
Weekend 21st December 2024
Great clips there! Was Rik Mayall the voice of Bliar? - Scroblene Dec 22, 06:26
Weekend 21st December 2024
Stay up on your soap box, Lazers, you sum up what most legal citizens in the UK feel, and it’s… - 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
Beeboids criticise Tories in a way they never do with Lib Dems, such as CABLE.
1. )
Stephen Glover, ‘Daily Mail’:-
“Shameless treachery: Mr Cable is the most disloyal and devious politician of our times”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2422932/STEPHEN-GLOVER-Shameless-treachery-Mr-Cable-disloyal-devious-politician-times.html
2.) BBC-NUJ report:-
“Vince Cable attacks ‘ugly’ Conservative politics”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24103857
Of course, Beeboids have a political agenda with Lib Dems-
seeing them as an irritant to Tories, but as possible coalition partners for Labour Party, post-2015 election.
The purpose of a review is to find out the state of affairs existing at the time of the review, and then make corrections and alterations to the problems found.
So you know it’s pure spin and deceit, and in the case of the BBC, a continuation of spin and deceit, when you are told before the review what the findings will be.
The BBC Trust is going ro launch a review of the corporation’s entire news output to ensure modern audiences and licence-payers are satisfied with the ‘quality’ of programmes.
The Trust says the move is simply to guarantee ‘quality and distinctiveness’
Announcing the plan BBC trustee Richard Ayre said the decision was taken from a ‘position of strength’
A position of strength? I don’t think so. Has he been following events within the BBC even over just the past year? If this is strength I don’t know what he would describe as weak.
The BBC was referred to as an ‘annus horribilis’ by Culture Secretary Maria Miller last week. The Latin phrase actually means ‘horrible year’. I prefer a better meaning, more like it sounds – horrible arseholes.
BBC launches review of its entire news output to ensure modern audiences are happy with the ‘quality’ of its programmes
Good to see the Mail catching up on things.
I wonder if they became aware of the review and sought out the PR, or were sent it?
I see that they also go beyond, but not to the extent of troubling Mr. Ayre on claims that, as one of those in oversight of the BBC, explain if not excuse its current and deteriorating predicament.
As you say, a ‘review’ whose parameters excluded any failures sounds more like a turd-gilding exercise, and therefore pointless as anything bar providing an excuse for BBC PR to tell BBC staff that BBC bosses think all is well in the state of Denmark. Few outside will be convinced given… reality.
Though doubtless FOI excluded, what this further waste will cost would be interesting.
Maybe the Guardian or Daily Mail could be moved to going beyond reprinting press releases and ask the BBC? Answers, or even refusals, would be interesting.
It’s just like we saw recently with the ‘BBC Trustee who has raised concerns about a second job culture at the BBC after it emerged highly-paid executives were being allowed to run businesses on the side’.
This came after the Mail on Sunday published its findings.
So what did this trustee think his job was?
The actual information concerning the individuals named in the newspaper is available on the BBC website itself, Inside the BBC
So instead of waiting till others revealed these findings, it was the trustees responsibility to have looked up the individuals earning this type of money paid for by licence fee payers and raise the alarm themselves.
They raise ‘concern’ AFTER somebody else has done their job for them, and predict results BEFORE somebody else has researched actual material.
And these are people we are supposed to trust!
Like I wrote – ‘horrible arseholes’.
As for the Mail ‘catching up on things’, after reading the following article by them, I’m not so sure.
DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Why the Mail stands shoulder to shoulder with the BBC…
They express their fear that the BBC should be controlled by Ofcom.
Their key points are: the Mail stands shoulder to shoulder with the Corporation in its battle to protect BBC independence from the most insidious threat it has faced in peacetime.
For make no mistake, if politicians are given influence over the BBC’s output – as they would be, under this plan to transfer the Trust’s functions to Ofcom and the National Audit Office – this will fundamentally undermine the Corporation’s independence and, with it, the public’s right to know.
Indeed, any scrutiny of Ofcom – that nest of politically-correct Blairites – should demonstrate how unsafe it would be to entrust it with rulings on what the BBC may and may not broadcast.
My thinking is it’s absurd for the Mail to be taking this stance. In any case, it’s my understanding that the output of the Mail, like every other private media company, is already overseen by Ofcom. Unlike the BBC which has the autonomy and power to monitor its own output, and the licence fee payer has to pay up or face prison if they don’t give it this power.
So instead of the BBC dictating what politicians should or shouldn’t do, as it stands at the moment, the Mail thinks it will be worse of it was the other way round. Frankly I can’t see any difference so long as the dynamics that already exist within our society continue to reign.
I would like to see an exterior control of BBC output that is comprised of a genuine BALANCE of views, who constantly review BBC’s output. This is only provided the BBC is maintained by the licence fee payer. I would like it more if the BBC was privatised – then they can do what they like.
Given the present managerial ‘talent’, I don’t think they would last very long.
I think the Mail is probably more overseen by the PCC, if at all. That can of worms has been well and truly muddied further by Leveson, egged on by the BBC and #HackedOff, in Labour’s foyer.
And broadcasters, notionally, are under OFCOM, except the BBC, which oversees itself, with now predictable consequences.
The Mail appears not to be keen on OFCOM getting the gig, which in the grand scheme of odd shoulder-to-shoulderdom finds them also sharing dandruff with BBC DG-aspirant Ed Richards, oddly reputed not to be keen either, though he has also claimed ‘it would be easy to do’. Usually I admire confidence, but arrogant delusion has got the licence fee paid BBC to the place it is now, and it’s not a good one. If this is just a dance to let him waltz in later…reluctantly… it will be too typically dire.
No such thing has, does or will ever exist, but regulation of anything (especially state), should be independent, transparent and powerful enough to be feared. Hence, for the public sector, it ain’t gonna happen.
In passing, I note reference to the BBC ‘With its 8,000 journalists’.
That the Mail can write such tosh is equally silly.
A minute fraction of that number are, by any definition, ‘journalists’. Most are daft bints like Tulip or £19pw woman who have been handed a cubicle, phone, BBC business card and twitter page, ‘views my own’.
And the calibre of their professional output and too many like them all the way up the greasy Beebpole hierarchy is why a non-internal, non-secret, properly independent complaints and oversight system is needed yesterday.
Shorter version: “Are those generational memories of trust and a deep cultural connection still intact? We’re still a national treasure, right? Right?”
🙂 Still probably too long for some to read though.
What is the problem BBC 5 Live presenters have with Royalty?
Richard Bacon : ‘Royal documentaries…. even though I’ve done one myself…. they always seem to come over as…. propaganda’
As opposed to the tone of many other documentaries not featuring the Royals? I’ve witnessed dozens of BBC documenatries that came over as pure political propaganda.
So for those in doubt, let me translate for Richard.
Hello trendy young 5 Live listeners. Your profile is likely to be well educated – so suspend disbelief for a moment and assume that I am not a gormless dork. You are probably public sector employed. You are generally Leftist in sentiment and I guess that you are republican in outlook – so am I (Richard Bacon) please love me. I am a good progressive person. I may suck hard on the public teat but I am on the side of the angels.
(republican is meant in the UK sense of the word – heaven forbid listeners might be Republican in the US sense of the word – Mr Bacon’s head would explode)
And this further poke at the Royals political dogwhistle from Mr Bacon comes on the same day as his colleague (not for PAYE purposes mind you) Nicky Campbell made a silly disrespectful and unfunny joke at the expense of the Queen – who has no right of reply.
Why would anyone listen to 5 Live voluntarily?
Their presenters lack kudos Campbell, ex Radio 1 DJ, Top Of The Pops presenter and Wheel of Fortune host, Bacon ex Blue Peter (sacked!), Adebayo, Derbyshire, Livesey (ex Daily and Sunday Sport), Goldberg and Nolan.
All lefty luvvvies and proud to broadcast the fact.
Interesting piece on government… and media…
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4153/the_moral_bankruptcy_of_the_u_k_s_faux_conservative_government
The BBC acting as the Tories’ snitch.
Not so strange bedfellows at all?
They seem to share a very similar strategic vision…
http://www.taxrelief4escorts.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/8169099509_3860d7f26c.jpg
http://www.expatica.com/upload/tv_licensing_everydaylifemodern-TEXT.jpg
Two bits of news that may surprise (they did me) by reporting on things not following paths one has come to expect:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/09/leaked-emails-reveal-united-nations-fury-at-bedroom-tax-report/
I wonder if any of the many BBC reporters over in the US may by chance be popping over to their usually happy hunting ground at the UN to follow up on this, given this batty bird only hit the headlines ‘when it emerged that the UN’s Special Rapporteur was lined up for Wednesday’s Today programme’
Maybe a Today follow up?
Sounds like the Government all ran away leaving an open goal, and the BBC rushed the ball to her feet in front of the goal, only for her to place her feet in her mouth and kick them in the nuts too. Actually, a great result for those who feel the politico-media classes are lacking in… anything, really.
Next up, and I will leave it at this, the possible downsides of a default appeal punt on the basis it can’t hurt to try…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24108640
Maybe some experienced ‘analysis’ from Tulip, and maybe vox pops from a non Yam-yam area of the Midlands will help?
Don’t you just love the words used by the UK’s Ambassador to the United Nations?
… point out the inadvisability for … credibility of entering political debate without being in possession of the facts.
Not exactly pithy, but could well be applied to many of the bBBC’s favourites, such as Owen ‘Shouty’ Jones, Mehdi Hasan, Polly Toynbee, etc.
I read Coles’ gossip column yesterday, and it begs the same question that Shapps’ rant did: how did this woman really come to do her investigation? Tittering about everyone being upset doesn’t shed any light on this.
How was it actually arranged? Who really invited her? Who signed off on it from the UN? With whom did she actually meet? This seems like it would be a big deal: the UN appearing to condemn a domestic policy of one of its member States, taking sides with the domestic political opposition, and getting plenty of face time on the national broadcaster. Lots of unasked or unanswered or poorly answered questions, and some answers given are unsatisfactory.
Surely with all these bureaucrats and organizations involved, there must be a paper trail or a sequence of events to follow.
PS: It seems the term “rapporteur” is a misnomer.
All good questions.
Maybe yet to be asked by Today, unless they see their job as more facilitating the deployment of loose cannons to unsettle the government of the country whose name they share than sensible news reporting.
As to ‘rapporteur’, the first time I learned of it was when John Prescott was bestowed the title for his contributions to jollies, 1st class & 5* world tra… um… ‘climate’.
Given the record of those with this honorific, it may actually be a coded warning.
Somebody on the News Channel sort of asked the other day, but there didn’t seem to be an real answers, or any interest in digging further. Maybe they’re working on it.
I have noticed one or two disparaging remarks made hereabouts concerning our Tulip Mazumdar
http://www.unofficialmills.co.uk/communities/showthread.php?13633-Talent-2010-Tulip-Mazumdar
Please take our Tulip seriously
‘Tulip Mazumdar’s mother chose her name while gazing on the blooming bulb fields during springtime in Lincolnshire.’
And to be fair
http://www.bbc.co.uk/careers/our-people/tulip-mazumdar
‘Many people dream of becoming a reporter, very few are successful.’
Reflect on this : In the month in which we lost Sir David Frost our Tulip is following in the grand trandition
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/news/profiles/tulip_mazumdar.shtml
‘Who’s your favourite news reporter and why?
Andrew Marr. He’s a giant amongst men. Closely followed by Michael Buerk. He was on the news all the time when I was a kid, I got to meet him a few months back and I was proper starstruck.’
Now on the otherhand I can’t deny that in the past our Tulip has had her critics
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1228242
‘Tulip Mazumdar on Radio 1 constantly trips over her words
I can’t be the only person that has noticed this? If she can’t do newsreading she should be out doing pre-recorded reports or something, because distracting, um, it’s very distracting to uhhh hear someone tripping over their words the whole time.’
We may not all see it but – as she explains – the BBC must have seen great potential in our Tulip
‘A reporter must be enthusiastic, bold, inquiring and knowledgeable – and, of course, a comfortable performer with a first class broadcasting voice.’
And she is a hot tip for the very top
‘Advice on anyone who wants to get started in journalism:
Approach the paper/ programme you want to work for with lots to say about what they do. What you love about it and what you think they could do differently. It’s a cliche, but take those phone answering and tea making jobs, that’s how I first got into the BBC.’
You see, it was all about starting at the bottom, having great talent and working your way up.
‘Her career began at Liverpool University, making news CDs for the student union bar, and progressed via BBC Radio Merseyside to the news show on the corporation’s black music station 1-Xtra.’
I wouldn’t be surprized to see the rise and rise of our Tulip
‘Her ambitions now lie further afield. “Obviously [World Affairs Editor] John Simpson is an old hand at this,” she says. “But there aren’t many big international female reporters any more.”
“Any more”? So there was a time when women had less difficulty rising to the top like this? What’s happened?
I must confess to being one who has in part noted the output of our Tulip, and as a consequence have referred to her maybe on occasion as one embodying the new journalistic standards the next generation are bringing to the corporation.
In my defence, in part as the name has rather struck a chord (only lucky Mum wasn’t gazing over a silage pit in Herefordshire), but there’s also the fact that the ‘report’ that brought her to others and then my attention was utter pants in terms of accuracy and objectivity.
The R1 ra-ra clip is interesting. Any VO featuring politics seemed by coincidence to be not very complimentary about the government. Speaking for the yoof of the country.
‘She checks facts and delivers them in an interesting way, different to the rest of the BBC’. Apparently.
Almost a quarter of men ‘admit to rape in parts of Asia’ – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24021573
As Jeff Waters pointed out:
‘Erm, except that when you read the article, you find that they don’t. That’s merely a feminist interpretation of a feminist study.’
Now, to be fair, Tulip (of many titles, including Global Heath Reporter, based on…?) is but one of a team. Colleagues, mentors and superiors. But that’s her name on the byline.
And even the facts don’t add up.
Which is what I really only care about.
But now looking at the comments from what I can only presume are intra-BBC gossip sites, she may already be part of a ferrets in a sack deal or two already, so market rate top-floordom beckons, if she can stay off the coffee and remember to get off the escalator at the right floor.
I know it’s probably me, but i can help but detect a faint air of joy from this BBC article that a man has been outrageously jailed for doing no more than throwing a bacon roll (a waste if you ask me) into a mosque. They can burn our poppies and spit at our soldiers and nothing happens but…
Not funny for Mr. Stilwell, but as headlines go that has to be one of the BBC’s better efforts of late in cause of being taken seriously.
On how the report reads, it is a shame in this case that there is no byline this time to accord full credit to the ‘reporter’ keen here to record only facts and not go further with any ‘analysis’.
Ten months for assaulting an inanimate structure with meat products may seem to some a legal judgement worthy of some discussion in its own right.
Others may feel he was lucky to get away with his hands intact.
FOI exclusions doubtless apply to BBC decisions in this regard.
In other news:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8939276/Mercy-for-the-drunk-Muslim-girl-gang-who-attacked-woman.html
But then, it was a different time.
Unsure such sentencing variations are going to assist community cohesion much, though.
Luckily…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/?q=Rhea%20Page
One supposes it depends on what is ‘news’ and what is not, and where.
“Wayne Stilwell, 25, was caught on security cameras attaching the bacon to the handles of the main door at Edinburgh’s Central Mosque.”
That was his first mistake. I can think of other buildings where it might have made a difference.
sorry link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-24130079
From BBC Watch:
Have your say: the BBC Trust wants to know what you think
by Hadar Sela
Via the Daily Telegraph we learn that:
“The BBC Trust has launched the latest in a series of audience consultations to establish whether the corporation’s news output is living up to its public service commitments.
It has now announced the investigation will encompass its flagship news and current affairs programmes, including Radio 4’s Today programme, Panorama, Question Times, Newsnight and the Daily Politics.
It will also investigate the BBC website’s news section, Radio 1’s Newsbeat and bulletins across television and radio.
A spokesman confirmed the review will “particularly focus” on what audiences think about the quality and distinctiveness of BBC news and current affairs, and how to deal with changing viewing habits.”
The consultation will run from September 16th to December 13th 2013 and there are various ways to take part – see details here. It covers television and radio programmes available in the UK as well as BBC Online and social media – in other words, the consultation does not include the BBC World Service.
An opportunity definitely not to be wasted.
More picking up on this review… good.
Trouble is when ‘reporters’, such as the one from the DT, don’t read the press release they’re quoting.
It’s hard to see how it can be a proper review if the parameters set out specifically exclude going anywhere near thinking about howling great cock-ups in accuracy or integrity.
That would make it more a whitewash come smoke and mirrors job.
They can at least say hi to Tulip as they swing by.
Looking at the questions they ask, how does one respond to:
6b. BBC News and Current Affairs output offers something different to other news providers and channels
Please tick one box.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
How does one respond in a way that doesn’t make it appear like the BBC is doing a good job?
in dm, doctor claims she was gang raped, you’d think the bbc would be mesmerised by such a case
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2423554/Doctor-falsely-claimed-gang-raped-threatened-knife-burned-lighter-sex-attack-didnt-happen.html
but nothing on the bbc about the hearing mentioned in the dm article, or the original complaint, presumably she is a `Lincolnshire` woman
‘why no names or detail?’
DM readers, eh? What are you gonna so with ’em?
Watched a bit of Vince Cable talking crap about not having any view on when the Coalition might split-he squashed the questions to this effect from Kirsty Wark last night. Clear as a bell.
Blow me if the BBC say that Vince Cable had made noises to this effect-and they quoted the self same stuff that said it was not his role to speculate on this…but the BBC obviously knew what Vince meant to say, and why let his mealy mouthed non-commital get in the way of Kirstys agenda-and therefore the BBCs next day.
Utterly shameless liars, and now they`re even turning bland crap into firebombs against the Tories…how very day they?
Because they want to….
The 8 O clock news(Radio 4)…cf Newslight last night…
Jeremy Vine must have spent twenty minutes with some poor Hong Kong lady who has settled in Manchester on his show earlier?
Poor woman did have a story to tell-but instead we had minutes of him singing an Oasis piece of Beatle tripe in Chinatown up there…and then minutes trying to get the womans opinion on the Smiths…they`re Manchester too you see to any Oxbridge Beeboid on a day trip “oop norf”.
Utterly embarrassing crap-this ignorant patronised boat person didn`t recognise neither the names or the fitffs on his phone…so a bit thick, unlike Jez with his Joy Division/New Order fixations…daddys trench coat come in handy up there you dig?
But Jezza educated, informed and explained-“Manc culcha” as his NME would have it…but the lady was more concerned with Long Division and had seen Maos New Order so didn`t need the pisstakes.
The Chinese were given the equivalent of another division of smart faceless soldiers today-for if Vine and the BBC are what Britain stands for…just don the trenchcoats and give `em some Jilted John on the iPods…they`ll just roll over like the fat overpaid Islington fonyz that they are…
Hope this is NOT repeated on the World Service either!
And so it goes on. I wonder if the BBC will report this event. It certainly is across the interweb.
Activists have published a photo of a pilot, who was driving a Syrian helicopter downed by Turkish Air Defense above al-Yusfia village in al-Turkman mountain of Latakia countryside, the activists added that the pilot has landed with his parachute on an area under the control of radicalized fighters of the Islamic State and al-Muhajereen battalion, who immediately took him and beheaded him.
In amongst a whole host of don’t you have anything better to do style edicts, diktats and general pointless wastage…
“17 The BBC’s latest equality report expressed alarm that there had been a drop in the number of disabled staff, from 4.6 per cent to 3.5 per cent over the past five years. And just 3.1 per cent of senior managers are disabled. As a result, the corporation now has a 22-point plan to make sure that more of its staff are disabled as soon as possible. If you see what I mean. “
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10293114/Wherever-there-is-red-tape-the-truth-will-be-stranger-than-fiction.html
‘the corporation now has a 22-point plan to make sure that more of its staff are disabled as soon as possible’
The boobytrapped rotating entrance door (bit of collateral is I think it also took out a few already meeting target), the bunching escalator, the botulism-warming baked spuds…. they all make a sick kind of sense now.
Was it the hit lady from HR again? She forgets. Way-hay…Alzheimers! That means the entire market rate top floor are doing their bit!
LOL!
One of the things I hate about the BBC is the way they interview themselves as experts on pretty well anything they want.
So keen are they to control the message, they have gone even further tonight, putting their BBC Scotland Correspondent in the AUDIENCE, debating the Scottish referendum on Newsnight.
Unbelievable
http://forums.ellusionist.com/showthread.php?81040-Fake-audience-videos&p=742788
I liked this answer:
‘Several studios have a stable of spectators, which are probably mostly culled from friends and family because it would save money.’
In the BBC family probably means on staff anyway.
Tired of Nicky Campbell’s hollow self-righteousness and lame wannabe comedic banter?
Always worth bearing this in mind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Weekend
‘Central Weekend (also called Central Weekend Live) is a British television debate show which ran from 1986 to 2001. Known for the confrontational nature of its studio audience and topics, it was presented for many years by Nicky Campbell.’
‘In 2001, a complaint was made to the Independent Television Commission after it emerged that an edition of the show had featured fake guests.’
What our Nicky? Involved in fakery?
Oh, and spot the fellow semi-Salford Beeboid among this rogues gallery
‘Though Campbell was the main host, there were a number of other presenters who joined him throughout the show’s time on air. These included Anna Soubry, Adrian Mills, Kaye Adams, Sue Jay, Roger Cook, Bibi Baskin, Paul Ross, John Stapleton, James Whale, Ed Doolan, Victoria Derbyshire, Patricia Mitchell and Claudia Winkleman.’
Kirsty Wark has inveted an new word. At least it is new to me. It is no longer a “railway bridge” .It is now a train bridge.
Where do the BBC find these language manglers. ? Do they grow them in creches from childhood?
These were by far the most interesting words on the programme.
Why do the Scots come over as so aggressive? They all seem to want to fight .Or did that show tonight find the most charmless bunch in Scotland to put on air?
I suppose Scottish nationalism is OK by our liberal elite. Certainly nothing as threatening as any English statement of nationhood or identity. Strange that but then liberalism is full of contradictions. Comes from having no real grasp of reality.
My guess would be that the BBC would want Scotland to remain in the UK, simply because this would increase the chance of a Labour government in Westminster, since Labour wins the most seats in Scotland, while the evil Tories do much better in England. Labour is more in tune with BBC values and there’s the Charter renewal in 2016 to worry about, in view of the fallout from Savile, Hall, Entwhistle, Lucy Adams, Patten, Byford, DMI, Salford move, etc, etc.
Aside from that consideration, I would guess that Scottish nationalism, particularly of the anti-English and anti-Tory sort, would please the BBC, as it would help to Balkanise the UK and make EU dominance easier. It may be that psycho-passive/submissive BBC types like being bullied by Muslims, EU dictators, Scots, et al; it makes them feel good, as they turn the other cheak and feel self-righteous; the Tories should try bullying the BBC a bit, as a vote-winner, citing the mountains the evidence given by contributors here.
You would think that Wark would use the term “railway bridge” just as it was used by that superb Scottish poet William McGonagill. Using “train bridge” would have destroyed McGonagill’s easy rhythm.
http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk/gems/the-railway-bridge-of-the-silvery-tay
and the poet stuck with “railway bridge” after the dreadful disaster :
“On the last Sabbath day of 1879,
Which will be remember’d for a very long time”
http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk/gems/the-tay-bridge-disaster
Dave s,
“Kirsty Wark has inveted an new word. At least it is new to me. It is no longer a “railway bridge” .It is now a train bridge. Where do the BBC find these language manglers.? Do they grow them in creches from childhood?”
“Union Chain Bridge”.
http://goo.gl/HQVTa4
Recommended:
http://goo.gl/no0BnW
TAF;NC
Train bridges cross over the train roads I think!
I thought she said train not chain. Being a West Countryman The Scottish accent is impenetrable to me on occasions.
My criticism of her is withdrawn.
Not of the aggressiveness displayed on the show. That still stands.
She probably doesn’t know the difference between a train and a railway.
Not surprising. Many of them can’t even tell the difference between a singular and a plural noun. Sky’s no better.
“liberalism is full of contradictions. Comes from having no real grasp of reality.”
Well said Dave
Have you noticed Beeboids using the phrase “Independence Referendum”?
Shouldn’t it be the Referendum On Independence?
I feel the Beeboids are using their version with a certain amount of glee because this phrase implies one outcome rather more than the other.
Nicky Campbell asks listeners for ‘foreign laws to watch out for’
His best example I’ve heard so far is ‘Austria : Ban on kissing on a train’.
I don’t know, what next, damned Tyroleans coming over here demanding Network Rail must ‘respect their culture’.
Won’t we see special Non-embrace Zones alongside the Quiet Zone – don’t our Alpine community want expect and demand those?
What, you mean that hasn’t happened? Austrians are happily snogging away on the 8.20 from Waterloo?
No woolly-hatted protests outside the Ministry of Transport?
BBC not calling British kissers on the rails “hate criminals”?
As always, a rich seam….
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/collegiate.html
Have to admire the loyalty amongst Ms. Adams’ Hiring & Redundancy market rate colleagues, noted for their skill in drafting contracts, etc.
Also appreciated the double meaning in the headline they chose: ‘Lay off Lucy’.
‘It’s at odds with the cheering reported from the BBC Newsroom’
“And now, here is the BBC Ne…ferrets in a sack”
One big happy family.
Also, an enterprising DM or Graun hack may track down Richard Ayre, and ask the basis of his ‘most trusted worldwide’ mantra in the Review BS…er, PR… given this a few paras down:
‘For those of us who work predominantly abroad, it’s horrifying to see how the BBC’s reputation is being undermined by this saga as much as by the sexual abuse scandals.
I noticed this on a recent filming trip to China, where a surprising number of people seemed to be au fait with the scandal over excessive management pay and it clearly weakened our authority and credibility on the ground.
This is especially damaging in regimes that might look to find reasons not to be interviewed or find holes in the BBC’s integrity.
Please, whoever is in a position to influence future management behaviour – and most BBC employees, I know, feel completely powerless – remember how all this is impacting on the international standing of the BBC and individuals just trying to do their job.
When ‘The Trust’ asks folk, one presumes they steer clear of folk like Rajan, and stick with MPs from all parties with an eye to the DP Sofa (Newsnight possibly now a dead zone to nay but the most desperate thanks to Mr. Katz)?
Having invoked the nigh-integrity DM, there is this:
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/shoulder-to-shoulder-but-shoving-hard.html
It shouldn’t be a surprise. The Mail needs the BBC. Their readership and the BBC’s core audience overlap almost totally.
Some interesting stats, a backhanded reference to the BBC’s new role as provider of bad smell ratings gold, and then there’s this…
‘…taking the mick out of management pomposity is in the BBC DNA, and is probably one of its survival genes.’
Given the reaction of Hugs and her mods to reactions when she tried the DNA route, one is not so sure.
And finally, as inquiries and committees and reviews grind on, offering a reliable source of income from the BBC to all bar the licence fee payer, there’s this…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/golden-years.html
If the good lady was at No. 10 ’98-99, that would be at a time of great policy, ahem, ‘innovation’.
And she was there with James Purnell and Ed Richards, eh? Now, there are two impartial politico-media careers to conjure with. Bet they both leave their personal opinions behind each day.
‘So no formal introductions needed ahead of Charter Review’
And, possibly, few concerns on the outcome either.
The Conservatives really deserve all that’s coming to them. The public don’t.
Glorious awkward juxtaposition just now on BBC 5 Live.
Nicky Campbell was worshipping at the knee of that great BBC Guru – Sir David Attenborough.
Big issues are at stake kiddies. Wildlife versus ever growing world population. Please Sir, whats-a-beeboid to think?
Ahhh says the great white one, I’m glad you’ve asked me that conundrum….. well let me think…. mmmm…. how about this…. Give the wimmin of the world the choice and they will happily vote for the condom.
There, I’ve solved that one and no BBC sacred cows have been slaughtered. Nicky, my son, you have a new mantra from the great one. Go forth and spread the good news.
(Or words to that effect).
And now Rachel Burden talks about ‘one stop shops for egg donors’ cos wimmin are ‘desperate’.
Whoops.
Well, what a coincidence. Evan Davies asked him that one too on Today. Actually, I didn’t disagree with him when he implied that birth rates will stabilise where women aren’t oppressed. Although I don’t think that’s the actual word he used.
The interview then took an unusual turn when Evan more or less accused him of being an old codger who would soon want to euthanize himself. At which point the line went down.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/picturegalleries/signlanguage/10314366/Sign-Language-week-274.html?
One for Graun or bored BBC management?
INBBC’s political preference to Muslim women re-niqab/burqa.
Why does INBBC give more say to Muslim women, than to non-Muslim women in Britain on the wearing of the niqab/burqa in Britain?
Is it because INBBC presumes that Muslim women should have political priority, and count for more on this issue?
Is it that INBBC wants to speed up the Islamisation of Britain?
“Why are my fellow feminists shamefully silent over the tyranny of the veil, asks JULIE BINDEL”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2424073/Why-fellow-feminists-shamefully-silent-tyranny-veil-asks-JULIE-BINDEL.html
Of course, INBBC describes France’s ban on the wearing of the burqa in public as ‘controversial, but INBBC does not describe Britain’s current non-ban on burqas in public as ‘controversial’.
If so, there would appear to be lines drawn at guideline level at where the term is appropriate, or not.
These decisions in turn seem to depend on value judgements of some kind.
There is clearly controversy with both options, discussed or enacted.
Why the difference in reporting language?
Who decides? And why?
Probably answers are FOI excluded?
What is controversial in Britain – and in France – is the idea of newcomers wearing garb that hides the face. It is the burqa-wearers who are controversial – not the indigenous population that is very very wary of the gear. And any ban for specific places is not seen as controversial by the majority of the indigenous population. Especially when people realise that the burqa is more of a political statement, a statement of separation – and often forced on the wearers.
But as you say – the BBC kowtows to the views of some in the alien culture – and largely disregards the views of us lot.
I was in Istanbul a few eeeks ago for a weekend – I saw only a handful of burqas. But Pakistani and Bangladeshi and Somalian areas of British cities are full of them.
Agree.
Was in Antalya region for 11 days (recommended), didn’t see one.
Quite a few hijabs, but mostly western dress.
Note how INBBC biases its political presentation on niqab/burqa.
It is as though this has come straight from the pages of the apartheid INBBC Asian Network:-
“Viewpoints: Should full-face veils be banned in some public places?”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24106142
(Note the peculiar wording of the question, including ‘some’.)
INBBC presents as its two main featured viewpoints those of two Muslims, (shown with smiley photos) – a Muslim woman and a Muslim man, from two Muslim organisations, who (surprise, surprise) do not support a ban on the burqa.
Whether this INBBC ‘Viewpoint’ piece was written up by Muslim member of staff at INBBC is irrelevant, but it certainly could have been. So it doesn’t matter whether INBBCs presenters are Muslims or non-Muslims on this issue, the bias is invariably to over-represent minority Islamic interests, as though non-Muslims interests are secondary, not primary on the wearing of the burqa.
“Ban the Burqa – and the Niqab Too”
http://www.danielpipes.org/4783/ban-the-burqa-and-the-niqab-too
Little piece from down-under:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24121938
Fair enough.
However, waaaaaaaaay down, there’s this little gem:
‘His 19-member cabinet line-up has caused debate because it contains only one woman, new Foreign Minister Julie Bishop.’
‘Debate’, BBC? But by or with whom? No mention.
Still, mentioned it once, got away with it? Er…no.
Guess what, on the BBC World News FaceBook page, its doubtless scores of editors (for they are legion), in featuring this story, have decided to introduced it with:
BBC World News
Australia’s new Prime Minister Tony Abbott and his new cabinet ministers have been sworn in.
However criticism continues for only appointing one woman – the Foreign Minister Julie Bishop.
So in transfer to top concern, ‘debate’ on wimmin ratios has also become ‘criticism’, but still no word from whom.
But maybe some may guess?
ps: I say ‘BBC’, as this effort is not bylined. The convention appears variable, like so much. Maybe their new Ozophile JD, or maybe some ‘reporter’ hired on the beaches for their Indonesian experience and little else? The BBC does, like many debaters/critics, like its well-ticked boxes. Few Great Whites prior to interview, even the disability quota problem may get sorted.
Couldnot understand that the most important headline news this morning on Radio 4 was that the number of nurses in each hospital on duty at night is going to be made public !!. And how is that information going to help- they didnot explain!
I look forward to seeing anything about this:
on the BBC, but will not hold my breath. It is video showing rebels firing Sarin in Syria on the day of the attack.
This video allegedly retrieved from a cellphone taken from the dead body of a rebel fighter.
INBBC censors Islamic violence in East London:-
‘East London Advertiser’ has:-
“Police investigate ‘terror attack’ on Bangladesh Minister” (in East London)
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/court-crime/police_investigate_terror_attack_on_bangladesh_minister_1_2675301
The above report is a reminder of-
1.) the widespread Islamic jihad violence in the setting up of Bangladesh in 1971;
2.) the on-going Islamic violence in 2013, relating to that issue, not only in Bangladesh and the Indian sub-continent, but also in Britain today;
3.) the contrasting INBBC bias in reporting against English Defence League attempting to have a march in East London, with the silence of INBBC on apparently violent conflicts between Bangladeshi Muslims in East London now.
INBBC: unsympathetic to friend of EDL leader being refused service in Selfridges.
The views of Tommy Robinson’s friend are NOT represented by INBBC in this denial of service in Selfridges.
“No action after EDL leader’s friend refused Selfridges service”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24145261
Yesterday the use by the BBC of smiley pictures of black youths was raised on the “Could Have Been Me” thread.
Well, at least we can’t accuse them of that on this story when it comes to whitey.
Worth asking what governs such choices.
If only for fun of the ‘we don’t have to explain anything, for the purposes of ensuring the narrative, yadayaya’ exemption having to be dusted off again.
Significant supplementary info here-
“Selfridges assistant not punished after refusing to serve friend of English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson”
http://metro.co.uk/2013/09/18/selfridges-assistant-facing-sack-after-refusing-to-serve-friend-of-english-defence-league-leader-tommy-robinson-4045661/?
Thanks to Metro’s bylining, the reporting of Tariq Tahir can be viewed if necessary with other of his bodies of work should anyone be interested in the who behind the choices of what.
That the BBC can often be coy in this regard is noteworthy, being how keen they are on context when it suits.
Listening to Jeremy Vine he had a topic about woman who have come here to make new lives for themselves.
Don’t have an issue with that they sound hard working and fair play to them.
What annoys me is the way Vine runs down this country, the culturethe music, how we are useless at everything, lazy, ignorant( we would all fail a citizenship test) our food is terrible and lucky we have hard working immigrants to help us along.
Typical patronising anti british we get from bbc journalists
IMHO.
Unfortunately, a significant number of middle class people are like this. I don’t know any country that runs itself down like this one.