Here we go – middle of the week and time for a new Open Thread.
MIDWEEK OPEN THREAD….
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- MarkyMark Nov 17, 10:46
Weekend 16th November 2024
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” ― Margaret Thatcher https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/138248-the-problem-with-socialism-is-that-you-eventually-run-out - MarkyMark Nov 17, 10:44
Weekend 16th November 2024
‘more succinct’ ……………………………………………. ‘more succinct’ …………………….. YOUR COMPLAINT: President Trump’s 100 Days President Biden’s 0 Day Dear Winston Smith in… - Zephir Nov 17, 10:41
Weekend 16th November 2024
CBS admits editing 60 Minutes Kamala Harris interview to make her answer ‘more succinct’. The network has been embroiled in… - Zephir Nov 17, 10:40
Weekend 16th November 2024
So, where’s the original trancript ?? A statement from 60 minutes: “Former President Donald Trump is accusing 60 Minutes of… - Zephir Nov 17, 10:30
Weekend 16th November 2024
Yep where’s: CV Gate, Economist Gate, Chess “Champion” who came 26th really Gate and copying wikepedia passages for your book… - Zephir Nov 17, 10:28
Weekend 16th November 2024
About bloody time too, the partisan biased, behaviour including libel and slander were off the scale and many of these… - MarkyMark Nov 17, 10:13
Weekend 16th November 2024
[img]https://amzirlodp-prd-s3.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/images/big_492457ddb5f2900338a38841abd124c725c16837.jpg[/img] https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/topics/c2dwqd1zr92t Human rights commission clear Nigeria army of forced abortions, mass killing of children for northeast https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/articles/cj6kywe78keo - vlad Nov 17, 10:09
Weekend 16th November 2024
Trump is to sue CBS, the New York Times and other purveyors of fake news for defamation, political bias and… - pugnazious Nov 17, 10:00
Weekend 16th November 2024
[img]https://sociologytwynham.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/the-sun_kinnock_light-bulb.jpg[/img] Now though it is Labour themselves that are turning off our lights…and industry, farming, transport, heating…the economy…life in general.… - pugnazious Nov 17, 09:57
Weekend 16th November 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEl4yWOMsk4 It is remarkable how the BBC gives Rachel Reeves a complete pass not questioning or challenging her credentials or…
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
Crikey.
Perhaps it was to do with Gameshow’s absence, but Rachel Burden’s ‘Your Call’ this morning was a revelation.
Miliband’s and the incompetent Burnham’s scare tactics over an A&E meltdown was debunked by caller after caller who had nothing but praise for the treatment that they had received. in A&E. Worse still, many of the callers put the blame squarely on the GP contracts (introduced by Labour) that had reduced accessibility to the primary care.
I assumed, like previous episodes, where callers have been off-message, that researchers would be frantically calling up reinforcements, but they must have been off duty as well (where’s Owen Jones when you need him?). In fact the only caller who made a negative comment was a stroke victim, who when he was rushed to hospital 3 years ago couldn’t fault his treatment, but observed (having not listened to every single one of the previous callers) that the NHS was ‘going down, speculating that this was the fault of the coalition.
This man shows the power that the BBC has when it teams up with Labour to distort and influence people’s views of the world.
Israeli soldier stabbed to death on bus
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24923797
While Al beeb uses half the article to remind people of the nasty jooooz building homes its forgets to mention the repsonse of the Hamas to this brutal murder
“Congratulations to the Palestinian West Bank hero who killed an Israeli soldier in Afula this morning,” Hamas spokesman, Fawzi Barhoum, wrote on his Facebook page.
“This is a heroic act of resistance showing that all methods of oppression and terror have not and will not succeed in stopping our people from carrying out jihad and resistance.”
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/11/israeli-soldier-killed-bus-stabbing-2013111391938335810.html
The thing is when even somebody looks funny at a terrorist, the bBC will run that as headline news. for example this is todays version:
Nasiruddin Haqqani: Who shot the militant at the bakery?
At first it appeared as if two men had been injured in a gun attack at a bread shop in the eastern suburbs of Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad – just a routine shooting, a senseless crime in a large city. But eyewitnesses noticed a number of aberrations. Some told local press that the police who arrived at the crime scene collected bullet casings and other evidence and then washed the area down to clean away the blood stains. One of the injured was taken to a nearby house, witnesses said. Later, the injured man – or was he dead by then? – was put in a vehicle and driven away in the presence of senior police officers.
Yet when its a terrorist doing the killing, then its hidden as far down the page as possible, with an excuse always inserted in which to excuse the blood lust of the followers of Islam:
“By his account, his uncles are in prison in Israel and this is the reason he decided to carry out the terrorist attack.”
To the bBC, locking up Muslims is a crime against allah and thus this murdering Muslim terrorist is justified in spilling blood for his paedophilic master.
he’ll be joining his uncles in Israel’s local disco for terrorits. But fear not, they’ll all be released next year if Hamas promise to stop being terrorists.
No wonder muslims love the taqiyya
Why are Al beeb so frightened of allowing comments on their Islamic propaganda ‘news’ pages?
because they fear the truth
I had a dodgy blood test last week, the GP repeated the test and on Friday morning referred me to an A and E Department for specialist examination – even though I was feeling OK in myself.
By 3pm on Friday I had had further blood and other samples taken at the A and E Department and was being seen by a specialist registrar who conducted a mini-scan as well as examining me. He arranged for me to see a specialist consultant – two working days later, ie Tuesday. Who in turn carried out more tests and arranged a full ultrasound scan and also an X-Ray.
In other words – very prompt handling by A and E, and minimal waiting times at the hospital. Can’t fault it so far !
(As an aside – I could not help noticing that in most of the waiting areas I had to use – X-Ray, scanning, different areas of A and E – most of the patients were non-indigenous. Whether through health tourism or through a high incidence of illness, immigrants seem to put a lot of the stress on the NHS.)
Oooh…..you cant say that, it’s racist. Maybe true but ruled inadmissible by the PC bollocks.
Yes, there was a report last week that said immigrants have made us all better off. Or something.
Hospital waiting rooms stuffed full of foreigners talking in their native languages are just an illusion.
I’d like contributors comments to this response to a complaint from the BBC.
I still feel this has not been properly addressed as there was no challenge to the assertion and listeners were left with the impression that the subject was telling the truth.
“We understand you were concerned that it was stated that wearing the full veil was a religious requirement and that this showed bias towards Muslims.
Clive Coleman said: “she says that her religion forbids her from removing her veil in front of men…” Clive was not stating this as fact but rather reflecting what the woman in the court case apparently said. This requirement is open to interpretation and Clive Coleman made clear it was the woman involved in the case who said this, and he didn’t state it as fact.”
I do not believe that this requirement is open to interpretation I’ve never heard anyone other than the BBC claim that it was.
Anyone have any comments?
coleman should have said that the muslim woman “mistakenly believed” that her religion didnt allow her to take the sack off her ugly mug
Do you mind mate, that was me.
i do beg your pardon, i mistook you for Abdul Mohammed, el Muhamed, Mahammed.
Got your compo yet, lad?
The trouble with any BBC-arbitrated reporting issue is when things move from pure fact to anything they can get their semantic, vague, ‘reflective’ belief sets into.
Doesn’t make them right, of course, but is currently enough for them to fight it through ECU and to the Trust based on said ‘belief’. That it is the BBC believing the BBC gets it about right is a parody long since filed in the Beware of the Leopard cupboard that only a series of uniques could see persist still.
You yourself use the word ‘impression’. Red flag on weasels right there.
Stronger ground on assertion and incorrect factual coverage described as an ‘interpretation’. If she was wrong she was wrong.
Looking at the “quoted” section, I presume them playing back what you raised, it seems there was a potentially inaccurate claim. The bias aspect is a lost cause.
The reporter appears to have relayed this incorrect fact as offered by the (defendant?), but then decided that this one-degree of separation testimony was enough (if incorrect) without clarification or correction.
Hence, an error of omission and failure to provide proper context to inform and educate on a key piece of context.
Deliberate? Or ineptitude? It’s a BBC reporter covering a crime in an area around which they have some ‘form’.
Without knowing how pertinent it is to the totality of the case hard to guess its importance, but if the ability to remove or not remove a veil was in question based on claimed religious grounds, it would surely have a bearing, and any reader would be justified in having this explained by a reporter in theory expert in such matters.
Otherwise BBC ‘reporters’ are really only glorified stenographers, with the dubious distinction of having added editorial privileges too. One presumes this statement could have been challenged in the court?
The BBC seem to be saying they can and do only report what is said and need to do no more. Patent BS when it comes to anything they don’t like, which will get ‘analysed’ left, left and left of centre.
But an interesting precedent again if they wish to go that route and claim consistency.
Is this the ‘intimidating witnesses’ trial where the accused suddenly rediscovered her religion and began wearing the veil having never been too bothered about it before or the convicted fraudster who again took to wearing the veil immediately pre trial
http://metro.co.uk/2013/09/18/fraudster-unveiled-police-reveal-identity-of-jailed-muslim-4050626/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24112067
i like the first post from a fellow muslim on the metro link
“Per Islamic Sharia’a Law, shouldn’t her right hand be amputated as a punishment for such a crime???!!!”
if she wants to live her life by her religion, then so be it
It is open to interpretation, though. There’s a correct interpretation, and then there’s the interpretation which brings in caveman, pre-Islamic Arabian cultural practices and prejudices. The woman Coleman spoke to took the latter approach. So the BBC’s response to your complaint is “accurate”.
We all know that the BBC never has any interest in pointing out that there is no religious reason for a veil. However, on this occasion Mr Coleman seems to be reporting what was said in a court case. It isn’t really his place to say whether assertions in a court case are correct or not; that is the judge’s job.
I think you might have a good case if the judge had pointed out that there was no such requirement but Mr Coleman failed to pass this on. Otherwise, you’d be better reserving your fire for something more cut and dry, in my opinion.
As noted by BBC Religious Prog Head Aquil Ahmed
“To understand a lot of what is happening around us, whether you are looking at what is happening in Syria or women wanting to cover their face in Bradford or Birmingham,
or the demographic shifts in London, you have got to have a conversation that looks at this through the prism of religion”
excuse me –
What does the Niquab have to do with religion? … the arrogance of ignorance eh!
and this from the man, who pompously bleats about “poor religious literacy”
After lying by omission, or bending the facts
on any “religious” documentary he has anything to do with …
The upcoming BBCs “Pilgrimage”? 😀
sheesh! can t wait …… not!
Get rid of this agended charlatan
Bumper crop of Opium poppies, for the Afghans.
reports Al BBC oh dear, how can this be so?
Well we all know who they ll blame, don t we?
“Last Jew in Afghanistan faces ruin”
http://news.yahoo.com/last-jew-afghanistan-faces-ruin-kebabs-fail-sell-082203290.html.
“The community was several thousand strong at the turn of the 20th century, spread across several cities”
hmm … the carbon copy sad, shameful story, where have we heard that
one before
OK now that the Philippines story has played out let me see if I can summarise the Media coverage in this and every other act of nature these past 10 years:
1) Warn of impending doom due to climate change
2) Report on vastly inflated death tolls
3) Report on the birth of a baby
4) Report on people starving on the streets
5) Report on poor response of the authorities.
6) Report on British Aid and that we aren’t sending enough
7) Hide facts that death count isn’t as high as first reported
8) Have numerous articles in the media by CEOs of British charities on the good work they do and that the pop star wages they earn just isn’t enough to earn a living.
9. And don’t you *dare* say/print a word about this:
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/24237/Default.aspx?hp=more_news
And do you remember that woman Tonge who said the Israeli’s only went to help the Haitian’s to steal organs for transplants. Under no circumstances can Israel be seen on the bBC in a good light.
As I have said in a previous post I hope to God that the cure for cancer comes out of Israel. That will give the Israel/Zionist Jew hating bBC a real problem.
Just see Israel’s achievements for this week !
http://blogs.jpost.com/content/israel-key-life
Afternoon chimp on 5Live R Bacon is “cock a hoop” today
as he wheels out that nation hater from “horrible histories,”
a new book to sell? eh! … yep! Terry Deary?.
He ll waste no time, stabbing everybody in the back,
and pointing out how humane Arab slave traders were compared to us, before probably lying about the Crusades
Well he calls genuine historians “seedy”, which may or not be true, but forgets that they at least attempt to tell the truth.
sheesh! no wonder R Starkey calls the prick “a parasite”
Peace and luv..peace and luv!
Reckon it`s David Starkey you mean…not the grizzled ex-moptop who only got the gig with the Fabs `cos he was ugly and runtish!
Still-Ringo`s Thomas the Tank Engine tones would make him a natural to do history on the BBC…it was all going so well on the trains until bloody Thatcher and Major came along.
Labour saved them and gave Jimmy Savile his well-earned pensioner pass to scoot up and down the West Coast mainline to do good for the nations kids.
Thank you Stephen Byers?…how`s HE doing now he`s a Labour sinecure? 8×7=54 so he said…and the BBC will be revisiting this one soon to confirm this.
Peace and luv!…f***in Octopussies Garden there at the Beeb aint it?
my apologies Chris …
it was quite simply …
(as it appears you re on a nostalgia trip 😀
in a phrase coined by Len Fairclough )
… only a small slip of the finger.
F.A.B.
Was Len Fairclough the paedos John the Baptist to the BBC creepin` Jesus that became Sir James Savile of Wood Lane?
Hope our trolls note that -seeing as Peter Adamson was an ITV employee-it wasn`t ALL BBC staff all too willing to be deployed in taking swimming lessons for kids at Holborn/Moston baths.
Just most of `em!
See-I can smear the BBCs priests and prophets much as they`ve been smearing the Catholic Church these last forty years or so.
Anybody done a survey on whether the BBC or the Church had produced more paedophile convictions per employee?
There is another religion that might benefit from this cost/benefit analysis…but even those fearless Beeboids won`t be loitering around Regents Park Mosque to ask…
I jest….a fearless Beeboid?…only when it comes to hounding 90 year old licence fee refusniks.
It’s a “thumbs up for Len Fairclough “, hat tip Bernard Manning”.
It was truly terrible listening to Dreary. Never heard the man before but my overiding sentiment was “who the f**k is this man?”
Really not sure who had his head further up his own arse, him or Bacoil.
Dreary seemed to convinced that his polemic views set him up as some sort of intellectual but it really just made him sound like a huge see you next Tuesday.
And he was simply wrong factually in some of his “thinking”.
He quoted Lord Acton who stated that all successful men in history have had a “dark” side. Bacoil pulled out the liberal/lefties fave Martin Luther King – “what about him?”
“I stand corrected” declared Dreary, delivering his lines as if scripted.
Erm, both failed to mention MLK’s penchant for whoring or his proven plagarism when garnering his doctorate. Neither really desirable traits I wouldn’t have thought.
Then there was the assertion that “the Christians”, under the instruction of the then Pope, merely invaded the Muslim lands on a whim AKA the Crusades.
Nothing about the campaigns being in direct response to the spread of the religion of peace across Europe, The Gates of Vienna, and all that.
I’ve not read Horrible Histories but have heard good reviews.
However, I’m going to have to deprive myself and my children as I cannot abide the thought of contributing to this turd’s coffers by forking out for them.
Then again, I can really get on his tits by borrowing them from my local library thus depriving him of his much sought after riches.
He made it clear in no uncertain terms that libraries were the bete noir of writers because they deprived them of royalties.
Man, what a wanker
Those same Arab slave traders who built an outpost – now a pile of stones – which the Shona later called “Zimbabwe”? Where blacks brought in other blacks for sale?
(Stop it Ian, waycist! The stones are evidence of black civilisation!)
It is ironic that the BBC with its formal instructions not to use the word ‘terrorist’ has no such problems labeling groups and individuals as ‘far-right’.
Consider the first paragraph of this recent BBC article Acquitted Lieberman returns as Israel foreign minister:
Israeli FAR-RIGHT politician Avigdor Lieberman has returned to the post of foreign minister after being cleared of corruption charges.
The guidelines for use of the word terrorist applies just as much to far-right.
There is no agreed consensus on what constitutes a terrorist or terrorist act. The use of the word will frequently involve a value judgement.
Far-right is much more a value judgement than terrorist for which their is at least some competing definitions. Yet the BBC has no problem attaching it without definition or qualification to many groups such as the EDL, BNP, National Front and Golden Dawn.
It is guilt-by-association to label Liberman, who has many faults, but little in common with these other groups. He does not oppose immigration – his power base is recent immigrants. He doesn’t wear fascist clothes, give Hitler salutes and neither do members of his party. Most of all, his party is not known for confrontation and/or assault on the groups they oppose.
The BBC must amend the article or define what the BBC means when they use that label.
In more detail Always right from Five Minutes for Israel
Thanks for the link to the “Five Minutes for Israel” site.
The clouds are gathering for the BBC.
Let`s pounce next time they cover the Iranian moderate conservatives, who hang their gays-not stone them or throw them off a high tower as of old.
Far-right-Israeli patriot then obviously.
God Bless Israel!
“The Tories should pledge to cut the BBC’s licence fee”
By Charles Moore.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/the-tories-should-pledge-to-cut-the-bbcs-licence-fee/?
Another one of those “enemies” Harriet Harman warned about. Cue ritual chanting of the “National Treasure” mantra.
As Venezuela slides ever further into a Zimbabwe-style horror show, the BBC has lightly kept tabs on the situation. I say lightly because their reporting on the economic collapse and government takeover of most the economy and more and more aspects of people’s lives has been light on analysis and succinct with basic relating of facts on the ground. I’d normally say that’s as it should be, of course, but what a stark contrast to how the BBC reports on the economics of other countries.
The latest relates how the post-Chavez dictator is going to “expand price controls”. All we get are variations on “Maduro says” and “critics are critical”. How has it come to this? Where is the usually obligatory inset “analysis” feature, where a BBC journalist opines on what it all means? How can such an oil-rich, generous government like that of Chavez – who, we were reminded over and over again by the BBC, reduced income inequality, provided health care to all, produced the wonderful La Systema with its orchestra and floppy-haired celebrity conductor – descend into such madness? They haven’t gone the full Pol Pot yet, but it may not be far off.
The BBC isn’t interested, or at least isn’t interested in telling you. The answer is rather straight forward. Chavez took a lot of oil wealth and redistributed it to himself, his cronies (including billions to Cuba), and to superficially appealing public projects. Venezuela’s crude oil actually takes more work to refine for use than other reserves, and for some bizarre reason Heroic Hugo failed to invest all that oil wealth properly and production has decreased. Now that oil prices have been lower, and foreign subsidies aren’t flowing in so much, the extreme form of Socialism is collapsing all over and the people are made to suffer. Which is why the BBC is so reluctant to discuss it.
The BBC generally championed Chavez and his extremist policies to no end, and now that the place is a disaster, they aren’t interested in explaining why. Yet the BBC doesn’t hesitate to give you expert analysis on the rights and wrongs of other countries’ economics.
PS: Sure, diehard extreme Leftoids and Chavez’s minionis have complained that the BBC actually was too harsh on Heroic Hugo (a very amusing read, if anyone’s interested). After all, the BBC does get “complaints from both sides”.
Here David is how the bBC if it was a reputable news orq would report the above:
http://the-eyeontheworld.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/with-chavez-long-dead-madness-still.html
Yes, heard the BBC blathering on about Chavez successor telling people to get down to a chain of electrical stores and take the lot-knockdown or free seemed not to matter.
Good old socialism and wealth distribution eh?..looting as encouraged by the BBC(9am news Sun 10th Nov).
I guess Occupy will be wanting those Argos catalogues for next time…now that the BBC think it a Duggan Festival we`re due…finally.
Let`s hope Caracas votes itself a Pinochet type next time-and we can send the whole lot of the BBC HawHaws over to check the World Cup facilities with accompanying tapes of their revolutionary yells for him to “pacify”
Great piece, David. I actually learned something – well, the BBC weren’t going to tell me all that, were they? BTW, nice turn of phrase:
“…They haven’t gone the full Pol Pot yet, but it may not be far off.”
Put a smile on my face.
Did anyone hear a piece on the Today programme this morning about the rise of “far right” parties in the EU? The context was a meeting between Marine le Pen and Gert Wilders to discuss co-operation in the EU Parliament. You might have thought the BBC would want to interview one of them, or one of their party spokesmen as part of the story. Obviously, that was not the case. They vox popped some Dutch anti-capitalist demonstrators, who amazingly turned out not to support the “far right”, and then an arch Europhile called Guy Verhofstadt, who by an equally amazing coincidence deplored the rise of the “far right”, which opposes the neo-liberal diversity which has brought so much happiness to Europe. And that was that. I am sure a Beeboid would be able to explain how that piece was balanced, I am having a bit of trouble seeing it myself.
Yes, will do a post on it….note the BBC not mention the ‘far left’…although the commentator they brought on said both far right and far left rhetoric had to be combated…and of course no mention of the two Golden Dawn people shot dead recently.
http://www.euronews.com/2013/11/05/greece-video-shows-moment-golden-dawn-members-shot-dead/
you can be a leftist on 1,000 issues, but if you oppose 1 issue, immigration or islam, the beeb immediately brandish you far right. if you oppose both, extreme right wing, even though youre a hardcore commie
Here’s an interesting one – Lucy Adams (BBC HR Director) suing NUJ over alleged defamatory remarks made following her announcement to leave the BBC without pay-off in March next year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-24928945
Question is…. should the BBC be funding this? I say not – where is the fairness in the event that other staff wish to follow such action?
I only just noticed – this report is logged under “entertainment and the arts” on the website… someone else sees the entertainment angle also.
I’d say there’s more value in using license fee money to pay for Adams’ legal fees here than in paying for Helen Boaden’s legal fees. But it’s still wrong to use corporate money for personal stuff. Isn’t it illegal for private companies to do this sort of thing?
nofanofpoliticians’ link page says –
A day after her departure was announced, the National Union of Journalists published a statement about an alleged campaign by the BBC human resources department of “hacking staff emails and bullying employees into spying on colleagues”
In other words Auntie doesn’t want her culture of abuse (TM BBC) to be exposed. Best to hush things up now.
Far be it from me to defend the BBC but don’t all firms have the right of access to emails sent from their computers from and to their domains?
It would seem a bit dumb not to keep a track of what your staff are doing in your name, wouldn’t it?
Fair point.
‘It would seem a bit dumb not to keep a track of what your staff are doing in your name, wouldn’t it?’
Speaking of dumb, and ‘in your name’, I have often found the BBC’s tracking, and consequent near astounding lack of anything about staff twitter posts a source of enduring interest.
Someone might one day log and archive them.
You never know when it may come in handy.
The BBC complaints department seem to have a new technique for dismissing complaints. Wait for much longer than the normal 10 days, and then tell the complainant that they didn’t quite hear what was said correctly. This has happened with two responses today. The first is detailed above but there’s a second in which I’m being told the guest was challenged later in the program which I must have missed.
After the event it becomes difficult to accurately remember the broadcast clearly and there’s no way to listen again to most of these programs after a month or two has passed, so they have you at a disadvantage.
On this second one I have no recollection of a challenge later, but I can’t prove it, and I suspect they know that !
Sounds like a job for get_iplayer.
Oh good, Oprah is on the wun sho!
Baught any handbags lately sweetie?
Ah, yes, plenty of words like: slaves, black, diners, racial, multicultural NY, oh what utter shite, and of course, the trump all word: Obama!
FFS!
Oh shite, this one show has turned into a total Oprah worship fest. I have never witnessed such a load of bollocks in all my life.
What a bunch of wankers, and all growing ever fatter on my money.
Tell her that “cunt” is Welsh for “victim”. She’s so thick she’ll be showing off about being one for evermore.
In response to which her moronic audiences will whoop and holler like mad.
Thank you Ian Hills ( better put full name, dont want mix folk up again,) but perhaps I will refrain from teaching her that particular Welsh word.
Baught? Shit…bought.
Oh you heartless racist!
Oprah was given the evils by a Swiss type as she was showing a £28,000 handbag…I imagine any Swiss miss in such a shop would be racist by simply not giving her the Cherie Blair free trolley dash.
Oprah is STILL a victim of racism…as is Bonnie and indeed all-feather-bedded black ladies of no talent, but lots of attitude.
The billionaire victim…yes, Oprah is a Harriet Beecher-Stowe for our times, albeit one in a CERN tunnel.
Oh, and she`s an eternal victim of misogyny too…aren`t they all?
Oh right….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-24928945
I do hope the door doesn’t hit her on the ass as she departs the corrupt, greed-ridden BBC.
I’m currently watching Oprah Winfrey on the One Show!
It’s bad, very bad.
aw its baught me so much happiness
aaav had 27 meal s with nelson maandela.
hmmm …….. off switch!
This was actually worse than even I imagined it could be
5Live – Terry Deary – Richard Bacon (don t hold anything fragile) – 16 mins
http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b03h3kyx/
From Earlier
“Afternoon chimp on 5Live R Bacon is “cock a hoop” today
as he wheels out that nation hater from “horrible histories,”
a new book to sell? eh! … yep! Terry Deary?.
He ll waste no time, stabbing everybody in the back,
and pointing out how humane Arab slave traders were compared to us, before probably lying about the Crusades
Well he calls genuine historians “seedy”, which may or not be true, but forgets that they at least attempt to tell the truth.
sheesh! no wonder D Starkey calls the prick “a parasite”
Was he asked anything about his policy to prevent libraries being able to stock his Godawful books without his getting a fee for it.?
Nah, thought not!
This despite Alan Bennett saying that withholding access to libraries of the nations poor and “vulnerable” was akin to …well, yes child abuse.
Maybe THAT`S what bothered the BBC about asking Deary Me about that…after all, the BBC have a monopoly on this current growing industry, and hardly want libraries and grasping Geordie authors to start competing!
That would be a Savile Row I expect…there you are, Now Show!
BBC 1, 6 o’clock News – headlines trail:
UK economy on the up
Philippines
Oprah Wimfrey has a movie out !!!!???
William ‘dinner party’ Gompertz interviews Ms Wimfrey – did he think he was going to the opera?
And assuming you ain’t had enough yet – she’s on the One Show.
BBC approved source : Plug plug, plug plug, plug plug, plug
Exactly…I thought there were rules about plugging on the BBC. She didn’t even stay around for the rest of the programme. She did her plug and off she went. Interesting how uncomfortable the hosts seemed around her. They were deferential (natch) but seemed awkward around her. I’m now watching Daniel Radcliffe (fellow guest) on his own and what’s amazing is how the hosts have lightened up and seemed relaxed and comfortable.
They had this weird film montage where various random (or perhaps not so random) females told us what an inspiration she was to them, including a female priest.
Uncomfortable viewing.
Great post.
Interesting that the BBC defies the rule about advertising.
Mind you, the BBC is not supposed to offer its own opinions but it does.
The BBC is not supposed to be biased, but it is.
And to top it all, the BBC has an official policy on what to do if a member of staff wants to break the law
BBC Editorial Guidelines, Section 18.2.2
18.2.2 Any proposal to break the law must be referred to a senior editorial
figure, or for independents to the commissioning editor, who may consult
Programme Legal Advice and, if necessary, Director Editorial Policy and
Standards.
What other UK organisation has such a policy to defy the law.
Unite including the Labour Party, SWP, UAF, the Green Party and other environmental movements, Occupy. Basically, lefties think they have a right to break the law if they dont agree with it
The moral imperatives of the liberal left are always more important than law and custom. In other words the end justifies the means. The modern left is always in a state of rebellion against the people.
Earlier today BBC Arts Editor Will Gompertz tweeted that Oprah told him disrespect for Obama’s presidency was unprecedented because of racism.
I asked Gompertz if he’d had the balls to challenge that opinion.
Rather than answer the question he deleted his original tweet.
That’ll be a “no” then.
Obama shows respect for the “office”.
Only their Mum’s can tell ’em apart…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/modern-manners.html
That bit of the interview was on the News at Ten. Quelle surprise, unchallenged by Mr G. Or indeed anyone at the BBC, who cannot conceive that one might disrespect Obama because he’s crap.
Obama should be respected at least to the same degree that G.W.Bush was respected by the BBC and most of the MSM whilst he was in office.
Even now he is out of office the BBC likes to sully any achievements by Bush jr.
You might have thought that Obama winning two presidential elections would be taken as evidence that the US system is NOT racist. Instead, all it seems to me to some is that any criticism of Obama shows that the US system is racist.
not racist
racist
Nice one, DB. Gompertz is that cowardly?
Hasn`t he got a World arts event to attend?
Oh wait-the Religion of Peace shut it down with death threats at the weekend, should the likes of Gompertz show up with their goatees to stroke.
Far more fun to stroke those bushy dyed beards on a Friday then work downwards.
And that`s what wee Willie and his brothers do for the BBC…
Matthew Kane, Rosie Millard, NeenaNanna(or whatever) seem not to have noticed that the arts event they`d packed a handbag for(to get the vol-au-vonts) is not available…but no squauks of “censorship”.
Sch…you know who…let`s not worry ourselves.
Meanwhile -“A Good rebellion” by PissChrist standing on a pile of bricks…ooh, how brave, how rad and outre.
F*** Off you technicolour blancmanges who dream of being jellyfish…arts ,my beret!
Editor?
WTF does HE edit?
Correspondent?.
State ciphers for the pastel limewashes of the watercolour fantasists?…yes, State ciphers, quislings, shills, pimps and drones…. THAT`S the correct BBC Management structure.
Think I`ll draw it.
At the BBC, for titled “Editor”, one must read “editorialist”.
So a BBC 10 o’ Clock News reporter in Sri Lanka, who cannot gain access to their President, and whose path to him is blocked by his minders, asks them, ‘Why are you interfering with the freedom of the press?…why are you interfering with the freedom of the press?’
Hypocrite! The same question needs to be asked of the News International hating, Hacked Off cheerleading, Leveson and press regulation supporting BBC;
‘Why are you interfering with the freedom of the press?’
Hypocrites.
Today we all heard the news that the economy is finally back on the up. This, by the way after several months of improving figures (all of which the bbbc has managed to all but ignore or pass negative comment)…………….Now we have this from them, authored by another one of their favourites…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24929379
Why is the bbbc on a mission to destroy any positive feeling on behalf of the population. Why do they feel the need to give contrary news all the time.
we are all given the same constant drip drip messages all day every day…..
Islam good – Christianity bad
English bad – European good
all bad weather is due to global warming
we must all live in a commune with everyone equal (obviously with the exception that some people (bbc people) who are more equal than others
The car is bad and bicycling is good
oblama is god – everything else is subservient
actors and artists are to be lauded – science and technology is just some unimportant thing that they don’t know too much about
homosexuality is good – heterosexuality is bad
I really have lost my patience with this stance that they take and would love to see the whole lot of them shut down and made redundant
God help this country
Whenever a Conservative minister complains about the BBC, it gets very defensive and point to “political interference”.
However, political interference is a two way street.
The BBC, with its contingent of political correspondents such as Robinson, Mardell, Peston etc leading the charge as they wade into every subject, not with facts from a news story, but with their BBC-honed opinion. Then the editors and foot soldiers soon follow, with journos and presenters toeing the political line.
This powerful lobby affects our laws, our economy and our life.
Why does the BBC take it upon itself, in defiance of the rules it is supposed to abide by, to provide a daily commentary on how our country is run?
Does the Post Office do this? Does Network Rail provide a daily political commentary?
The greatest political power pot in the country, the BBC, calling the kettle black is a sick joke.
It’s the legacy of John Birt, made worse by Helen Boaden. They think everyone needs everything explained and framed properly.
Watching the news and the bBC and they are interviewing oprea Winfrey and according to her people who object to Obama are…. Racists
Whereas those who laud him to the highest heaven because he’s America’s first (half) black president aren’t racist at all. Obviously.
He’s a white black president – this was agreed on the Zimmermann trial when the defendent was described as a ‘white hispanic’.
In fact his policies are so ludicrous that Mr Obama is like a newspaper – a re(a)d white black president.
So watching hard talk and the bBC are interviewing the CEO of Italian oil company. He states that the US has a solid energy plan and that Europe hasn’t . He states that European fascination with green energy has resulted in people in Europe paying $1000 a year more for energy.
Yet instead of listening to the man the bBC reporter asks why is the company trying to get cheap deals from Africa instead of pushing for clean energy.
Do the people at the bBC pay their own energy bills?
I heard the interview on BBC World Service. What a browbeating the CEO received, but he came back well at the end.
To me, his best retort was, “Either we embrace fracking or we embrace Russian gas.”
One of the reasons I become so frustrated at the bBC is over how it has stopped reporting the facts over any news story and instead hands over very politicised statements which support its own political agenda. For example in the land of the beeboid Obama can do no wrong, be it killing terrorists from the air, playing golf or even messing up the country.
Yesterday a number of people reported over how Oprea Winfrey was allowed to promote the message that people who didn’t agree with Obama were doing so because of the colour of his skin….Really. To what malaise could she be referring to . could it be Obama care. Here is the bBC’s take on the matter:
US healthcare enrolment figures lower than expected
The Obama administration has said barely 27,000 Americans enrolled for health insurance through its troubled federal website in the first month. About 106,000 people were insured in total, most of them through the state-run websites. The administration originally estimated nearly half a million people would sign up in the first month. The federal website, used in 36 US states, has suffered severe technical problems since its 1 October rollout. The administration has pledged that the portal will be “running smoothly” for a “vast majority” of users by the end of November.
So if you read the above , what message do you get, teething troubles??
Here is how the Economist reported the same story a month ago:
A HANDSOME man told television viewers to pick up their phones and shop. “The phone number…is 1-800-318-2596,” he said on October 21st. “I want to repeat that: 1-800-318-2596.” This was not a microwave salesman, but the president of the United States. Barack Obama urged Americans to buy health insurance by phone, by mail and in person, because the website for his most important domestic reform does not work. Since Mr Obama’s online health exchanges were launched October 1st, they have been crippled by technical glitches. Mr Obama insists that these will be fixed and that the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, will succeed. “The product is good. The health insurance that’s being provided is good,” Mr Obama said, repeating this message several times.
But the software problems are bad. Obamacare has survived years of political attacks. Most recently, Republicans shut down the federal government in an attempt to repeal it. Yet it turns out that the biggest threat to health reform is the administration’s own incompetence.
The exchanges are supposed to make shopping for health insurance cheap and easy. So far, they have not. Visitors to healthcare.gov, the federal website that is shoppers’ only option in 36 states, have struggled to create accounts, let alone browse for plans. In the first week, less than 1% of those who visited the website completed an application, according to Complete, a research firm.
The exchange has also sent garbled applications to insurers. Some have received two forms from the same person, or forms with missing data. Others are receiving enrolment notices, then cancellations, then enrolments. It is unclear whether an enrolment followed a cancellation or vice versa, or whether a cancellation was intentional or the result of a computer gremlin.
The 14 states that built their own exchanges seem to be faring better. Washington has seen 16,700 people apply for private insurance. Of these, 4,500 have enrolled in a plan. New York, where more than 150,000 have applied for coverage, has seen about 13,000 enroll. In Minnesota 8,180 people have applied for private insurance, but the state has not given any enrolment forms to insurers. One Minnesotan, believing himself already to be enrolled, called an insurer in the hope of scheduling surgery for January. But the insurer had no record of his application. In all, Mr Obama says that nearly 500,000 applications for insurance have now been filed, but it is unclear how many people have actually enrolled in a plan.
The fiasco infuriates Obamacare’s supporters, including Mr Obama himself. (“Nobody is madder than me,” he said.) Some Democrats blame Republicans. The original idea of Obamacare was that each state would set up its own exchange, but nearly all Republican governors refused. So the Centres for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), part of Mr Obama’s health department, did so on their behalf, hiring a squadron of contractors to help.
Why did they botch it so badly? Politics is partly to blame. In the final months of Mr Obama’s re-election campaign last year, the health department stopped issuing much-needed guidance for the exchanges. (Cynics speculate that Mr Obama wanted to deprive Republicans of information they might have used in attack ads.) This year, when the exchanges were about to open, CMS and Kathleen Sebelius, the health secretary, failed to report any serious problems.
Others, including the Government Accountability Office, were more worried. Insurers feared that the exchanges would not be ready. Many of the biggest decided not to sell plans on them in their first year. Technology executives were amazed at the opaque development of healthcare.gov, led by CGI Federal, a contractor. In Silicon Valley software is tested and re-tested before it is launched. “Contrast that with, no one knows anything about how it’s going, then on the day of the launch you pray?” scoffs one tech executive.
On October 22nd the White House tapped Jeff Zients, an economic adviser, to oversee repairs. It is not clear that the health department knows the full extent of the fixes needed. And it is unclear how long it will all take. On October 23rd officials said that Americans would be allowed an extra six weeks to buy health insurance before facing a fine. They now have until March 31st. It will strike some as unfair if they are obliged to buy something that is nearly impossible to buy.
The thing is, the bBC instead of reporting the plain facts, blurs the entire story until you simply cannot make heads or tails of the story. I mean refusing to call terrorists terrorists, what is that all about, and when was the last time you hear the bBC refer to a Muslim guilty of underage sex of being a paedophile? the same applies to Obamacare, hands up those (other than DP) who know just what the hell is going on across the water. That is why I prefer the Economist or even the Guardian, they tell it as it is , without blurring the facts.
About 106,000 people were insured in total, most of them through the state-run websites.
This is, in fact, a White House LIE. One which the BBC happily regurgitates, as is their wont. It’s actually the number of people who have only signed up for an account on one of the websites and have a selected policy sitting in their shopping cart. The actual number of people who have actually enrolled in a health care plan (defined as getting the first bill and paying it, which is when insurance companies officially decide you’re covered) is 26,974. Even the Obamessiah-supporting NBC can’t stoop lower than saying that the other 75,000 people are merely “a few steps away” from truly being insured.
Proof is on Page 3 of the press release – which the BBC gets – from the Dept. of Health & Human Services (pdf):
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2eBCb2OD0NZTU1oNGItM0JmVDg/edit?pli=1
106,815 (10 percent) of the 1,081,592 total Marketplace plan eligible persons have already selected a plan by clicking a button on the website page. Enrollment includes those who have selected a plan including those who have paid their first month premium and those who have not yet done so.
Yes, I’m saying that whichever BBC so-called journalist wrote that all those people are insured is lying, deliberately. And the BBC editor or line manager who allowed it is condoning a lie. They know this is a falsehood. They have access to the same news reports we do, and most likely some info we don’t get to see. They know not all of them are actually insured, and decided to push a falsehood. If I’m somehow wrong and they don’t know the White House is faking it, then they’re pathetic and not worthy of their positions or respect.
No defender of the indefensible or lurking or non-lurking journalist will dare touch this, unless one of them is brave enough to call out the BBC for once.
Never, ever trust the BBC on any US political or ideological issue.
And your explanations like this David P, are precisely why we need you posting on this site.
The bBC and its customary Anti-Israel article and half the story
Israel-Gaza conflict: One year on
Israel launched Operation Pillar of Defence, which it says was aimed at ending rocket fire from Gaza, with the killing of a Hamas military leader. Israel subsequently carried out hundreds of air strikes on the territory, while Hamas and other groups fired hundreds of rockets into Israel.
According to the United Nations, a total of 174 Palestinians were killed, at least 168 of them by Israeli military action, including 101 believed to have been civilians. Hamas’ health ministry says 185 Palestinians, mostly civilians, were killed. Two Israeli soldiers and four Israeli civilians were killed by rocket or mortar fire from Gaza, the Israeli authorities say
So the bBC reminisces, when Israel went to war against Gaza in which to try and stop missile being launched from Gaza into Israel. (funny enough hours after the Emir of Qatar visited and said he would hand over lots of money) but that is by the by. Have a look at the death figures the bBC quotes in which to play the victim card for Hamas. Remember that Gaza is one of the most populated strips of land in the world. I quote:
Israel subsequently carried out hundreds of air strikes on the territory,
Resulting in:
a total of 174 Palestinians were killed, at least 168 of them by Israeli military action, including 101 believed to have been civilians.
So the most heavily armed airforce in the Middle East which carried out hundreds of air strikes (Actually the figure is in excess of 1500 air strikes) on a mostly civilian population and only manages to kill 174 people.
Am I missing something here, but is either the IDF that pants that in carrying out 1500+ air strike they only managed to kill 178 people in one of the most densely populated strips of land in the world, or did they go out of their way in which to target only those who live by the sword. Anybody who has been near a 1000lb bomb when it is dropped will understand what I mean (I was over a mile away)
and yet the bBC doesn’t look at that angle instead it blinds the reader to the blood lust of the jew. which the facts don’t support.
The bBC UKIP Motto on a poppy wreath and …half the story
Lincolnshire UKIP leader ‘sorry’ for poppy wreath logo
The leader of UKIP in Lincolnshire has apologised after a wreath with the party’s logo was placed at the war memorial in Spalding.UKIP councillor Colin Mair apologised for any offence caused but said he did not know who left the wreath.
Spalding’s Conservative district councillor Roger Gambba-Jones said he was “horrified” by what had happened.
Here is a picture of the wreath in question as posted by the bBC:
and here is a picture of a lot more wreaths which appear to have been commissioned by their respective parties:
Storm in a tea cup anyone?
Mock outrage over UKIP wreath, despite it being supplied by the RBL
http://nopenothope.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/mock-outrage-over-ukip-wreath-despite.html
I m surprised “horrified” and co, are not bleating about “white” poppies
The BBC on Acid… Another day, another uncritical plug for the Global Warming lobby. Today’s theme is that the world’s oceans are about to turn to acid (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24904143). Apparently, there will soon be no molluscs left and “the global cost of the decline in molluscs could be $130bn by 2100 if emissions of CO2 continue on their current pathway”. This information stems from an alarmist body called the International Geosphere Biosphere Programme, which is made up of all the usual suspects, with the usual links and financed in the usual manner. Readers of a certain vintage will recall that “acid rain” was the Big Idea of environmentalists some 40+ years ago, with predictions that all the world’s trees would vanish by the year 2000. Still, perhaps fans of moules-frites should indulge whilst they can.
The oceans are not becoming “more acid”, they are becoming “less alkaline”. They will still be alkaline when all this who-ha of “global warming” finally dies.
Whoops! I forgot to add this report by Matt Ridley.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203550304577138561444464028
This Plan B has been waiting in the wings for some years now. Only as Man-made global warming becomes recognised as a mega-scam, is ocean acidification being wheeled out as the next CO2 nightmare. All designed to keep Al Gore in the lifestyle to which he has been accustomed.
Visit http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/31/ocean-acidification-and-corals/ for some immediate counter arguments.
So John McCririck has lost his discrimination case and it’s splashed across most of the media as if it’s as simple as that .
Prima Facie it is, man takes employer to court for discrimination and loses – end of story. Only it’s not the end of the story, it hasn’t even scratched the surface, and what lies beneath is very murky indeed, calling into question the whole of the diversity industry.
During the BLiar year there were a lot of what I called ‘facades’ set up. State bodies which appeared to be there for the protection of the people against the government and big business, but in reality there is nothing behind them and they don’t actually do anything.
You would be forgiven for believing with all the bullying and the bluster from those on the left, including the BBC that discrimination, especially on the grounds of race would be something tribunals would take extremely seriously – not so.
Here are the actual 2010 figures for the number of successful cases and the average award given. A word of warning however, a single large award often skews these figures from the low figures which are more normal.
Disability Discrimination
Success rate 3% Average payout £52087 skewed by an award of £730K to Mark Driscoll a sports writer
Sexual orientation
Success rate 5% Average payout £20384 skewed by an award of £163,725 no other case exceeded £30K
Sex Discrimination
Success rate 2% Average payout £19,499 massively skewed by a huge award of £422,366 to a whistle blower.
Race Discrimination
Success rate 3% Average payout £18,584 massively skewed by a £374,922 award to a merchant banker.
Age Discrimination 2% Average payout £10,931 Highest award £48,710 only one other was higher than £40K
Religious discrimination 2% Average payout £4,886 the largest being £9500
There are a number of conclusions which can be taken from these figures.
That discrimination is no where near as bad as the fascist left portrays it to be and that minority groups are too quick to claim discrimination where there is none
Or that the barrier to prove discrimination is set so high that very few cases can succeed, this is perhaps given credence by the EU telling the UK it had ‘no effective anti discrimination legislation’ BLiars response to this was not to change any law, but to write to tribunal chairs asking them to find for more claimants ! Needless to say they failed to do so.
If this is the case then the left have no real interest in diversity, equality and discrimination, but are merely using it as a tool to bully those who do not see the world as they do.
The way the BBC runs nearly every single program through the prism of political correctness anyone would think there was a major issue in the UK, or that there was some substance behind what they are doing. These figures testify that there is no real substance to the sound & fury.
Perhaps the worst part though are the victims of this process, who perhaps have been discriminated against, led to believe that there is some redress by the fascists, even those lucky few who do win are going to be disappointed by the derisory payments, which in reality amount to a couple of weeks pay.
Here is the reality of the bullying lefts commitment to their pet cause. It is nothing more than words! When it comes to substance there is nothing there, even they don’t believe it!
Ooops. Whoever it is from the BBC who monitors this site will now have another angle.
Expect a Newsnight / Today / Panorama / VD special;
‘Why is it so many discrimination cases fail – Are our employment courts themselves discriminating?’
Talking of McKririck, I heard the interview with the aforementioned VD a few moments ago. It was apparent from the outset (as they say) that she didn’t like him. She treats other ‘victims’ of the system very differently.
Good post Thoughtful, interesting data: all surprisingly (and encouragingly) low.
Beeboids to provide millions of people in the world what the global broadcaster thinks they want, but at licence-payers’ expense:-
“BBC is in a ‘soft power’ battle with international broadcasters.
“Tony Hall wants a worldwide audience of 500 million by 2022, but CCTV, al-Jazeera and others have global ambitions too.”
http://www.theguardian.com/media/media-blog/2013/nov/13/bbc-broadcasters-tony-hall-worldwide-audience-cctv-al-jazeera?
How many of this potential worldwide audience would watch the BBC if they had to pay the tele tax for the privilege?
I wouldn’t mind so much if the BBC was actively pro British,
I had a rather surreal experience watching BBC World Television in India with an Indian family a couple of years ago. Not something they normally watched but the kindly thought was that it would make me feel “at home”. They were baffled by the complete lack of anything British in it, all of the presenters being various ethnics and many of the programmes giving the impression of having been made in the lobby of the UN headquarters. Aside from the news, there was a show about furnishing homes presented by a rather OTT pair of camp Scottish gents. Message to Tony Hall: there isn’t an audience of 500 million in the world for this sort of stuff.
Via Bishop Hill , a couple of interesting points in a report by the eco
lobbyistcharity, the International Broadcasting Trust (IBT).Clive Edwards, the BBC’s Commissioning Editor for TV Current Affairs:
“The BBC went through a period when it was seen as a sort of zealot in the climate change debate. It backfired badly. Audiences got caught up in it too back then, but now they are not as enthusiastic.”
We still see you as a sort of zealot, BBC. I think the backfire he is referring to is 28gate, where the IBT was to the fore. Good to know that audiences aren’t swallowing the hype as readily as before.
Dorothy Byrne of Channel Four:
“..some environmentalists thought we should not challenge or question what they say. They also objected to some of our interviewees being on the programme as they didn’t agree with them. I found the whole experience extraordinary. It was as if I was attacking their religion”.
That’s exactly what you were doing, Dorothy – attacking their religion. Welcome to the wonderful world of Big Green.
Immigration move a mistake says Jack Straw – http://uk.news.yahoo.com/immigration-move-mistake-straw-054358574.html#UfNvOeT
The BBC seem to have missed this story…
Jeff
Only the bBC could come out with something like this:
Planning blitz
Planners not Hitler behind medieval Coventry’s destruction
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-24934919
Not to exonerate the BBC (or Hitler, come to that!) but they are right. Many of Britain’s identikit town centres suffered more aesthetic damage from architects and town planners than they dd the Luftwaffe. The damage is still going on today, in London.
What does the BBC have against Sri Lanka and Buddhists? On the World Service there was a report covering attacks in Sri Lanka on Christians – that is bad but at least no-one was killed. The reporter said (presumably with a straight face) that attacks by Buddhists on Muslims were already well known (not clear if he meant in Sri Lanka or in Burma) but attacks by Buddhists on Christians were not so well known. The elephant in the room of course being attacks by Muslims on all religions including fellow Muslims. Outside Communist North Korea it is mostly Muslims who are attacking and murdering Christians.
There seems to be a lot of criticism about how Sri Lanka won its war against terrorism. Maybe the fact that it was brutal but effective is inconvenient because it undermines the narrative that terrorism has to be defeated by political means not military means, and that narrative then justifies political concessions. The truth is that terrorism cannot be beaten purely by political means but requires a military solution also.
I’ve noticed that as well. it’s as if the left cannot accept the fact that their side (terrorism) lost and it had to be done the bloody hard way.
When lefties say terrorism can only be defeated by political means what they really mean is appeasement
There’s only one way to defeat terrorism, and thats to hunt them down and kill them.
BBc still banging on about aid not getting there in the Philippines. More Ill-informed crap the Royal Navy’s biggest aircraft carrier. Eeeeer it’s got no aircraft (ok it can carry helicopters) it’s the only light carrier left so it’s a helicopter amphibious assault ship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Illustrious_(R06)
and they are getting rid of it next year.
I wrote about this days ago that the aid agencies and civil servants are so hopelessly complacent that they didn’t even load an aircraft with aid for a week after the event, despite knowing it was coming a fortnight before.
Isn`t Australia, those lovely Middle eastern countries like Saudi and Dubai? China and Indonesia so much nearer to Manila than is Israel and the USA, as well as Britain and the EU?
Strangely though it`s whitey that gets blamed…China and Pakistan etc could not possibly get the rap for indifference or scorning the kuffar in their hour of need.
Guess who the BBC blames…well, it`ll have to be Thatcher, Bush and Reagan won`t it?
John Major comes out with a line on social mobility, and how do the BBC report it?
I expect most of the readers on these pages would have a pretty good guess so here is the opening line which bears no resemblance what so ever to what was said, and was even said by someone else !
“More needs to be done to get people who are not white and middle class into top jobs, David Cameron has said.”
So more ethnics into top jobs then ?
I can tell the BBC why we only see posh people at the top, and in particular why the leaders of all the political parties are from highly privileged backgrounds.
Who reading this could afford to work and live in London city centre for at least two years with no income? and yet that is exactly what it takes to get a job as a researcher to a politician. The system of internship which is akin to voluntary slavery is a gateway for the rich to the top jobs, and a barrier to everyone else.
Don’t expect the BBC to complain though, as most of the top people are based in London with stellar salaries they are the very people whose offspring are able to take advantage of this highly selective system.
Self perpetuating dynasties need these protections !
A bit rich coming from Cameron. He who, having enjoyed a first class education, is ensuring that us proles never get one for our children. No difference between him and Shirley Williams.
Bring back grammar schools you cretin.
No wonder we loathe politicians.
I always love the detachment shown by the likes of Martha Kearney as they balance up John Harris(Guardian-comprehensive oik) with the head of an Independent School( toff, defending the privileges of the posh, yada, yada).
This was TWATO(13.40 pm or so 13/11/13)-and you`d not think that Martha or chums had in any way benefited from prep school, private schools, grammar schools or Oxbridge…nor her editors, researchers, muffin men or producers..line management and the ticks upon fleas that make up the BBC.
Suppose there`ll never be an attempt to declare an interest in all this will there-when Polly gets called out over her private school choices, it`s always a delight to see a puce colour and splenetic complaints to Dimbleby re “losing the argument” or getting personal.
Isn`t the personal political according to Germaine Greer, and the other feminist ruins of 68?
BBC happy to report a most wanted list of criminal suspects in Spain (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24939356) but apparently it needed to say there was ‘debate’ about the value of a HMRC list of most wanted (if you read the article you’ll see that ‘debate’ simply meant Labour criticism http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23621738). Is there any difference between the 2 lists which can avoid the tag of racism? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23630027)
Does the BBC like to say one thing verbally while writing something else for the record. According to R4 news summary a member of Pussy Riot was sentenced for protesting against Putin (that is what the BBC really believes). The website is more circumspect (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24938951) and more accurately describes the sentence as being for ‘hooliganism motivated by religious hatred.’ Many Russians were outraged by Pussy Riot staging a protest in an Orthodox Church (http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/13-09-2013/125661-pussy_riot-0/)(http://www.policymic.com/articles/54957/are-pussy-riot-heroic-feminists-just-ask-a-russian)
Still, unlike Russia, at least here in Britain we enjoy freedom of speech don’t we? (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/07/newsmax-activist-pamela-geller-i-wont-be-kept-out-of-uk.html)(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7882953.stm)(http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/rod-liddle/2013/09/josh-williamson-is-arrested-for-preaching-the-christian-gospel-in-public/)(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2058935/Police-advise-Christian-preachers-to-leave-Muslim-area-of-Birmingham.html)(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html)
separated links for above
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/07/newsmax-activist-pamela-geller-i-wont-be-kept-out-of-uk.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7882953.stm
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/rod-liddle/2013/09/josh-williamson-is-arrested-for-preaching-the-christian-gospel-in-public/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2058935/Police-advise-Christian-preachers-to-leave-Muslim-area-of-Birmingham.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html
more links
http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/13-09-2013/125661-pussy_riot-0/
http://www.policymic.com/articles/54957/are-pussy-riot-heroic-feminists-just-ask-a-russian
Interesting piece on the UKIP website headlined ‘Is the BBC stacking its audiences against UKIP?’, which relates to an article written by Trevor Kavanagh of The Sun :-
http://www.ukip.org/newsroom/news/1000-is-the-bbc-stacking-its-audiences-against-ukip
This is a bit like asking ‘Does night follow day?’ or ‘Does the pope wear a funny hat?’. Not only do they stack their audiences with lefties, the majority of the panel (including Dimblebore) are invariably lefties or pinko liberal sympathisers.
Having watched the particular programme in question last week from Boston, Lincolnshire, I am of the firm opinion that many of them were not locals, but were bused in from places like Nottingham. It would be interesting to identify the fat, gobby, female in the audience, bet she was a Labour plant or union bod.
Time for Patten to get off his fat arse and do what he’s paid for. Hold the BBC to account.
This happened in Dorking a number of years back, an area I knew well, and right in the heart of true blue, Surrey stockbrocker belt. As a police officer at the time, I knew so many of the local residents by sight if not by name.
What a surprise when QT came on from Dorking. I didn’t recognise one person in the audience, and not one of them typified the views that you would expect in such an area.
I suppose the give-away was the scruffy and unkempt appearance of most of the ranters in the audience
I seem to recall that the audience, just down the road in Lincoln was very different back in January – you remember the episode when Mary Beard was put in her place by someone from Boston who actually knew what the impact of mass immigration was, and unlike Beard actually knew what she was talking about.
I guess that the left wing activists who produce QT were not going to go to Boston and make the same mistake again.
Safety in numbers, eh comrade?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2264799/Our-towns-like-foreign-country-Locals-cope-immigrants-says-mother-TV-clash-academic.html
PS:
I see that QT have diverted to Portsmouth tonight, no doubt chasing angst and Tory embarrassment from last week’s announcement of closure and redundancies in the naval dockyard.
It’s always sad when people, skilled people lose their jobs, but it is a fact that when work dries up this is an inevitability.
I wonder though if anyone (perhaps the boy with the Scorpion tattoo), will mention that BAe systems planned this FIVE years ago (Mmm who was in power then?) and that there is a paper in the House of Commons confirming this.
I also wonder if anyone will mention that the last warship completed in Portsmouth was HMS Andromeda in 1976.
Sorry, Androeda was completed even earlier 1967.
Lisdexia strikes again
More on the Conservatives courtesy of the BBC.
“Conservatives purge old speeches from online archives”
“The Conservative Party has deleted speeches and press releases published on its website between 2000 and the 2010 general election.
The archive has also been hidden from search engines.
The move was spotted by Computer Weekly, a trade publication, which also said some records had been removed from the Internet Archive, which aims to make a permanent record of web content.”
Just love that word “Spotted”, deliberately inserted to imply that something nefarious has taken place.
The article is replete with a quote from some socialist rent-a-gob, “Labour MP for Edinburgh East Sheila Gilmore described the changes to the Conservatives’ website as a “cynical stunt” saying “it will take more than David Cameron pressing delete to make people forget about his broken promises”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24924185
You can always rely on the BBC to stuff it to the Tories.
BUT WAIT! What’s this that the BBC are NOT REPORTING (courtesy of Guido).
“Labour Delete Entire Pre-2010 History From Their Website”
“Labour have done exactly what they attacked the Tories for: trying to block access to embarrassing speeches, press releases from before the last election.”
http://order-order.com/2013/11/14/labour-delete-entire-history-pre-2010-from-website/
Well done BBC. Your party political propaganda on behalf of the socialists on display for all to see.
They saw the Conservative one on Guido as well but have decide not to hat-tip but pretend they just happened upon such news: nice to see if they do follow up with the Labour story…I doubt it especially when reading the pathetic hyperbole ridden comment from Computer Weekly they publish: “the effect of the changes was ‘as alarming as sending Men in Black to strip history books from a public library and burn them in the car park'”.
7.25 sports bulletin on this morning’s Today dedicated almost exclusively to Birmingham City’s women’s football team winning their ‘champions league’ match. Long interview with their start winger during which the BBC person – well, a woman actually (yes, they’re even taking over this sports slot) – suggested it might be a good idea if the England women’s football teams played their matches at Wembley. Said winger agreed it would be nice and thought the men and women’s teams could play ‘back to back’ matches. Ah, great idea and nicely set up by the agenda-conscious BBC, for then they could claim the residue of the 80,000+ who stay behind after the men’s game as paying spectators for the women’s match because, of course, several weeks down the line the BBC will consign the back to back aspect of the fixture to the memory hole and the attendance will be claimed as evidence of how popular women’s football has become as a paying spectator sport.
Meanwhile, in today’s sports pages, Birmingham City’s women’s team result appears in the fine print after the Johnstone’s Paint Trophy Northern and Southern Quarter Finals and the Calor Southern Premier (Cambridge City 2, Stourbridge 1).
This kind of agenda forcing has brought me to a boycott of BBC Radio 5 Live – hence lower blood pressure and fewer posts here.
You may recall that Radio 4 was my former home from which I was eventually forced to flee for reasons of political persecution.
I sought refuge with 5 Live and hoped their focus on sport and lite news would be a safe haven.
How wrong I was. Of great annoyance was Nicky Campbell’s washing his hands of the Savile affair. What was his excuse – ‘I left as he came’?
The final straws were Tony Livesey and his ‘English by default’ remark and the 5 Live trailer for their ‘Brazil, the spiritual home of football’.
Did no fellow presenter hear that before it was passed for broadcast? Did no manager, editor, producer question it? Not even some bloke in the office? No I suppose they all wear Brazil shirts as fashion items. Did no one at the BBC question it? Not even Nicky Campbell’s fluffer?
BBC: Brazil Broadcasting Corporation
The positive economic news yesterday led to a phone-in what will happen when the interest rates go up.
Cue the usual whining lefties, plus an interesting and bizarre interjection from a guy so disappointed with the poor rates his savings attracted he thought the answer was a revolution.
I didn’t hear it, but presumably there was no challenge to the whingers as to why, say, a 1% increase in mortgage rates should be such a disaster for some people? Maybe something to do with having spent, spent and spent again until there was no credit left on their cards, their overdraft or their mortgage and minimum monthly repayments were all they could afford?
But then, if the BBC asked those sorts of questions, they’d be seen as ‘morally judging’ people – as bad if not worse than a ‘hate crime in the eyes of the Left.
To be honest, Birmingham City fans have very little to be jolly about what with the season to be merry soon to be on us. The fact that any Birmingham City side has won anything is a joy to behold (women or not) for it has been some time since we gave Arsenal a drubbing in the League Cup. 😎
Whoops! I wonder how INBBC will cover this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10449815/Al-Qaeda-linked-rebels-apologise-after-cutting-off-head-of-wrong-person.html
Blame the Israelis of course.
They wont cover it, simples.
And it’s only a matter of time before some drive-by flokker accuses you of highjacking this unfortunate guys death for political ends.
should of gone to spec savers
RELIGION OF POLITENESS?
Please don’t ask why I had daytime TV on. But in error I did. Saw about 5 minutes of a programme about saints and scroungers. The saint was a woman who had a 3/4 bedroom house, had lost her job, and her benefits were affected by ‘the bedroom tax’. You would not believe the number of times a BBC programme could insert the word ‘bedroom tax’ in 5 minutes – and the volume always seemed a bit higher each time the word was said. Agenda? It is not just the news programmes that show BBC bias.
But did you see the quality furniture the laptop etc. Obviously luxuries come well before necessities in that house with an attitude the tax payer can pay up. And did you notice that she was in contact with and I quote “bedroom tax officer ” with the housing association owner of her massive house. The words ” bedroom tax” were used here scores of times. Blatant labour propaganda on the BBC. And what a blinder the woman played as a victim. An acting job awaits her in some diversity correct soap.
‘The words ” bedroom tax” were used here scores of times’
Not.. ‘What Labour call the Bedroom Tax’? ((c) The Rules).
Still wheeling out a professional ‘victim’ to slag off the cuts… wot can go wrong, eh?
http://order-order.com/2013/11/14/sham-pain/
Bet the BBC will be all over this one, eh?
Maybe get in ‘Claret quaffing Tory Toff’ man-of-the-people Kevin Maguire to ‘comment’… stat!
As Cosmo said – Family Mosaic apparently employ ‘bedroom tax officer’ so no need to use the ‘as described by Labour’ here.
Given this has very much fallen off the thread roll, maybe a ‘Day After Midweek Open Thread’?
Well, well, the BBC has admitted how few people have actually purchased health insurance via the ObamaCare website. Today, the BBC is no longer trying to claim that even more people are insured, like they tried the other day.
The website is such a disaster that the President has now caved in to critics and agreed to a temporary delay on the individual mandate, in the hopes that the website will eventually be fixed and people who are having their insurance cancelled due to His Plan For Us will be able to sign up for new plans when the new deadline hits.
Remember when the BBC and defenders of the indefensible were telling us that wanting to delay the individual mandate in exchange for voting for a rise in the debt ceiling was “holding the country hostage”? Well, the Republicans were right all along and now both cans have been kicked down the road. Now the President caved in because Democrats were going to back a Republican initiative to do essentially the same thing. Of course, the BBC doesn’t think you need to know that. Are they racist now?
Of course, the BBC doesn’t put it like that. Instead, it’s His fix. Naturally, since this is a BBC article about the President and His signature legislation, they tell a half-truth.
Republicans – who have long fought to undo the controversial healthcare law – have seized on Mr Obama’s past pledges that people would be able to keep insurance plans they liked.
Some conservatives have gone as far as to accuse Mr Obama of lying to the public during his campaign for the law’s passage.
In fact, Democrats are saying the same thing. Sen. Durbin has admitted that he and others were equally dishonest in backing the President’s dishonesty., Even Bill Clinton has said that the President ought to keep His promise.
Instead of reporting the full truth, the BBC won’t tell you any of this because it detracts from the Narrative that only Republicans are saying this, which can then be dismissed as usual as mere partisan noise. It’s clearly much more than that, but the BBC won’t admit it.
As ever, the BBC spin their version of the truth by leaving out the bits that don’t fit their agenda.
That’ll be an Xmas treat for a few…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/cheer-up.html
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/consiglieri.html
‘ the BBC does say it’s not sure if the role will change or even exist in its current form’
Soooooo…. hiring with a view to paying off with a massive amount of licence fee payer money or simply side-stepping to a non-job on parity package?
No wonder they need expensive consultants to blue-sky such a notion.
Not like that one hasn’t been tried before.
Wednesday Newsnight. Paxo interviews David Miliband. First question goes something like “So why should we in the West be concerned about a hurricane in the Philippines? It’s not our problem is it?”
This struck me as the most stupid opening question: Who is making that ridiculous argument? Nobody. It’s just a setup for Miliband to posture about what a great caring man he is.
The interview continued in the same gentle manner with the answer to each of Paxman’s gentle easy questions listened to in silence, without any interruption or followup.
Paxo must surely be the worst journalist on the BBC. Compare his lazy biased interviews with the forensic grilling Andrew Neil gives to all his victims. Unlike Paxman he comes prepared with questions *and* follow-ups and has done enough research not to be fobbed off easily.
Despite this Milliband did manage to make a fool of himself with his suggestion that a way to prevent a rise in sexual assaults in the wake of natural disasters was to give all the women torches.
Neill gives all politicians a hard time, and that’s balance. A rare if not solitary example at the BBC.
So, the BBC fails to keep us informed of the weeks of mounting trouble on ObamaCare – the website debacle and then millions and millions of people losing their existing health insurance and often losing access to their present doctors, plus umpteen video-clip examples of Obama having claimed in 2010 – to get the law passed – that people would be able to keep their health plans and their doctors.
In other words a perfect storm – a huge IT cock-up, millions of Americans (just the first wave) up in arms about losing coverage from plans they had chosen – and an increasing sense that Obama had repeatedly lied.
The BBC now says the “fix” is being set up – but why do we need a fix if according to the BBC everything was hunky-dory? The BBC cannot get its head round the idea that Obama could lie. Onviously that is just something put about by those extreme Tea Partiers.
But a poll today shows that 50% of Americans believe that Obama lied. Not “made a mistake”, “miscalculated”, “misspoke” or some such nonsense. They believe he LIED.
So who do you believe ? The BBC or the long-suffering Americans.
“The butterfly upon the road
Preaches contentment to the toad
But the toad beneath the harrow knows
Where every single pinprick goes.”
There is a great deal of anger that many in the media covered up the lies – when they knew that Obama’s promise “If you like it you can keep it” was actuarily impossible. From the outset there was no way ObamaCare would work without millions of people having to pay higher premiums – including charges for stuff they simply don;t need or want. Old people paying premiums for maternity services and so on.
The “fix” is a cave-in by Obama. It has been forced on him by Demnocrat Senators as much as by the Republicans. It may well not be legal. Even if it passes, it simply makes matters worse – the sums will be even harder to add up. A lot of people are now saying that the whole ObamaCare enterprise is doomed, will be going into an actuarial death spiral. All the polls show what a disaster this has become for Obama. It is like the Titanic, or the crash of the Hindenburg.
But nearly all of this has been withheld by the BBC. A lamentable failure of reporting – all because they worship Obama and hate anyone who opposes excessive government.