New Open Thread…..
Open Thread Tuesday
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Yasser Dasmibehbi Dec 22, 03:46
Weekend 21st December 2024
I found this interesting. https://youtu.be/tA8zz7niOy0?si=YwrTyvtMxLn2vVvH - StewGreen Dec 22, 00:14
Weekend 21st December 2024
Youtube just pushed a video at me that invading North Korean troops had been smashed cos they were using 19th… - StewGreen Dec 22, 00:09
Weekend 21st December 2024
“Jawdropping” propaganda from woke-Supremacist BBC and police https://youtu.be/IMuafLX0xhQ - Greencoat Dec 21, 23:22
Weekend 21st December 2024
Mantel was a deeply unpleasant, dishonest person. And her books? Next to unreadable. - tomo Dec 21, 23:12
Weekend 21st December 2024
Trump shooter…….. https://x.com/TonySeruga/status/1870474697676325217 - Lazy Cat Dec 21, 22:39
Weekend 21st December 2024
And that ‘Let’s get ready to rumble’ announcer is still going. He was doing the Tyson fights back in the… - Lazy Cat Dec 21, 22:35
Weekend 21st December 2024
Right going to watch the Fury fight now. The build up has been about 5 hours long. I think 4… - Lazy Cat Dec 21, 22:28
Weekend 21st December 2024
Indeed. I’ve seen few NK documentaries down the years. In a few of them, I’ve seen clips and interviews with…
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24812042
Three killed in Norway attack..
I am shocked, the bBBC has actually gone so far to state the suspect is of “foreign origin”. I do wonder what his religion may be though.
I’m actually finding it quite annoying nowadays whenever I read “man” or “men” in conjunction with a crime-related news article as I just assume it’s one of “those” men.
I’ve started to do the same with ” ‘British’ “. How many inverted commas are we meant to subconsciously attach to these words now?
I suppose that’s yer famous “racism” at work, suppose I must be off to a re-education camp at once..
Apparently a witness called Leif saw a “dark-skinned person” with a knife. I didn’t know Breivik had a brother called Leif…
Maybe a breathless Charlie Stayt will be on the phone to an eyewitness asking of the perp
” but what did he look like? ”
As per The Brevik incident.
NBC reports “Firefighters, the first responders to arrive on the scene in Sogn, detained the man — described to be in his 30s, from South Sudan — until police arrived.”
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/04/21308934-three-killed-in-norway-bus-attack
According to reports elsewhere this murderer was a drunken Palestinian. Maybe the BBC, together with their fellow Israel-haters in the Guardian, can somehow manage to put the blame on Israel. After all, if Israel didn’t exist, this wouldn’t have happened.
The reason that the BBC put the blame on Israel is because of money the Palestinian Authority and other Moslem countries divert for propaganda purposes. The PA itself spends billions on propaganda including the 2.3 billion dollars in aid that the EU says the PA cannot account for. In 2005 Abu Khawla – former chair of the Tunisian section of Amnesty International – said that the 100 billion dollars spent on propaganda against Israel makes it the largest propaganda machine in history, even larger than the communist machine during the Soviet era. He also said “People wouldn’t obviously spend that much unless they know they have to defend a huge lie.”
In ‘fairness’ to the world’s largest news gatherer they were only reporting the information Reuters gave them. I guess Norway was too far away to check for themselves.
There will come a time, if it has not already done so, when immigrants will kill the first person they meet in the streets of Europe.
They will be safe in their belief that the loony lefties will house that immigrant in hotel style luxury in a prison (far above any standard of living they could have had in their country of origin) for the rest of their life.
Come to Europe. Kill a whitey and live like one for the rest of your life!
how can you walk into a mosque as a man without a burkha on,then walk out of that mosque with a burkha on as a woman and nobody in the acton mosque just happened to see nothing,was this somalian terrorist cretin being helped by his muslim brothers in this mosque to excape or do the people who run that mosque just happen to have spare burkhas littered all over the place for some strange reason,there is something worrying about this somaliam asylum seeker mohammed ahmed mohammeds excape into thin air on friday that is not right,who else is in on this and protecting him.why all the silence from the somalian community in acton,and why have the leaders of this mosque in acton not come out to condem this guy and any other somalian involved in terrorism that is using that mosque and living in acton west london,these are the questions that should being asked at the bbc and radio 5 live.
The mosque in question is a hard line mosque and according to the ITV news they have nothing to say on the matter.
Funny enough I read also that Mohammed the terrorist who likes to dress up as a woman was one of those 4 pious Muslims under investigation for tampering with his ankle bracelet, however the bbc tells me praying 5 times a day is the reason why they broke. PC plod didn’t even bother doing anything
I heard that utter crap about praying 5 times a day being the reason the bracelet was damaged. Does the BBC really think we are that gullible?
yes
Jermaine Pennant managed to play Premier League football wearing one – seems they don’t make ’em like they used to.
Yes, I’m afraid they do.
PC plod didn’t even bother doing anything
What’s the betting that their union, the Police Federation, told the local plod to let Mohammed go as another way of getting at this government?
Any chance of the bBBC investigating?
How many from this mosque have been questioned or detained? If nobody saw anything then close the mosque, they have to be pushed into assisting the authorities.
More to the point – what is being preached in these mosques?
“nobody in the acton mosque just happened to see nothing,”
Sorry to be picky Stuart, but this is a double negative and means the opposite of what you intended !
Woman in a mosque? Didn’t that ring any alarm bells?
Women are allowed in mosques, Thoughtful, they are just herded into a separate room to pray.
That’s not always true Demagogue, women are allowed in some mosques, not all, and certainly not the more hard line ones.
Either way a man being in the women’s area, or a ‘woman’ being in the mens should have raised a few eyebrows if they were not complicit in the escape.
According to reports elsewhere this murderer was a drunken Palestinian. Maybe the BBC, together with their fellow Israel-haters in the Guardian, can somehow manage to put the blame on Israel. After all, if Israel didn’t exist, this wouldn’t have happened.
The bBC, immigration and its poor Math skills:
<Recent immigrants to UK ‘make net contribution
Immigrants to the UK since 2000 have a made a “substantial” contribution to public finances, a report says. The study by University College London said recent immigrants were less likely to claim benefits and live in social housing than people born in Britain.
So the bBC says immigration is good for us all and here are their facts:
1) Immigrants who arrived after 1999 were 45% less likely to receive state benefits or tax credits than UK natives in the period 2000-2011,
Which means that 55% of them are on benefits seeing as the UK has admitted a good few million that’ a huge figure, but hey the bbC goes for the smaller figure.
2) They were also 3% less likely to live in social housing.
Which means that 97% of the above figure are in social housing.
3)Those from the European Economic Area (EEA – the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) had made a particularly positive contribution in the decade up to 2011, contributing 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits.
4) Immigrants from outside the EEA contributed 2% more in taxes than they received in the same period, the report showed.
and in order to ram the above two home the bbC comes out with:
Over the same period, British people paid 11% less in tax than they received.
Yeah f-ing lazy British Layabouts.
But hang on what’s this:
5)Despite the positive figures in the decade since the millennium, the study found that between 1995 and 2011, immigrants from non-EEA countries claimed more in benefits than they paid in taxes, mainly because they tended to have more children than native Britons.
But if that is true, then serial 4 must be …wrong. But if that is true then the whole article cannot be trusted,
Isn’t it nice how the bBC goes out of its way in which to claim that unbridled immigration (especially before Jan 1) can only be good for the fat lazy thick British people. Tell you what don’t we get the MCB to complain, I’m sure the bBC will listen to a real Muslim and change their ways.
The bBC the traitors within our Midst
Pounce,
“1) Immigrants who arrived after 1999 were 45% less likely to receive state benefits or tax credits than UK natives in the period 2000-2011,
Which means that 55% of them are on benefits…”
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! Wow, just Wow Pounce. You really are that stupid.
I c a n h a r d l y b l e l i e v e i t
I suspect pounce mis read it as “45% likely to claim benefits”, as I did on first reading
Now then dez, care to address any of the inaccuracies in the report, or the BBC’s reporting of it, both of which are much more important than comments on a website.
Go on, let’s hear your thoughts?
‘let’s hear your thoughts’
Might be worth clarifying more on detail, as relevance is as rare as volume is assured –
b l e l i e v e it. He really is that [you name it – it’s a long list].
ah … the fevered work of the,
bbc obfuscation department, and the trumpeting on al bbc radio is just relentless today,
No mention of the £3.7 billion cost on health and education, just for illegals, and that the cost to the taxpayer for the same per head is above £4000
how about health erm “tourists”, the last
doctor I heard stating that nearly 80%
of his dept workload was such?, absurd massaged figures try weakly to disagree.
Anyway, I thought we were in 2013
soon to be 14, not 2011. social housing
pah! … don t make laugh, in the town where I live, there is a start on a 800 new homes estate, a significant social housing, 2miles down the road a new 600 home estate, added right next to a village at the same ratio … and it is the same at our next town … who are these to house eh? … locals?.
Social engineering is continuing faster than ever, …
Syrians or Romagarians anyone?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2415273/PETER-HITCHENS-Yes-immigrants-need-homes-So-lets-Chequers.html
always worth a listen, and always
therapeutic.
http://youtu.be/jxNmkKJ3kuE
And you really are that predictable, Maurice/CTC/Doris etc.
I just read this article on the BBC website too.
Statistics can hide an underlying problem. The stats published here only reveal monetary values. If the figures look good, then things are good. ‘No more boom and bust’, and so forth.
It’s always the same with left-wing economic illiteracy, taking one set of stats – the ones that you mistakenly judge to be the most relevant – when you really need the whole spectrum to see the complete picture.
It is a widely accepted fact that economic migrants are doing the work that young Brits historically would have done but are now ‘over-educated’ and unemployed. Where’s the ‘net gain’ in that???
Mathematics:
If there are 30 migrants working on a farm in Lincolnshire, and 30 unemployed British nationals claiming benefits, what is the net cost to the taxpayer?
As we all know, the figure is positive. VERY positive, in a bad way! There is no way the 30 migrants could pay for the benefits of the 30 unemployed Brits. It would take a few hundred migrants to support those 30 Brits.
The stats presented by University College London mean absolutely nothing in terms of trying to demonstrate anything at all!
I’ll not comment on Pounces post which contains so many errors it’s difficult to know where to begin!
However I would point this fact out :
” Immigrants who arrived after 1999 were 45% less likely to receive state benefits or tax credits than UK natives in the period 2000-2011″.
This should be absolutely obvious to anyone who is informed, and honest!
Immigrants are not allowed recourse to benefits for the first two years they are in the UK, so even though they might like to claim them, they can’t! Odd the BBC should miss out that rather vital piece of information isn’t it?
In addition we know that members of ethnic communities will only employ people from their own ethnic group, when was the last time you saw a reasonable ethnic mix in an ethnically owned business? It is an acknowledged (and ignored fact) that ethnic businesses do not operate equal opportunities policies. Often they fail to pay the minimum wage, and have been known to even employ illegal immigrants.
So they have a ready made jobs market which freezes out native workers.
None of this is ever discussed on the BBC and it never will be.
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/visas-immigration/while-in-uk/rightsandresponsibilities/publicfunds/
midlands bbc filmed inside a birmingham samosa factory and apart from one table of little old asian ladies all the samosas were being made by white poles!!1
If there are 30 migrants working on a farm in Lincolnshire, and 30 unemployed British nationals claiming benefits, what is the net cost to the taxpayer?
—————————————————————
Well quite – I have said often enough that if you have ten million ‘not employed’, and the economy is about to need three million workers (for those pesky jobs the British won’t do) – the solution is not to ship in three million foreigners.
Merthyr Tydfil, the sick-note capital of Europe with 20% of its workforce idle, is 40 miles or so from Hereford, the fruit-picking capital of Europe. But there you go, I’m a nasty Tory.
Not rocket science (I leave that to the Indians)
A more fundamental problem with this report is that it only looks only at taxes and benefits, which is just a small part of the equation. You also need to factor in: cost of additional schools; new hospitals; more health centres; more roads; more power generation; more fresh water; more sewage; more rubbish disposal. These infrastructure requirements are costing the UK around £1 trillion in the coming decade. There are then the hidden costs; for instance, they haven’t included the several hundred millions per year spent on housing foreign criminals and monitoring terror suspects. If such a holistic view is taken then any so-called economic benefits vanish like the morning mist. Even if there were economic benefits, many of us would rather do without them and the ‘benefits’ of diversity that accompany them.
I’m guessing the study is only based on those who are known to the tax authorities too. I’m willing to bet there’s a much higher percentage of immigrants who are ‘off-grid’ than natives.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-24801620
A daughter of Jean McConville has spoken for the first time in a BBC documentary about the IRA’s abduction and murder of her mother.
The programme about the Disappeared also hears denials from Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams that he ordered the disappearance of Mrs McConville.
He didn’t know his brother was a nonce either.
And how long has it taken the BBC to come up with this feature on the bleedin’ obvious after years of relentless one-sided support and sympathy for the Republicans e.g. the Bloody Sunday marchers?
Its big news in Northern Ireland at the moment, seems to have passed David Vance by though.
Actually the BBC has been reporting it for years.
As to your suggestion of relentless one-sided reporting, starnge that that criticsim was seldom made even though the BBC was a British broadcaster reporting daily on the conflict throughout the troubles.
eg Bloody Sunday marchers? That would be when the British Army shot and killed 26 unarmed civilians on a civil rights march, and which was then covered up by subsequent inquiries?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24808660
Andy Coulson ‘never involved in hacking’
Former News of the World editor Andy Coulson “was never party to any agreement to hack phones – whatever others might have been doing on his watch”, an Old Bailey jury has heard.
How to get a play accepted by the BBC.
Produce a third rate bit of drama, full of clichés and terrible dialogue, but make sure it’s crammed full of left wing propaganda. Lots of Maggie-hating, etc. Send it to Radio 4. Easy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03g937t
Jesus it was bad. The political propaganda totally eclipsed the story.
It’s a shame everyone seems to have forgotten about the Notts miners who broke away from Scargill and formed their own union – the UDM (Union of Democratic Mineworkers).
Scargill didn’t give a crap about the miners – only his own blinkered agenda. He was sour because his homeland (South Yorkshire) was hardest hit as the steel industry in Sheffield was all but shut (the process in place before Maggie came to power) and the only other major industry (mining) was also under threat.
The whole miners strike episode of the 80’s had its roots in South Yorkshire but was exported to other regions simply because the NUM had the monopoly on union membership and therefore power over the masses.
If only someone would have the guts to tell the WHOLE story!
As was once said of Adolf Scargov:
“He started with a big union and a small house. He ended up with a small union and a big house”
Didn’t he do well. Unlike his members.
Arthur Scargill was a great man. Without him the miners could be running the country via the Labour party proxy Neil Kinnock and Mrs Thatcher may not have won her second election. I have hopes that McCluskey may prove to be out of the same stable as Scargill and that he ensures another Tory win. After all Ed Miliband does talk nearly as much as NK did and certainly spouts the same sort of drivel.
Only the fools at the BBC would feel anything but contempt for Scargill and the stupid miners who chose to follow him and used intimidation to force many of those who didn’t to come out on strike. The left and the BBC just keep on lying, even 30 years after the event, hoping that Lenin was right, and that if they tell a lie often enough it will become the truth.
Another Tory win? You’ll have to remind me when was the first.
As for intimidation, witness the relative silence from the BBC regarding Unites “leverage” campaign. You just know that if UKIP tried something similar, we’d never hear the end of it from the Beeb. Mind you, the so-called Tories don’t exactly seem to have been fanning the flames of the story either, when you also know that Labour would never have been off the phone to the BBC had the positions been reversed.
Donkeys led by donkeys – now that’s equality for you 😉
I only heard the adverts for this play…dreadful. I wonder if these women represented those who were called upon to ‘Show your tits for the lads’ when the miners marched through many southern towns.
I think the miners’ strike was when the middle class lefties of the Labour movement had their first experience of rubbing shoulders with the working classes they had hitherto lauded as some tribe of “noble savages*”.
On finding that their client class were not as right-on as they had expected, they lefties simply abandoned the indigenous working classes and started importing their own, more compliant tribe.
*Paraphrasing Gerald Kaufman’s views on Tony Benn.
Spot on, John. If you wanted to experience sexism, racism, ‘homophobia’ and any other kind of -ism or phobia so beloved of The Left, you only needed to spend an afternoon in a working men’s club.
Today this morning 6:20 am – ite m on the rapidly accelerating growth in the UK economy which meets every criteria – trashed by a talking head from “the institute of Economic and Social Research” – no health warning to tell the public that it is left leaning. The conclusion is that the growth is real but we should have had it years ago and would have if we hadn’t cut ‘too far too fast”.
I’m not going to comment on the farcical coverage of the benefits that immigrants bring to the UK. Carefully selected portrayal of statistics ………. focus on the positive ignore the negative….when it suits the BBC agenda
Cce, yup former Blair advisor Jonathon Portes blames Tories for everything, but introduced as independent by the Beeb.
He was allowed to rant at length, blaming the Conservatives for the housing market and the economy. No mention that he himself was a main architect of Labours opendoor immigration policy, and then went on to advise on the economy. Both huge areas of labour ineptitude.
The BBC are aware of his history, so it was nothing more than a intentional and wholly inaccurate smear against the Conservatives by the BBC.
“an intentional and wholly inaccurate smear against the Conservatives by the BBC.”
If you add downplaying any story which they perceive may damage the Labour Party (in that all important General Election) then you have BBC news and current affairs in a nutshell.
The BBC news agenda each day entirely derives from the Labour Party PR department.
It would be funny were not so corrupt and self-interested.
The BBC’s favourite type of report…. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24813467
If the report said the opposite, would it reach top of the page?
The BBC in a wild distortion of the report on the supposed benefits of immigration. The report is about “migrant workers”, but the BBC changes that to “immigrants”. (Incidentally suddenly not afraid to use immigrant, whatever happened to migrant?). A much wider definition which includes unemployed.
So how much do Somali asylum seekers contributor? 250,000, with an unemployment rate of 80% plus.
Incidentally, paying more tax that claiming benefits is not measure of contribution. It ignores the expense of things like defence, police, infrastructure, hospitals (even if you don’t use them they are on standby for you) and much much more. Government does a lot more than simply payout benefits.
I suspect this is just another left-wingacademic report distorting the facts andleapt on withglee by the BBC who distort the facts even more.
How about a BBC report on immigrations impact on housing shortage, or crime, or shortage of school places, no, thought not.
This is highly likely to turn out to be some cherrypicking and distortion by albeeba.
When the country and the media has had time to glean tne truth from this report, albbeba will have moved on with it’s headlines and the masses will have been deceived.
I was in a friends house today and her neighbour was telling me how a woman who lives close by was struggling to pay her “bedroom tax” (arrgh!) I informed her that there was no such thing as a bedroom tax and that the phrase was propaganda coined by bBC/Labour. Anyhow, I set her straight on the spare room SUBSIDY and went home for my lunch.
Reporting Scotland 1330 hrs, the venerable Jackie Byrd reads out the headlines, Hundreds of people in scotland are falling behind with their rents due to the BEDROOM TAX. not even a “so-called” the brazen hussy.
fekkers are relentless…
the only good thing about bBC arrogance is they think they are too big to fail.
But…but…but the new DG says that the BBC was wrong to use the phrase ‘bedroom tax’ and would not do so again.
Fat chance he has of controlling the left wing activists at the BBC.
Surely he should now resign under the ‘court of public opinion’ rule whereby the boss of any organisation that fails to perform adequately at a low level must be sacked in public?
Am waiting for Ed Milliband to either volutarily resign or admit he is a hypocrite for not doing so.
(Re Falkirk and Sharon Shoesmith)
In respect of these pro-mass-immigration statistics you only need contrast the BBC’s happy acceptance with their attitude to ‘anti-mass-immigration’ statistics.
When the UKIP leader included in a speech a statistic that 90% of ATM crime was carried by Romanians the Beeboids went into a near hysteria of fact checking….
Shelagh Fogarty on BBC 5 Live almost fell off her chair in excitment with the quote – ‘We’ll check that….. we’ll check that!’
Good to her word and a little disgruntled our Shelagh came back with ‘It was the result of an FOI request and it was a Police quote…. but but but…. there was no timescale…. it might have been only on one day and in one place….’
You can be assured that these pro-mass-immigration stats will NOT get the full Shelagh BBC treatment .
BBC: Fit the agenda and you are taken as read
Rejoice, rejoice, albeeba is ecstatic this morning that India has a mars probe about to launch.
Now can someone help me out with why our taxes are being sent there in foreign aid?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2096628/British-foreign-aid-India-tells-Britain-dont-need-peanuts-offer-us.html
Because if they stopped giving our money away overseas, everyone at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office would be out of a job. A while back I saw an item on how FCO officials flew to Nepal to organise an essay writing competition for children’s ideas how to stop Climate Change. This before various glacier-melt stories were found to be false, but anything for a bit of freeloading.
It’s terrible, Cameron’s austerity regime
BBC = Freeloaders
Middle Class Leftists = Freeloaders
Spot the connection
Ah, but don’t forget the US spends ten times as much as India does! (as the BBC lunchtime news was quick to point out)
Man and his son went to market with their Donkey. As they were walking a countryman passed and said: “You fools, what is a Donkey good for but riding?”
So the Man put the Boy on the Donkey. Soon they passed a group of men and one said: “See that lazy Boy, he lets his father walk while he rides.”
So the Man ordered his Boy to get off, and got on himself. Then they passed two women, one of whom said to the other: “Shame on that lazy lout to let his poor little son march along.”
The Man didn’t know what to do, so he placed his Boy up before him on the Donkey. By this time they had come to the town, and passers-by jeered and pointed at them. The Man stopped and asked what they were scoffing at. The men said: “Aren’t you ashamed of yourself for overloading that poor donkey with you and your large son?”
The Man and Boy got down and didn’t know what to do. They thought and thought, until they cut down a pole, tied the donkey’s feet to it, and raised the pole with the donkey to their shoulders. They went on in the middle of the laughter of everyone who met them until they came to Market Bridge, when the Donkey, wiggling and moving around, caused the Boy to drop his end of the pole. In the struggle the Donkey fell over the bridge into the water and drowned.
“That will teach you,” said an old man who had followed them: “Please all, and you will please none!”
Moral of the story is: trying to please everyone is impossible, and will result in failure to please anyone at all (especially yourself).
This is a fable told by Aesop who lived 600BC , and to me it epitomises the BBC at the present time. The Donkey is BBC output which has finally died. Now so bland and sanitised to offend no one, it has no character or appeal, and is rarely worth watching.
How many box sets of DVDs from current or recent series are worth owning? Indeed how many do you see on the shelves ? Most are American, with titles like Walking Dead, Falling Skies, True Blood, House, etc etc. The BBC has wrapped itself in so many PC knots it is now incapable of producing anything memorable.
It is testament to this, that the best selling DVDs it does produce, year on year are Clarkson’s Xmas ones, and the odd Top Gear specials. All sneered at by the self loathing lefties who simply cannot understand why they do not want the PC pap they are peddling !
So poor is the BBC output that now it is probably beyond saving, if it wasn’t for the television tax this unwanted unwatchable output would never be produced, and any company which tried would be quickly bankrupt.
Free enterprise is a hugely democratic beast, fail to produce what the paying public want and you fail to stay in business. State owned businesses can go out producing rubbish no one want for years with people forced to pay whether they like it or not.
This is not the overt bias we normally complain about, but it is symptomatic of that same mind set which is terrified of offending anyone.
Oh come on, there’s always Citizen Khan!
How many box sets of DVDs from current or recent BBC drama series are worth owning?
That will be zero.
I admit to owning the I Claudius boxset..but that’s from a different era when the Beeb could still make decent programmes with a proper screenplay, dialogue etc.
Just been in Sainsbury’s today and took a quick look, there’s Ripper street which I quite like but set in a time long before the loonies ruined the country, and Mrs Browns boys which I don’t particularly like.
Other than that nearly all the box sets on the BBC shop site are vintage pieces like Hancock, or Morecambe & Wise.
Err I must admit to owning Dr.Who DVDs Although zero from the re-imagined series which I hate with a passion. The Sylvester McCoy period being the latest I’d go to (1989)
Fair dos to Justin Webb on Today. He moderated a discussion on the UCL report on the economic benefits of recent immigration where Sir Andrew Greene, chairman of MigrationWatch was allowed to make mincemeat of both Professor Christian Dustmann of University College London and the subsequent BBC spin of the report’s findings. Apparently, according to Sir Anrew, drilling down into the report, any net benefit to the UK from immigration was essentially derived from EU nationals from Western Europe (Germany, Spain, France) working here: the contribution from EU nationals from further East and South is debateable: the contribution from non-EU immigration since 1995 (essentially from Africa and the sub-continent) is unequivocally negative and its more recent contribution is (according even to the NIESR) “negligible”.
Unfortunately, this discussion was broadcast in the post-8:30 Today “dead zone” so didn’t reach Today’s wider audience. Also I have no idea whether it has affected the “good news on immigration” propaganda relayed through the BBC “news” bulletins. Nevertheless – and forgive my low expectations – I am confident that, whatever the reality as revealed by Sir Andrew, the BBC “migration is wonderful” spin on this report will echo down the years every time the economic consequences of this national disaster are raised.
Get your sick-bag ready, or preferably a bucket, if you’re going to risk a dose of VD and listen to her interview with Mark Byford (bBBC Radio 5 Dead now), for the first time telling us how much he liked being given a million pounds of our money when the bBBC no longer needed his non-job.
Single mothers lose legal challenge to benefit cap
The High Court has ruled that giving three women with illegitimate children ‘only’ £26,000 of our money each year does not breach their human rights.
The bBBC ‘news’ has no ‘… but Labour says …’ however.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/learner-driver-sent-stand-in-sit-6268338
Here’s a little story about a single incident, but which is one of a huge number going on in the UK.
It concerns a Muslim unable to pass a theory test for a driving licence, who paid another Muslim to take the test on his behalf.
It’s not the first time it’s happened, this is going on all over the UK and its effects can be witnesses every time you enter an area with a high Muslim population, the driving standards are atrocious.
I’ve come across Muslim drivers completely incapable of reversing a car!
But it’s part of a larger picture of a community not only unwilling to integrate, but who also believe that this countries laws do not apply to them as they are governed by a ‘higher law’.
This is something that in a normal sane country would be covered by documentaries, but not in the PC BBC led UK, there’s no chance that anyone will criticise Liebours Brown Eyed Boys.
I doubt that paying someone to take a test on your behalf is exclusive to Muslims, though I’d not be surprised to find they do more than their fair share. Perhaps they can’t reverse because they can’t see through the burqas.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/aug/02/driving-test-fraudster
http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/man_handed_prison_term_for_nationwide_driving_test_scam_1_622880s-jailed
http://news.sky.com/story/1045674/police-crackdown-on-driving-test-fraud
Now compare the BBC story which scrupulously avoids the facts, but the names at the end of the story speak volumes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6231892.stm
My youngest daughter lived and worked in the East End. She sold her car because the driving in her district was downright dangerous. When she finally moved out to the south coast I hired a van to move some of her stuff while the furniture went into storage – I was driving, and there were half a dozen bad incidents just getting from Bow to Tower Bridge. Bangladeshis driving like maniacs, no road sense, no care – and how many of their vehicles were insured ?
Who’s to question them if they are wearing a burkha?
(Apologies, I accidentally posted this in ‘Lefthand Roghthand’… )
If the Labour Party win the next general election, will the BC be able to say ‘It’s the Beeb wot done it’?
Are they genuinely left-partisan, or are they simply cultivating the hand that they think will sustain them in their current form?
Do they think that, following their own remarkable success in silencing dissidence in the climate debate with total impunity, they can apply the same model of controlled discourse to overtly (party or other) political issues?
If there is no longer any point in communicating with the BBC itself over issues of bias, who should anyone appeal to in attempting to correct these problems?
What mechanisms could be used to effect the transformation that is needed? The following three things come to mind:
1. Impose a new and differently regulated management regime;
2. Remove compulsory funding and force the BBC to float commercially;
3. Rather, split the public funding in order to support an alternative public broadcaster whose explicit brief would be to provide an opposing standpoint to the BBC wherever it could detect bias, partiality, favouritism of whatever flavour and in whatever direction. A publically funded ‘loyal opposition’ in the media – instead of having a broadcasting regulator, have an officially dissident channel to the public whose brief would be to expose, ridicule, and harass the Corporation, and to continuously educate the public about any shortcomings in equity, diligence or transparency that it found.
Anyone got some other suggestions, keeping in mind that next time the BBC swings it might be in a different direction, and solutions need to be found which are independent of our/your particular viewpoints?
“If there is no longer any point in communicating with the BBC itself over issues of bias, who should anyone appeal to in attempting to correct these problems?”
Well you can opt to change your supplier, except that not paying the BBC is illegal. Paxman did not become a multimillionaire by writing for the New Statesman.
“not paying the BBC is illegal. “.
Not true. As long as you don’t receive live TV broadcasts, you don’t need a TV licence.
I do not pay the BBC.
I do not receive live TV broadcasts.
I am not breaking the law.
‘…split the public funding in order to support an alternative public broadcaster whose explicit brief would be to provide an opposing standpoint to the BBC wherever it could detect bias, partiality, favouritism of whatever flavour and in whatever direction’.
I like that idea as an experiment – to see how long it would take The Left to infiltrate and take over.
I had to laugh at the way the BBC allow these pro immigration academics to peddle their propaganda on BBC news.
The Professor in charge of this work had a Teutonic accent. Nothing wrong with that. The only problem is he focussed on belittling British workers by saying:
“Immigrants from the EU are better educated,” and “These immigrants take up less social housing” (presumably taking more private housing which obviously means less for the native-born.)
The smiling news presenters lapped it up. They couldn’t analyse the mathematics and criticise. There was no opposing voice.
It will take time for others to analyse the work and criticise it but I think this morning’s salvo will have the opposite effect on viewers’ attitudes. To summarise: a German sounding man was basically telling the British people: “You are untermenschen! You are being replaced by the superior continental workers who are better educated than you and harder working!”
A rare occasion where the BBC propaganda may backfire. Although that doesn’t detract from the biased nature of the piece.
“Immigrants from the EU are better educated,”
Not exactly a thumbs up for our Socialist education system.
The BBC Breakfast News is the only BBC News output I watch, very nearly every ‘expert’ that appears on the program is either an immigrant or a Common Purpose graduate/lefty.
Beeboids: still giving a platform to ex-Beeboid trougher, BYFORD, to plug his book.
(Filed under ‘Arts & Entertainment’!)
“Mark Byford: £1m BBC payoff ‘not greed'”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-24818636?
‘Daily Mail’ (Sept, 3013)-
“High life of the BBC fatcats:
“The ex-Deputy DG enjoying his £3.4million pension aged just 55 and the designer-clad payoff queen accused of lying to MPs.”
By CHRISTIAN GYSIN and ALASDAIR GLENNIE
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420470/High-life-BBC-fatcats-Ex-Deputy-DG-Mark-Byford-enjoying-3-4m-pension.html
Red Ed clip on 5 Live a little while ago
“The Wonga economy is one of the worst symbols of this cost of living crisis.”
Note to Red Ed and the Beeb: Wonga started trading in 2006.
Radio 4, ‘World at One, also:-
The very first words of programme’s Beeboid Ms Kearney were: ‘Ed Miliband’, followed by a soundbite of his about Wonga.
One can see the huge political effort already being put in by Beeboid Politbureau to try to improve Miliband’s position in the polls before the Election, and all that will mean for funding of Beeboids by British people.
Whilst not excusing the BBC, it should not be difficult for the Tories, if there are any left, to pull Ed Miliband’s populist ideas apart. Yet I’ve heard few recently.
Is the Beeb keeping them away or are they not bothering. I think it’s the latter.
Wonga is the new News International…the new Daily Mail…the new Thatcher…the new Centrica…the new privatised rail company, all of them totems that skilfully the left build for them to be destroyed. Miliband rides yet another bandwagon.
The left’s media control, pressure and activism is frighteningly efficient and anti democratic as is the failure of the BBC to fairly balance any commentary (for it is commentary) on an organisation that tens of thousands of people use, are satisfied with and with who they have no problems.
OK the BBC have belatedly invited Wonga onto its channels, but only to knock them down. Wark last night failed miserably and Gameshow this morning couldn’t hide his disgust that someone would come onto his show and argue, quite reasonably, that people should be responsible for heir own actions and not blame Wonga if they get into trouble. But of course in Campbell’s world, if just one person (with aspergers -if you actually believe the woman who rang in with her sob story (I didn’t believe her)), get’s into debt, that’s a reason to close down a whole industry tat thousands are quite happy with.
I wonder who or what will be the left’s / BBC’s next totem?
The Beeboids’ anti-Wonga political agenda does happen to fit their pro-Sharia finance political agenda. But that’s only a coincidence…
I didn’t listen to all of the phone-in this morning, as the excuses were getting me down.
The next person who regales us with a sorry tale of how their child has Asbergers should be cut off with a scream of “It’s Aspergers!!!” and not allowed to discuss the topic again until the name of the condition sinks in.
Ypu seem a little obsessive about the ‘Hackers” post offence illness of choice!
‘I wonder who or what will be the left’s / BBC’s next totem?’
You may be right.
I can’t stand Wonga, mainly because of those awful puppet ads.
But no one is forcing anyone to take out a daft APR ‘loan’.
To be fair, they are targetted by all the usual suspects including, incredibly, SKY (or were, as SKY bit the dust with my TVL DD several months ago).
I recall a great morning smug-in with the Irishman, the thick Peroxide Sink and two celeb reviewer drones weighing in on Wonga before cutting to an ad break…. pretty much propped up by said brand.
The number of folk getting blocked on twitter pointing out they seem happier with the association than others under the ‘news’ spotlight was spectacular.
Wonga are simply the online version of your local pawnbrokers. Wonga are actually cheaper than your local pawnbroker too, and the service is 100% discreet! And online payday lenders are even cheaper than the banks’ unauthorised overdraft fees!
At least Wonga don’t send people in difficult circumstances to jail, unlike TV licensing who make up 12% of criminal court cases in the UK.
The real culprits exploiting the poor are the BBC. Surprised a Wonga spokesman doesn’t confront them with this the next time some Beeb journo tells him how ghastly he is.
unauthorised overdraft for 1 day even for £1.00 minimum £30.00 percentage rate of ….. don’t have enough zeroes on my calculator.
Wonga is based on short term borrowing to paper over the cracks and worry about the consequences later. Why does the Labour Party not like it?
Copyright infraction?
Regarding the ‘British ‘ people on benefits according to the UCL study. How many are ‘paper’ Brits who have acquired British nationality since coming here as asylum seekers, or illegals? How many are second and third generation offspring of migrants who came here when just about everyone worked because it was the norm and benefits was of a way of life?
So how many ‘Brits’ in this report are in fact dual nationality Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Somali or other nationalities with very high unemployment and welfare claims but not included in the ‘overseas figures?
Are there different statistics for indigenous Brits to separate them from ‘British’ migrants or have we been lumped together?
I would have liked the BBC interviewer to have asked this question, but being the BBC
BBC News at One, today:
Did I hear right? Ed Miliband is not only planning on capping energy prices, but he’s also planning on freezing council tax?
I don’t know about you, but my council tax has been frozen for the last 3 years! But then, I don’t live in a Labour run constituency, unlike my poor neighbours in Labour run Nottingham city whose taxes have gone up year on year.
Obviously Ed is more out of touch than even I realised!
What a brass neck Miliband has.
Perhaps the BBC could prove to us that they are, as they plead, balanced by taking a quick look at local authorities across the country and see which are best managed and which take less from the pockets of ‘the squeezed middle’.
Or better still, not so much across the country, across the street might even be easier for the BBC, where on one side of the road in Wandsworth you’ll pay £990 Council Tax for a Band F property and across the road, the same house in the same street will cost you £2030 in Labour controlled Merton. That’s a difference of £1040 or about £100 a month saving on your cost of living.
Over to you Newsnight…perhaps you’d like to get Grommit to explain his hypocrisy. Or how his planned mansion tax will ease the cost of living crisis for the asset rich, cash poor widow that lives in a property that she and her family worked so hard for all of their lives.
Then let’s get on to the ‘Telly Tax’ and how it hits the most vulnerable members of society the hardest!
Has anyone asked Red Ed what he will do if, during the energy price freeze, the world cost of wholesale gas rises rapidly. Is he prepared to let the companies go bust, or will he subsidise them? Perhaps he hopes they will get into trouble so he can nationalise them as a first step in building his Socialist paradise. Has the BBC quizzed him on this. And what is his reorganisation plan?
Heard I think the Flint woman (I think it was) on the BBC somewhere say that Labour would ‘break up’ the energy companies – what will happen to the share price, the companies’ plans for investment etc? What does Labour think will happen to them? I don’t know because the BBC interviewer couldn’t be bothered to ask.
Looking through my TV guide I see that on Wednesday there is a programme on ”Speeches that Shook the World.
Two quoted contributors are Peter Tatchell (on confronting the BNP) and Paul Boateng on how Enoch Powell’s (rivers of blood speech affected him as a child).
Peter Tatchell is someone whom I can admire for his courage in confronting certain nasty individuals, although I might question his attention seeking agenda.
I think I can see where the BBC will go with this, although for speeches, or nasty innuendo that changed his life, I would suggest the comments and accusations about his homosexuality by Lib Dem candidate and opponent in the Bermondsey election, one Simon Hughes, that certainly cost him the Labour candidacy, were life changing. If you can find a bigger hypocrite than Hughes I will eat Dianne Abbott (well a small scale chocolate figure).
BNP or Simon Hughes?
On Enoch Powell, I look forward to a well researched and reasoned commentary by Boateng, ( a man of considerable achievement and someone to be admired, it was after all his wife’s bullying of black staff that caused the SA government to have him sent back to the UK) on just how prophetic, and, stripping away the hyperbole, accurate this great intellectual’s writings and predictions have proved to be.
I admit that being the BBC, they haven’t hired the Powell hater Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to rant and call him a racist is a surprise.
Agenda! what Agenda?
A ‘small scale chocolate figure’ of Diane Abbott?
You racist, sir!
Small scale!!
You said chocolate in relation to Fatty Abbott ! And why did not Alibhai- Brown not go to a nice Muslim country instead of here when she left Bongo Bongo land ?
Are Beeboids increasing political propaganda for Miliband because of critical articles such as this?:-
“Red Ed, union vote riggers and a stench that makes him unfit for No. 10”
By MAX HASTINGS.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2487443/MAX-HASTINGS-Red-Ed-union-vote-riggers-stench-makes-unfit-No-10.html
socalist bore richard bacon and his anti american love in special today on his show with peirs morgan and the droning on jemima khan today was sick inducing left wing bias to say the least
Lord Hall is asking us to imagine what the country would be like without the BBC. No don’t all jump in at once. He wants us to imagine how we would cope with out the BBC website,without Strictly , without soaps, without news bulletins and comment, without documentaries, without some of the good stuff that the BBC does put out . Its as though he arrogantly believes that if the BBC is got rid of a vacuum will exist and will remain. But, of course, given a chance to grow out from under the enormous shadow cast by the BBC , many companies would soon fill the vacated slots and produce a wide range of programmes to educate, inform and entertain us.
No doubt many would have a political bias but we would be able to choose which we wanted to take, just like we buy the newspaper that suits us.
The BBC hopes it can hoodwink us into thinking that without them our screens would be dark, our radios silent. Any rational person can see that the idea of a state funded broadcaster is obsolete in a 21st century democracy. They have been here far to long and should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
In a war this propaganda machine would be targeted first………………
If the demand is there, people will pay for it – otherwise, why bother?
If I see another bBC standard issue poppy, I’ll throw up.
I for one, would cope very well.
I already do!
Good stuff?
Have you seen the pole of shit they put on bbc3 ? Its absolute crap.
BBC North West News at lunchtime featured some dimwit Liverpool councillor who thinks it scandalous that fruit machines are mugging ‘vulnerable people’ of their money from inside betting shops.
Something needs to be done!
BBC interviewer was coming from the ‘Yes it is a scandal and why aren’t the council/government doing more to stop it’.
The councillor was of the opinion that the money could be better spent on food and energy bills but failing lamentably, if not deliberately, to join the dots.
Meanwhile back in the studio the BBC anchorman was haranguing the rep from the bookies’ association that they shouldn’t be targeting ‘poor areas’ and their ‘vulnerable people’ by siting their betting shops there.
No suggestion, not a scintilla of a smidge of a morsel, that the ones betting away the housekeeping and leaving their families starving and cold (allegedly) might, just might, have some small responsibility in deciding what they do with their families’ money.
The most depressing of interviews since it was fashionable for shopaholic must-have-everything-now debt junkies to be given free rein by the BBC to blame the banks for their drowning in a sea of debt.
The BBC – facilitating the moral bankruptcy of a country near you.
And which Gvt widely liberalised the laws on gambling??? Never mentioned – nothing to see, move on, tooorrreee cuuttss..
Yes saw that. Shock horror outrage usual North west tonight fayre. Can anyone tell me how many weather forecasters they have another one I’d never seen popped up a few nights ago, . Who was it who was looking at setting up super casinos a few years ago… nope slipped my mind
The BBC News Channel are busy this evening going large on the apparent misreporting of cancer performance figures at Colchester Hospital. The police have been called to investigate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-24819973
There’s not much detail yet, but let’s see where this is going.
Remembering that the BBC astonishingly failed to cover the September report, from Sir Brian Jarman, that shewed appalling third world NHS performance during the Labour years (a story that was the lead in most newspapers and C4 News), expect the BBC to drop its report if the wrongdoing turns out to date back to the wrong side of the general election.
If, though, this has happened more recently, expect the BBC’s artillery to be trained on the Tories; for them to provide a stage for the hapless Burnham to attempt to rebuild his reputation and for the BBC’s attacks to be remorseless.
The way that the BBC treats stories differently defines their rotten, corrupt bias.
Not known as Burnham Belson for nothing
The sampling of cases is from 2011 onwards so it would be very easy for some people to make political gain out of the situation by claiming it’s a coalition era problem. But of course we don’t know how far back the problem goes unless the CQC samples ten years or so.
Did anybody else see the “breaking news” last night on the BBC website about the tragic murder of three Norwegians on a bus yesterday?.
If you didn’t I’m not surprised because it disappeared very quickly without a trace.
The murderer has now been revealed as a failed asylum seeker from South Sudan……
Now leaving aside Cameron’s dallyings with Common Purpose and whether he is just another Leftie camouflaged as a centrist Tory, or simply one of The Left’s useful idiots…..
‘Common Purpose has attracted controversy over the links between it and the Hacked Off campaign, fronted by Steve Coogan and Hugh Grant, the actors, which has called for greater regulation of the press.
In 2006, two key figures in Common Purpose – Julia Middleton, its founder and chief executive, and Sir David Bell, a trustee and former chairman – set up the Media Standards Trust.
The two groups shared offices, with the trust claiming to campaign for higher standards in newspapers and broadcasting.
In 2011, in the aftermath of disclosures that staff at the News of the World had hacked the telephone of Milly Dowler, the murdered schoolgirl from Surrey, the trust’s director, Martin Moore, helped to found Hacked Off.
This new group campaigned vociferously for greater media controls during Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry into press standards.
Sir David was made one of the assessors to the Leveson panel.’
I can’t help but thinking that, if Common Purpose and its shadowy network of leftist activist groups who are constantly working to subvert democracy and free speech in this country had, instead, a Right-wing agenda, Panorama would be all over them like a rash?
I seem to recall that there was a 1984 Panorama programme, Maggie’s Militant Tendency, which accused some Tory MP’s of being Nazi’s. The programme – which was utterly discredited culminated in 1986 in a successful libel case by two of the accused MP’s, and was followed by the sacking of the then director general, Alasdair Milne. But of course those were different times. BBC journalists seeking to smear the Conservative Party could never happen now.
When will Miliband announce that if he becomes PM he will freeze the telly tax for 5 years?
Millipede will be spouting soundbites everyday, from now till May 2015
BBC North West News on Sunday night: ‘And finally, we wish all our Sikh and Hindu viewers a Happy Dwali’. You bet they do.
Setting a precedent? Could get interesting. Get ready to complain all you Wiccans, Druids and Klingons…..
The Climate Change Stories the BBC Chooses to Miss – No. 53276.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/11/04/ipcc-summary-the-real-story/
‘Hundreds of people helped write the 30 chapters in the Working Group 2 section of the IPCC’s new report. From those hundreds of people, 71 individuals were selected to work on this summary. Their job was to distil 30 chapters into 29 pages.
One would expect a body that says it’s conducting a scientific assessment to choose people who are clean as a whistle for such a task. People who exemplify science at its best – neutral, dispassionate, disinterested scholars.
But that’s not what happened. Among those who helped write this summary we find astrophysicist Michael Oppenheimer. He spent more than two decades on the payroll of the wealthy American activist organization, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). According to his online biography at Princeton University, he continues to advise the EDF to this day.
In other words, Oppenheimer is tainted by his activist past and his activist present…….
….Another summary author is Australian marine biologist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg. He, too, has activist ties stretching back 20 years. When Greenpeace wasn’t paying his mortgage, it appears the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) was, instead…..
….Then there’s Alistair Woodward, a New Zealand medical doctor whose specialty is public health. In recent years Woodward has published articles that could be mistaken for political manifestos. In 2009, for example, he co-authored one that urges doctors to “Educate and encourage patients…in climate change action” and to “Make Green Prescriptions”…….
……Back in 2010, the IPCC placed each of the above-named gentlemen in charge of one of its chapters. Oppenheimer leads Chapter 19 (Emergent Risks and Key Vulnerabilities). Hoegh-Guldberg leads Chapter 30 (Open Oceans). And Woodward leads Chapter 11 (Human Health).
But that wasn’t scandalous enough. Of all the people the IPCC might have chosen to work on the summary document, these three were selected once again. They were given an additional layer of responsibility.
Despite there being good evidence that Oppenheimer, Hoegh-Guldberg, and Woodward are the furthest thing from neutral, disinterested parties, the IPCC has accorded them influence over two different stages of its new report.’
And the BBC encourage the calling of scientists who question this charade ‘deniers’.
BBC Trust, where are you?
Some more excellent detective work by Donna Laframboise. A non-journalist doing what journalists used to do – investigate, probe, question.
A one-woman team putting the battalions at the BBC – ‘some of the world’s finest investigative journalists’ – to shame. She can have my licence fee any time.
Mark Byford appeared today on the Radio5 Live Victoria Derbyshire show. He was apparently invited to promote his new book. For anybody who doesn’t know, Byford was the deputy director general at the BBC earning a salary of £475,000 a year, and received one of the highest pay-offs ever in the public sphere to the tune of £950,000.
Derbyshire questioned his taking the pay-off, details which you can read below, and a clip can be heard here for the next 7 days. Needless to say, Byford sees nothing wrong in what he was offered, or in accepting it.
One would hope that after working for 30 years in the publicly funded organisation and attaining the position of second in command that Byford would have understood his responsibility to the public and the remit of the BBC. Instead this self-serving clown, says he accepted the pay-off because ‘it’s what the BBC gave him’. Almost like it was a natural phenomenon that showered him with riches.
The BBC is an organisation that he had shared responsibility in running, and if he and the rest of them would have had the morals and ethics for which they were entrusted, he/they wouldn’t have been milking the public teat as they did and continue to do.
Remember the BBC are paid for by our society, forced to do so under penalty of prison, to support and enrich us.
Instead they follow their own self-serving agenda which can be seen has already done much to ruin a once great country. With their snouts in the trough they also pocket all they can without any real justification other than they can.
Then they have the hypocrisy to do a documentary about benefit cheats who also milk the system. Is it any wonder our national ‘educator’ has helped create these cheats? No doubt the irony is lost on the BBC.
The BBC don’t want you to do as they do – but as they tell you.
Despicable, and just one of the demonstrations of the vile mindset there for which the licence fee should be terminated.
‘I’m not greedy’: Sacked BBC deputy director general Mark Byford defends his £950,000 pay-off and insists he’s done NOTHING wrong
It takes roughly 6550 licence fee payers to fund Mr Byford’s £950,000 pay-off. Presumably he convinces himself from within his tiny brain that those 6550 happen to be amongst the country’s richest people, and not some poor old pensioners having to decide between keeping their TV or having the heating on.
The greed of the liberal is matched only by his incompetence and intellectual dishonesty.
Discount every word that is said and resolve never to argue or debate with one .
No point debating with people who have set views over many years because of the influence of BBC propaganda . On Israel for example you can only change the subject to something that is rarely reported and cannot be argued against ie the positive achievements that benefit the world as seen in free weekly news at http://www.verygoodnewsisrael.blogspot.com
A slightly different shade of reporting when compared to the BBc pursuing bankers who received pay offs in line with their contracts a few years ago, from what I recall.
BBC news going large on this Dutch charity which purports to have trapped 100 British pedo’s chatting up a fake Filipino 10 year old online.
Couple of points.
1) I don’t recall any similar BBC news splash when Tommy Robinson correctly reported the mass grooming and rape of white girls by “men” in certain towns. Bearing in mind this was actual physical grooming and rape in the real world rather than an internet fantasy.
2) The BBC seemed to accept the findings of the report without question. But to what extent was this entrapment? ie. how far did the activists posing as the child go with titillating offers of sexual favours before letting them know he/she was a child? There’s a lot of lonely men out there. I’m wondering who’s doing the exploiting here: these researchers or their sorry-assed victims.
I can’t believe that anyone would take the CGI “child” as real, so were these sados thinking they were enrolling to a fantasy? Naughty, but no possibility of anyone getting hurt, just the fanto-paedo getting burnt.
“…Naughty, but no possibility of anyone getting hurt, just the fanto-paedo getting burnt.
Mainly because it was little more than another desperate fishing trip by the authorities, who having claimed (many times) that there exist ‘global networks’ of online abusers, and having then failed (repeatedly) to expose them, have resorted to entrapment in a last-ditch effort to drive up their ‘crime statistics’ (and thence rattle the collection tin for this ‘massive problem’).
The simple truth is that none of the ‘hundreds of men’ would have been in any trouble at all if whoever funded the CGI girl and the online trawl hadn’t been allowed to embark on a blatant exercise in online entrapment.
I still struggle to see what charges exactly will be made to stick against these men – who exactly did they commit an offence against? A digital representation of a fictional character, something consisting only of virtual zeroes and ones?
Baffling. Will the BBC be following this story up to see how many of the ‘100’s of men’ are actually committed to trial for their ‘crime’?
Orwellian.
‘Will the BBC be following this story up’
Probably not.
They don’t have to; the job is done.
Because that job is no longer offering information and education; it is filling voids in the 24/7 maw… now…. and moving on, whilst providing some form of justification for cubicle dwellers to have said cubicle, from which they can stir up near 100% tripe with legions of fellow public sector or NGO or charity parasites who exist solely to get upset and send a press release in about it.
The outrage is all that matters. That fills the screen, time and ratings needs.
From this to twin towering intellects from Chester Pol…Uni, all it needs is some hapless schmo to stray a wee bit and the world will descend to spoil their day… and then bugger off.
It’s many things. Professional news of integrity it is not.
Because if it was, the flower bed from floor four would actually be following up and you’d get the answer to a legitimate question.
And that, for all complicit in this perverse state/media job creation scheme, would never do.
The Prophet Mohammed (PBOH) married Aysha when she was 5 or 6 and began having sex with her when she was 9. Perhaps the age of consent could be lowered or removed for muslims but retained for everyone else? You know, in the interests of community cohesion? Harriet Harman might be able to help, revisiting her role at the National Council for Civil Liberties when they helped the Paedophile Information Exchange. Just a thought.
Don’t forget Patricia Hewitt
Blah on the BBC’s ‘news’ website this evening: “Miliband pledging ‘recovery for all'”
Is there ever a day when a press release from Miliband and his team of apes isn’t featured on this apology for a news servce as if it were a genuine story?
The secret of comedy
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/sorry-ed-but-britain-is-now-booming/
BBC really need to lure LauraK back. Her tweets on him entering and departing through doors, or going places in trains, redefined the calibre of objective, professional political reporting. If the fate of the country depends on coming or going, he’s nailed it.
LuaraK, with her mind-boggling shrill voice, always struck me as someone who was completely out of her depth.
LauraK
Scottish socialist shrill shrieking cow ! I wanted someone to tell her to F off ,every time I saw or heard her .
As a threshold-crossing tweenouncerette, though, surely, without peer? Well, bar the voice.
BBC 5 Live mixes Sport with Left-wing campaign politics.
BBC commentator trailing the Manchester City v CSK Moscow match :
‘It’s going to be the sort of match where every so often I will have to take off the headphones and listen to what the Russian fans are chanting….’
Really? That’s your remit, is it?
The BBC: Inform, educate, entertain – and now to enforce Political Correctness
One might wonder what chant-inspiring events there are where BBC ‘reporters’ are more prone to put the headphones on. And the blinkers.
“All is peaceful. All is calm. You are in a happy place. And this is what you will tell your audience”.
‘BBC needs to start treating public money as its own, says Lord Hall’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10425514/BBC-needs-to-start-treating-public-money-as-its-own-says-Lord-Hall.html
Actually, I thought that was the problem.
How many ex-senior BBC managers now refusing to ‘pay back’ their contract busting pay offs?
“Actually, I thought that was the problem”
—
Certainly my first thought too.
Seems the BBC needs to hire a 148th PR drone (that Labour guru added at vast expense doesn’t count as he’s freelance. Apparently) just to gag the market rates before they come out with such soundbite gold.
Unless this one was written by the assembled PR talent for him, in which case there may be a few DQF savings coming soon in that department.
Which of course a spokesperson will say they really got about right.
‘ ‘BBC needs to start treating public money as its own, says Lord Hall’ ‘
Scripts provided by Galton and Simpson, or Roy Clark.
You really couldn’t make it up!
‘BBC needs to start treating public money as its own, says Lord Hall’
This wording just shows sloppy thinking and speaking. I presume what Lord Hall means is the “BBC Staff need to treat public money with the same care is if it was their own money” and so by analogy only spend it on what is necessary and important. So he needs to say this and not shorten it to something that can be misinterpreted. Or may he did really mean to treat publc money as their own.
The revised version would seem to be OK until you think what these people in the BBC might think it is important to spend their own money on !……………………. .it is still public money raised by a “poll” tax.
Five Live around 8.15 this morning discussing the BAE shipyard redundancies was talking to a Glasgow Labour MP and Independent/Liberal/dirty old man Mike Hancock, representing the slender, lithe blondes of Portsmouth.
Nicky Campbell helpfully, in pointing out the Scots independence vote would likely help the Scottish case, saw fit to quote Salmond’s description of the government as “toffs and Lord Snooty’s”, which was parroted back by the Labour guy as being true.
So far, so normal for Campbell and Five Live, except immediately after the following item, in response to texts Campbell felt the need to clarify that he had quoted Salmond and it was not his personal opinion. Of course it isn’t Nicky, of course it isn’t. Just helping out the Labour guy with some fresh material.
I’ve never heard such a speedy row back on Five Live before. The texts must have come in thick and fast.
Radio 4’s rather good science programme, Material World, has been axed for perplexing reasons – a move that annoyed its listeners, to judge from comments and feedback It is being replaced by another programme with a couple of noticeable differences:
.
1) MW was live, “Inside Science” will be pre-recorded – Deborah Cohen and Mohit Bakaya, 2 editors of BBC factual/science programmes) appear to want more editorial control over what appears.
.
2) New presenters. Quentin Cooper was excellent, but is being replaced by Adam Rutherford (a Geneticist who writes for the Guardian- yet another writer from that paper to work for the BBC), also 2 female presenters – for the purposes of “redressing the balance”, no doubt
.
The editors also talk a lot of vague PR waffle about “moving beyond celebration of science to a deeper understanding of it”. It’s difficult to see what they are talking about.
.
This is not blatant bias per se (apart from Guardian favouritism again). But interesting how they want to control the “message” of the programme. I doubt this message will be a radically new direction for the BBC. I will keep an eye on this and may report back.
Well, only time will tell whether the new presenters are any good. However, considering the inevitable Guardianist background, I fear the ‘message’ will be distorted. I don’t expect anything balanced on ‘climate change’, or that any of the marvellous science that Israel is doing will be broadcast. Quentin Cooper was not universally liked. For myself, I found him insufferably flippant and verbose, self-promoting, and seemingly much more concerned about making the next pun that for making the science understood. To my mind, Geoff Watts had the right approach.
” I will keep an eye on this and may report back.”
I for one would be interested to hear your future thoughts.
I was struck by the phrase “moving beyond celebration of science to a deeper understanding of it”.
It sounds sinisterly like the ‘common purpose’ mantra ” Leading Beyond Authority” which is clearly what they doing, but to where and what end?
BBC science programmes moved from being substantial to just gee-whiz “Celebrations of the science” years ago. I don’t see any kind of u-turn in programmes such as “Horizon” any time soon.
The 8:30 sports slot on Today this morning took a cursory look at the England cricket team, last night’s European football and then spent the lion’s share of its time interviewing some women’s rugby international player I’ve never heard of who is returning from injury.
I did find it amusing to be told at the end of the piece that the women’s team were playing on Saturday, and that entry was free – right after the men’s game. They can’t even justify charging for it and have to ride on the coat-tails of the men’s game, yet the BBC thinks it’s worthy of taking up most of a sports bulletin.
The women and sport agenda has to be the most blatant area of BBC bias at present but they must reckon that no-one will dare challenge them because they can pull the “sexist” ace out from under their sleeve.
Usually they forget to mention it is the women’s code, which can get rather confusing. If it is after the men’s match and it is free then they’ll be playing in front of a full stadium, presumably. Or not.
The promotion of women’s sport is a nice double whammy, of course. It ticks the inclusiveness box, and is as cheap as chips to broadcast.
I notice Eurosport are showing the vital Malmo versus Wolfsburg UEFA Women’s Champions League this weekend, which is particularly useful if you are learning colloquial Swedish or German, because you can hear every single word the teams say, as the sound echoes across the sward.
I have always support ed Australia at cricket – but I still wanted to hear all about the cracking start by England’s batsmen in Hobart. Instead, as you say, most of the short time available for sports reporting at 8.30 was given to a virtually unknown woman rugby player, not because of any points scored but because she is returning from injury. And as you also say, the mockery was increased when they said that admittance to the next women’s match would be free. So – big support for the women’s game ?
Choice of what to report on – an obscure woman player of a game people won’t pay to see, or nearly the best performance by opening batsmen of any country ever ?
At the BBC – that’s a simple choice, false deference to feminism trumps an amazing sporting achievement by England’s opening pair.
A worthy last few days’ catch-up…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/not-greedy.html
I sense ‘disquiet’ that Mr. Byford was dusted off the remind folk of his contributions and subsequent market rate rewards for them.
Still it never hurts to learn a bit more about our most trusted, transparent national treasure…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/shant.html
Or not.
Beginning to wonder what isn’t ‘held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and hence excluded.
Be interesting if all the BBC seeks to hold to account adopted a similar policy.
That’s the trouble with precedent, start setting uniques for yourself and everyone will join in.
No wonder they like Leveson, #HackedOff, etc.
Supplementary.
“‘I’m not greedy’: Sacked BBC deputy director general Mark Byford defends his £1million pay-off and insists he’s done NOTHING wrong.
“Byford – whose salary was £475,000 – given £949,000 when made redundant.
“He has denied he was being greedy in accepting the redundancy package.
“In a BBC Radio Five Live interview he said: ‘I have done nothing wrong.’
By ALASDAIR GLENNIE.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487718/Sacked-BBC-deputy-director-general-Mark-Byford-defends-1m-pay-off.html
Supplementary.
“‘I’m not greedy’: Sacked BBC deputy director general Mark Byford defends his £1million pay-off and insists he’s done NOTHING wrong.
“Byford – whose salary was £475,000 – given £949,000 when made redundant.
“He has denied he was being greedy in accepting the redundancy package.
“In a BBC Radio Five Live interview he said: ‘I have done nothing wrong.'”
By ALASDAIR GLENNIE.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487718/Sacked-BBC-deputy-director-general-Mark-Byford-defends-1m-pay-off.html
Supplementary.
“‘I’m not greedy’: Sacked BBC deputy director general Mark Byford defends his £1million pay-off and insists he’s done NOTHING wrong.
“Byford – whose salary was £475,000 – given £949,000 when made redundant.
“He has denied he was being greedy in accepting the redundancy package.
“In a BBC Radio Five Live interview he said: ‘I have done nothing wrong.'”
By ALASDAIR GLENNIE.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487718/Sacked-BBC-deputy-director-general-Mark-Byford-defends-1m-pay-off.html
Supplementary.
“‘I’m not greedy’: Sacked BBC deputy director general Mark Byford defends his £1million pay-off and insists he’s done NOTHING wrong.
“Byford – whose salary was £475,000 – given £949,000 when made redundant.
“He has denied he was being greedy in accepting the redundancy package.
“In a BBC Radio Five Live interview he said: ‘I have done nothing wrong.'”
By ALASDAIR GLENNIE.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487718/Sacked-BBC-deputy-director-general-Mark-Byford-defends-1m-pay-off.html
Supplementary.
“‘I’m not greedy’: Sacked BBC deputy director general Mark Byford defends his £1million pay-off and insists he’s done NOTHING wrong.
“Byford – whose salary was £475,000 – given £949,000 when made redundant.
“He has denied he was being greedy in accepting the redundancy package.
“In a BBC Radio Five Live interview he said: ‘I have done nothing wrong.'”
By ALASDAIR GLENNIE.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487718/Sacked-BBC-deputy-director-general-Mark-Byford-defends-1m-pay-off.html
Supplementary.
“‘I’m not greedy’: Sacked BBC deputy director general Mark Byford defends his £1million pay-off and insists he’s done NOTHING wrong.
“Byford – whose salary was £475,000 – given £949,000 when made redundant.
“He has denied he was being greedy in accepting the redundancy package.
“In a BBC Radio Five Live interview he said: ‘I have done nothing wrong.'”
By ALASDAIR GLENNIE.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487718/Sacked-BBC-deputy-director-general-Mark-Byford-defends-1m-pay-off.html
Supplementary.
“‘I’m not greedy’: Sacked BBC deputy director general Mark Byford defends his £1million pay-off and insists he’s done NOTHING wrong.
“Byford – whose salary was £475,000 – given £949,000 when made redundant.
“He has denied he was being greedy in accepting the redundancy package.
“In a BBC Radio Five Live interview he said: ‘I have done nothing wrong.'”
By ALASDAIR GLENNIE.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487718/Sacked-BBC-deputy-director-general-Mark-Byford-defends-1m-pay-off.html
Supplementary.
“‘I’m not greedy’: Sacked BBC deputy director general Mark Byford defends his £1million pay-off and insists he’s done NOTHING wrong.
“Byford – whose salary was £475,000 – given £949,000 when made redundant.
“He has denied he was being greedy in accepting the redundancy package.
“In a BBC Radio Five Live interview he said: ‘I have done nothing wrong.'”
By ALASDAIR GLENNIE.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487718/Sacked-BBC-deputy-director-general-Mark-Byford-defends-1m-pay-off.html
Supplementary.
“‘I’m not greedy’: Sacked BBC deputy director general Mark Byford defends his £1million pay-off and insists he’s done NOTHING wrong.
“Byford – whose salary was £475,000 – given £949,000 when made redundant.
“He has denied he was being greedy in accepting the redundancy package.
“In a BBC Radio Five Live interview he said: ‘I have done nothing wrong.'”
By ALASDAIR GLENNIE.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487718/Sacked-BBC-deputy-director-general-Mark-Byford-defends-1m-pay-off.html
Supplementary.
“‘I’m not greedy’: Sacked BBC deputy director general Mark Byford defends his £1million pay-off and insists he’s done NOTHING wrong.
“Byford – whose salary was £475,000 – given £949,000 when made redundant.
“He has denied he was being greedy in accepting the redundancy package.
“In a BBC Radio Five Live interview he said: ‘I have done nothing wrong.'”
By ALASDAIR GLENNIE.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487718/Sacked-BBC-deputy-director-general-Mark-Byford-defends-1m-pay-off.html
Supplementary.
“‘I’m not greedy’: Sacked BBC deputy director general Mark Byford defends his £1million pay-off and insists he’s done NOTHING wrong.
“Byford – whose salary was £475,000 – given £949,000 when made redundant.
“He has denied he was being greedy in accepting the redundancy package.
“In a BBC Radio Five Live interview he said: ‘I have done nothing wrong.'”
By ALASDAIR GLENNIE.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487718/Sacked-BBC-deputy-director-general-Mark-Byford-defends-1m-pay-off.html
Supplementary.
“‘I’m not greedy’: Sacked BBC deputy director general Mark Byford defends his £1million pay-off and insists he’s done NOTHING wrong.
“Byford – whose salary was £475,000 – given £949,000 when made redundant.
“He has denied he was being greedy in accepting the redundancy package.
“In a BBC Radio Five Live interview he said: ‘I have done nothing wrong.'”
By ALASDAIR GLENNIE.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487718/Sacked-BBC-deputy-director-general-Mark-Byford-defends-1m-pay-off.html
Supplementary.
“‘I’m not greedy’: Sacked BBC deputy director general Mark Byford defends his £1million pay-off and insists he’s done NOTHING wrong.
“Byford – whose salary was £475,000 – given £949,000 when made redundant.
“He has denied he was being greedy in accepting the redundancy package.
“In a BBC Radio Five Live interview he said: ‘I have done nothing wrong.'”
By ALASDAIR GLENNIE.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487718/Sacked-BBC-deputy-director-general-Mark-Byford-defends-1m-pay-off.html
Supplementary.
“‘I’m not greedy’: Sacked BBC deputy director general Mark Byford defends his £1million pay-off and insists he’s done NOTHING wrong.
“Byford – whose salary was £475,000 – given £949,000 when made redundant.
“He has denied he was being greedy in accepting the redundancy package.
“In a BBC Radio Five Live interview he said: ‘I have done nothing wrong.’
By ALASDAIR GLENNIE.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487718/Sacked-BBC-deputy-director-general-Mark-Byford-defends-1m-pay-off.html
14 times in the same minute. I salute your workrate, George 🙂
Something to do with the site outage over lunch, I think. Seem to be an awful lot of these outages.
I know George has a tendency to rake over the same old coals on frequent occasions without stopping to think about what he’s doing – but this is excessive even for him…
Physician, heal thyself.
Says the one-trick parrot forever blaming technology for his own frequently glitchy fingers (when this looks like an actual system problem).
Class.
Karma, the minx, promptly serves me one for not following the golden rule and citing a quote of what’s being responded to in case it gets bumped.
However, I suspect most can still recognise the trail of the too-often-spotted one-trick parrot.
So what happened to the pizza delivery stabbing story. Dropped faster than a led Zeppelin. Must be a “communication breakdown”.
Immigrant song … in the evening (delivering pizzas) … trampled under foot … no quarter … stairway to heaven … (inconveniently for the BBC the murderer is from) … Kashmir … (so there’s no need to) … ramble on … (however, all white people are racists so) … the song remains the same …
How stressed are you?
The following test has been created for National Stress Awareness Day. It has been designed to help you spot symptoms of stress and find out how well you are coping with the pressure of everyday life.
1. How do you feel about the BBC taking £145.50 of your money and using it to pump leftie propaganda at you all day every day?
2. How do you feel about overpaid staff at the BBC doing non-jobs then taking vast payoffs for leaving?
3. How do you feel about the BBC concocting stupid surveys like this?
Did anyone else catch Norman Smith suddenly taking an interest in the “English” job in Portsmouth (about to be relocated to Scotland)? Oh of course, he wasn’t interested per se about English jobs, he was interested in stirring the pot about job losses across BAE.
Meanwhile, in other news, disabled people win a case to keep the “Independent Living Fund.” That’s over £300m welfare that, according to one interviewee on the news helped her “pay tuition fees for a University degree.”
I’m not sure welfare was meant to do that. But I suppose the BBC would call me an an uncaring bastard if I mention it.
As a slight aside, watching BBC Breakfast News this morning reporting on this, something occurred to me, why is it that any BBC report out of Scotland is always presented by a Scot? Is that not racist against all non-Scots? Maybe the Scots prefer it that way which I can understand, yet a report from England can be presented by any Tom, Dick or Hareef, but to protest would definitely be racist….
The BBC continues to ignore the huge crisis surrounding ObamaCare. Not just the failure of the registration site – it is the fact that millions of people are seeing their existing policies being cancelled owing to the new Obama rules.
This issue has dominated US politics for weeks. But the BBC has hardly mentioned it.
Last Sunday, for example, every channel had ObamaCare as a topic for its Sunday politics show. Half the headlines every day across the whole of the US press are ObamaCare.
Obama has been shown to have lied dozens of times back in 2010 when he claimed “If you like your insurance plan you can keep it. Period. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.” Worse – he and his White House staff KNEW he was lying, To get the legislation passed. And now he is lying about the lies.
People are now saying these lies are far worse than the lies for which Richard Nixon was forced to resign. The lies affect millions upon millions of people. Obama’s approval rating has plummetted to 39%, Democrats facing 2014 elections are already running scared, medical insurers and doctors are up in arms about the trouble – which is only now beginning to be seen in full. White House press conferences are boiling over, even the compliant press corps are demanding answers.
But from the BBC – virtual “radio silence”. Dozens of BBC staff in the US – but no reporting on the most important continuing issue in US politics.
The whole damn lot of them ought to be sacked.
The good news is that ObamaCare may be such a disaster – people are already talking of “death spirals” in the economics of the scheme – that it will damage the leftie cause for a generation. Big Government is being shown to be bad. But that is a Tea Party message in the eyes of Mardell and Co – so it needs to be hidden.
Where is David Preiser ?
I’ve been wondering the same. Hope all is OK.
David is obviously attempting to log into the obamacare website. One more total success, I wonder how long it will take Fatty Mardell to blame it onto the tea party.
What a fat useless wanker Mardell is, growing fatter and fatter on my licence fee. Bastard.
To be fair, there’s a lot of high fructose corn syrup in the American diet, no way for Mark to avoid that as he munches his way around America, propagandising for the Big O.
Mardell has been busy telling us how this week’s elections were bad for the Tea Party. I’ve no idea if it’s true or not, as I trust nothing that Fatty tells me, but how do these square with Obamacare spelling trouble for the Democrats?
The only election where the Tea Party was relevant was for the Governorship of Virginia. The Tea Party strongly supported Cuccinelli, former Virginia Attorney General who led last year;s case to the Supreme Court asking for ObamaCare to be struck down , who opposes any amnesty on the 20 or more million illegal immigrants and who tried to force Michael Mann to reveal his devious ClimateGate etc emails for the period he was employed at the University of Virginia, Cuccinelli had lukewarm support from the Republican establishment at national and local level – the “RINOs” – Repubs In Name Only”, wet types who are happy with Big Government, high taxes etc. There is an ongoing fight between the Repub establishment fat cats (including employers who want lots and lots of immigrants) and the street-level Tea Party.
Anyway, Cuccinelli was outspent by the Dem canbdidate by between 4 to 1 and 10 to 1. Nothing from the Repub central funds in the past few weeks eg for TV advertising.
There are faults with Cuccinelli. But he is nothing like the sleazebag Dem candidate McAuliffe, previous chairman of the Dem national machine. The Dems funded him heavily, and also helped fund a Libertarian candidate which weakened Cuccinelli’s vote. And the Dems played heavily on the abortion issue.
Up to 2 weeks ago Cuccinelli was trailing badly. But the gap was closing very fast, presumably with the ObamaCare troubles. On the night (last night) it was too close to call for a long time. The Dem finally scraped home.
You can read the result 2 ways :
1. – Tea Party backing is fatal to a candidate – the Mardell / BBC line
or
2. ObamaCare is fast becoming a rock round the Dems neck, no matter how much money they spend.