Time for a new Open Thread to see us off into the run up to Christmas week…the floor is yours…
WEEKEND OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Fedup2 Nov 5, 23:59
Midweek 6th November 2024 US Election
Deborah – I know and accept that the PSA test may be ‘inaccurate ‘ – but im a grown up… - Deborah Nov 5, 23:53
Midweek 6th November 2024 US Election
Only recently I read that outcomes for men diagnosed through having a PSA test and those presenting with symptoms are… - vlad Nov 5, 23:28
Midweek 6th November 2024 US Election
[img]https://scontent-lhr6-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/465647728_570505799000642_7545687098213797601_n.jpg?stp=cp6_dst-jpg_s600x600&_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=aa7b47&_nc_aid=0&_nc_ohc=41lRBjJFHLIQ7kNvgERh0bV&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent-lhr6-2.xx&_nc_gid=AZ99kTbkQLlTSqOZhgMclDC&oh=00_AYDpMYGoAd02hkAjoIMmP1MF4UF59rJKLFadCHUTuW3FDQ&oe=6730988B[/img] - Fedup2 Nov 5, 23:20
Midweek 6th November 2024 US Election
Dough – I think the mindset they have is that the US is like the UK – but it isn’t… - Doughboy Nov 5, 23:14
Midweek 6th November 2024 US Election
Thought I would sit down and see what’s happening in the world, guess what all 4 main channels all on… - Fedup2 Nov 5, 23:06
Midweek 6th November 2024 US Election
The way things are going the dead blue party need only do and say nothing and wait for the reds… - tomo Nov 5, 23:06
Midweek 6th November 2024 US Election
3rd bullet point what crap….. [img]https://i.ibb.co/Nr6cgH1/Screenshot-2024-11-05-at-23-03-04-US-election-2024-live-updates-First-polls-begin-closing-in-US-elec.png[/img] - Yasser Dasmibehbi Nov 5, 22:39
Midweek 6th November 2024 US Election
Just thinking about Suella Braverman. I have been a huge fan of hers. She supported Jenrick but Kemi won. Jenrick’s… - Scroblene Nov 5, 22:37
Midweek 6th November 2024 US Election
It’s a rather large picture, Brissles – are you sure you really want to see it? - Scroblene Nov 5, 22:36
Midweek 6th November 2024 US Election
Debs, I’m mortified! I really should have remembered that you were on a hat trick, and I should have waited!…
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
Here’s yet another one of those “Echo Chambers” pieces where the editor is reacting to something from the Right that’s getting play and has to provide the evidence against.
This time it’s about whether or not having daughters makes people more conservative and at least as much a negative reaction to a center-Right NY Times columnist piling on using a recent novel about women and casual sex ruining their search for a good marriage partner.
An idea that might possibly cause people to lean Right on an issue must be nipped in the bud, so we have the Echo Chambers feature. The whole thing is a farce.
Yup, the Echo Chambers blog is simply yet another outlet for BBC “progressive” editorialising. I had hopes that Zurcher might be even-handed but it’s clear he can’t help himself – snarky asides and subtle signposts direct his readers to the “correct” viewpoint.
LOCKERBIE.
Perhaps INBBC will eventually mention whether the Lockerbie massacre was anything to do with Islamic jihad against the West.
http://www.channel4.com/news/lockerbie-bombing-libya-palestine-cia-murder-thatcher
If they do, it will be blamed on US/UK foreign policy anyway.
Trust the BBC to put David Coleman as first item of the news – above the Lockerbie issue.
Coleman is really a signal of how low the BBC has fallen. Decent guy – but he recalls the heyday of the Beeb when it spent a lot of our money on sport. Now the Beeboids spend the money on themselves and producing or repeating crap programming.
re Lockerbie – there was a glimmer of sense for a few seconds, when a preacher was heard using the word “evil” – TWICE ! – and then listing lockerbie along with 9/11, Bali, Madrid, London tube bombings – through to Lee Rigby. Just about the first honest thing for days. Elsewhere on the BBC the steady line is – Muslims are upset with us, don’t blame them, it is all because we invaded their lands.
Bollox. It’s because they have a murderous cult faith, murderous from Day 1, coupled with an ignorant victim mentality. There has been Islamic terrorism for decades and decades. Yet still the Muslim community in Britain does not crack down on the terrorists within their midst.
If the net inflow last year – inward migration – was over 500,000, it is hard to believe that less than 200,000 of these were Muslims. We must be bloody crazy.
The Twitter feed of Daniel Nasaw, editor of the BBC News website US & Canada page, doesn’t have a single thing about the latest ObamaCare disasters or the President overruling the law again to delay yet another part of it, an idea which until recently was likened to terrorism, or the mockery of the “Pajama Boy” ObamaCare propaganda campaign created by the President’s personal activist group, OFA. I imagine even BBC journalists are embarrassed by it. Of course, to give it any attention means somebody might remark on the Stalinist characteristics of the President having a personal activist group trying to insert discussion of His personal agenda into family discussions during holidays.
Not a chirp about any of that, but plenty about other issues. The website he manages is equally silent on these major stories. Expert, professional judgment that one who doesn’t understand the arcane arts of journalism can’t possibly understand, or bias manifesting itself in editorial decisions?
No other Beeboid has dared tweet about any of this, never mind reporting it, either. Katty Kay has an excuse, though. She’s been too busy hobnobbing with the President at the White House “Holiday” party.
David
I would imagine the effete Beeboids would see nothing hilarious in the Pajama Boy advert. He is really one of them, a soulmate.
That’s why I’m a little surprised that none of them has tried to defend it, or at least criticize those who are mocking it. Their fellow travelers at The New Republic, for example, are saying that critics are homophobic and feel their version of masculinity threatened. The BBC News staff all support ObamaCare (or at least the ideals supposedly behind it) with all their hearts, and usually one of them will leap to the defense.
It’s hard to blame this one on Republican intransigence. I actually wonder if there’s a single BBC employee who questions the whole OFA thing, or sees anything at least a little unhealthy about a President trying to divide families during holiday gatherings just to promote a political agenda. Yet the BBC will continue to blame others for the polarization and divisiveness of the political scene.
It’s a shame that journalists no longer bother to lurk here, as I’d like to ask them about the journalistic justification for the BBC’s non-coverage of all this, or if they know any journalists they respect who wonder about OFA’s actions.
“It’s a shame that journalists no longer bother to lurk here”
—-
A negative hard to confirm.
It would be hard to imagine why or how those professionally inspired to curiosity would not be tempted to at least maintain a watching brief.
If deliberately staying clear to avoid exposure to unapproved thoughts would be an odd omission, if unsurprising for some.
Another recent “Echo Chambers” is about the Phil Robertson controversy. Again, there’s an idea gaining a little traction which might make some people lean non-Left on an issue, so the editor is compelled to list the arguments against.
The voices he provides on each side of the debate get just about exactly equal space. However, because there was an additional unapproved thought expressed in Robertson’s interview – racism in Louisiana, and by extension, the South and the nation – Zurcher includes a condemnation of that as well, even though, as he admits, it doesn’t have anything to do with Robertson’s controversial suspension from the TV show. It’s just more points against him, so, I guess relevant to Zurcher’s purpose here.
I could point out that Andrew Sullivan, a favorite of BBC journalists, makes a sadly false equivalence between what Robertson said and medieval European anti-Semitic statements (nobody in the US is going to be inspired to round up all the homosexuals in a town and burn them or ride through and chop them up or set up an entire legal structure with the intention of torturing them if they pursue their lifestyle underground – that’s for…um…other cultures), and how questionable the editorial decision was to give that the last word, but it’s not really the last word. Zurcher saves that for himself.
This reveals Zurcher’s personal opinion on the matter. A&E, he fears, is only hoping to boost ratings by attracting more homophobic, nasty conservatives to the show. Of course, his personal bias against Robertson’s beliefs prevents him from leaning the other way. One could just as easily suggest that A&E was hoping to work something out to get them to tone it down before giving up the cash cow. The family has already stated that there will be no new season if Phil isn’t there. Not firing Robertson straight away was apparently the wrong choice, Zurcher seems to feel, because only evil conservatives might grasp and support the concept of freedom of expression and the true meaning of tolerance.
It wouldn’t occur to him that some people who aren’t ugly conservative Christians might check it out to see just how bad the Roberston’s are, enjoying the show ironically, or might possibly – *shudder* – learn that some conservative white Christians aren’t such horrible people after all. Nope. In his mind, only homophobic conservatives will see any reason to tune in if A&E ends up restoring Phil and continuing the show.
Zurcher could have quoted someone from the Left explaining those concepts, but the real purpose of this Echo Chambers thing is partisan by nature, so it wouldn’t fit the bill. He made the comparison, as I’ve done previously, to the Chik-Fil-A controversy. In that case, the approved thought was that support for that free expression was ONLY an anti-homosexual stance. We’re seeing the same thing here. Tolerance and freedom of expression are not granted to those with unapproved thoughts, period. Unless, that is, there are, shall we say, mitigating circumstances.
As usual, the piece is written in reaction to something from the non-Left that’s getting people’s attention. Zurcher’s conclusion is from the Left, as is his perspective of the comments on both sides. As I keep saying, it’s a farce. The mission statement claims that it “unscrambles the noise of the global debate, from social media to scholarly journals, Kansas City to Kathmandu.“. It does no such thing, of course, and is instead at best a collection of statements for and against some issue, generally with the intention of providing a counterpoint to the Right-leaning idea getting the attention. Any attempts by the editor to clarify come from the Left.
The Duck Dynasty issue is a clear example of the intolerance of the Left. Even the arch-feminist Camille Puglia has stressed this.
The article is pretty useless really – because it does not start by telling us the NEWS of the matter. The context – like – what is Duck Dynasty ? To Beeboids all that is typical inside-the-Beltway knowledge – but not to the average BBC punter who is paying for this crap. Without a preface of context it is hard to make sense of all the author’s biased comments on other people’s comments.
In simple English – Phil Robertson is known to be a fire-and-brimstone preacher. A and E promote the Duck Dynasty programme as an example of a straight-talking redneck family from Louisiana. Phil largely quoted Corinthians 1, and there was then a firestorm of protest led by the ultra-intolerant GLAAD crowd. For that he has been suspended. Why doesn’t the article tell us that the rest of the family – the rest of Duck Dynasty – have now said that without Phil there is likely to be no programme any more. Plus the upsurge of protests against A and E for the suspension – if A and E were not bundled with other cable channels they would have been hit hard by defections by now. THAT is the current news for the past 2 days. But not the sort of news the BBC wants to give us.
(Sorry for the double post. Ignore the first bit which transmitted itself before I had finished writing)
The A and E netork’s hypocrisy in suspending Phil Robertson is shown by the fact that they are using some 35 hours of Duck Dynasty stuff over the Christmas period. Wall to wall.
I wish we had some equivalents to Duck Dynasty on UK TV. Hoi Polloi talking to us hoi polloi in language we can understand.
Though we have no homegrown equivalent, “Duck Dynasty” is shown on one of the ITV channels IIRC.
PS: the full Andrew Sullivan quote:
Why it’s almost as if Zurcher was channeling Sullivan when he decided to include the racial stuff from Robertson’s interview, even though it’s not strictly relevant (and we’ve been told a number of times that it’s okay for the BBC to leave things out that aren’t strictly relevant). And it’s weird how Zurcher quoted only Sullivan’s comment from Friday, which was more or less a reaction to comments about his Thursday post, where he said this:
I know, Sullivan was useful only as an allegedly conservative homosexual voice comparing Robertson to European anti-Semitism, an easy jump to the Nazis (Sullivan’s been in the business a long time, and knows not to go the easy route, so he went with the medieval reference instead). His noticing that being a particular species of conservative Christian was the point of the show and a good part of its appeal didn’t help Zurcher’s narrative. Why pick only that part instead of Sullivan’s larger point which was actually more relevant to the controversy?
I don’t know what the BBC’s stance was at the time, but it looks like the Guardian’s coverage of man-made global warming had some semblance of balance 20 years ago – until, that is, they woke up to the fact it was a cunningly-crafted smokescreen for a world socialist government.
http://www.thegwpf.org/20-years-guardian-report-honestly-climate-science/
‘I though global warming was a scam until I discovered Agenda 21’.
INBBC propagandises for Islamic jihad-supporting HEZBOLLAH still, despite E.U ruling.
INBBC decided to run this propaganda piece for its “militant group” Hezbollah-
“Hezbollah’s Nasrallah warns Israel over commander death”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25468790.
INBBC appears to disregard E.U. on this:-
“EU ministers agree to blacklist Hezbollah’s armed wing” (July, 2013).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23397003
Can we all (admins included) stop gracing the bbc, labour, islam, muslims et al with capital letters?
They are most undeserving.
Grammatically BBC, Labour, Islam are correct as they are proper nouns, but muslim is not.
Isn’t that obvious? The point is I don’t want them to be regarded as proper nouns. Nerd.
Very interesting comment from the comment section of a Telegraph article:
I used to work at the BBC and knew someone who worked in the Duty Office, and it was her job to simply note any complaints politely and without commenting on the complaint itself. Some years ago, long after I left that ghastly organisation, I phoned to complain about a programme and was astonished when the Duty Office git started arguing with me by saying my opinion was wrong and therefore of no consequence. When I phoned the superior to complain about the underling, he (supposedly) listened to the recording and then phoned back to say the cheeky little git had conducted himself in an entirely appropriate manner and according to instructions.
NEVER EVER demean yourself by complaining as it just allows them to patronise and insult you. They positively delight in giving two fingers up to the licence-payer knowing that our politicians are either too spineless to take them on, or, in the case of Labour, happy with its Soviet-style propaganda.
PS This was the article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10531702/BBC-criticised-for-giving-extremist-preacher-Anjem-Choudary-airtime.html
I just laughed out loud at this quote from a Labour MP:
Bingo.
That’s a Labour MP.
‘There may be a storm brewing for the PR division, Ed’.
Quiet words in off-record corridors likely to ensue.
Wow! After hastily posting my previous comment, I got back to reading the rest of the article, and saw this quote from the BBC:
They know. The bastards know. And yet they’re intellectually incapable of dealing with it.
Incidentally, Lord Carlile didn’t need more than four minutes of air time to give his side of the debate, as his purpose was only to confirm the Narrative that Choudray represents nobody but himself.
The BBC thinks Choudray’s views might shed light on why those animals murdered Lee Rigby, eh? Then why have they been working overtime to stifle and demonize that exact viewpoint for so long?
It’s so, so obvious what they think they’re doing. Their entire approach to this issue is wrong, and it’s all due to their ideology.
As with any such testimony, it’s hard to assure veracity. What is described sounds entirely likely in attitude, and the procedural lapse rare but not unheard of, and I have a few more than useful examples of BBC senior employee intemperant arrogance neatly filed away.
Which can be useful. Hence…
“NEVER EVER demean yourself by complaining as it just allows them to patronise and insult you.”
Simply complain and get patronised or insulted? That… is quite a result.
I don’t see it as demeaning at all.
Keeping things their little secret has served them too well in the past. Sunlight is an excellent disinfectant. But you do need to open the window first.
Hi Guest Who
I agree with you – but for complaining to work, it must be done on an industrial scale. Otherwise the status quo will continue indefinitely.
If the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people who sense BBC bias were to pelt the BBC with complaints, it would cause the BBC problems. There is a reason why the BBC went to great trouble to excuse themselves from considering my complaints. I sent so many that it created problems within the bureaucracy, as the BBC has procedures that need to be followed when claims of bias are made.
The problem, though, is that we British don’t like to complain. We’ll suffer in silence, rather than gumming up the system with complaints… 🙁
A personal view only, but bias I see as a red herring. Not that it does not exist and is not corrosive, but tick that box and you’ve made their day. Easy to blow off with a quick belief or bog down in comfort in rectitude if pursued.
Much better to focus on inaccuracy or guideline-busters. It’s not a matter of gumming up the system, even if they have structured their own system to get gummed up to use this as an excuse for an internal, appeal-denied, FoI-excluded plug pull.
It’s about what’s right, and on record. CECUTT’s operatives know full well what they are required to make go away, and their complicity in facilitating just this.
But by now as the files swell, there may a small glimmer of concern that when the wall falls, they will be under a very unforgiving spotlight.
But it needs those in power to enforce reasonable changes. As a starting point the BBC needs to be confronted with the perversity of them internally deciding to call off a complaint because they have screwed up so royally, so often, and are unable to find any excuses.
Send complaints about the BBC to MP’s on the three Government committees looking into the BBC, and mention any complaint made to the BBC.
As regards Climate Change, there must be some kind of civil war going on within these committees, but they are asking me and my colleagues for information about their complaints about the strange BBC climate change policy.
Lord Patten looked very worried the last time the Climate Change seminar was mentioned, but I suspect that there is far more than that in the pipeline.
I think Lord Patten will be angry about more leaks from the BBC Trust and Editorial Complaints Unit in future, if they where leaks that is?
Lord Patten threatening MP’s with legal action shows us that the BBC is in self destruct mode.
More Toricutz:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25477173
“Three fire stations which sent crews to attend the Apollo Theatre after part of the ceiling collapsed are set to be axed in the new year.
Crews from Knightsbridge, Southwark and Westminster stations, set for closure, attended the Shaftesbury Avenue incident which left 76 people injured.
The Fire Brigades Union said: “If the cuts go ahead, the mayor will end up with blood on his hands.”
I was going to give this one a pass as it is BBC-filtered merry japes, but then I saw the caption. I think he thought he meant the cameras…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/filling.html
‘…robots doing what they’ve been (wrongly) told…’
On a season of fiscal goodwill to all men and ladies at the BBC at least, even those closer to home are beginning to notice the BBC putting the large into largesse…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/wish-1.html
Plus treating the Charter more as a starting point to doing whatever the mood takes.
The BBC may like to ponder what incestuous practices brought the Pharaohs down eventually.
Creating expanding breeding colonies of DNA-sharing clones and 1st cousins isn’t it.
An “Investigations editor” for Newsnight? Very clever. Hall and Harding have apparently created a scapegoat-in-waiting position for the next time Newsnight pulls a McAlpine. Which, if we’re to believe Paxman and other critics, is inevitable as it seems despite all these new hires and new positions (generously assuming the salary and resources that went to the now-deleted Science editor will go to the Investigations editor), nasty budget cuts are still preventing Newsnight from hiring more researchers and actual investigative journalists.
If Peter Rippon, when in charge of the whole show, couldn’t stop somebody upstairs from spiking the Jones-Mackean Savile story, who seriously thinks an Investigations editor will be able to? What a joke.
There is a complete pro immigration and pro EU fest running on Marr this morning. Anna Soubry, Peter Mandleson and Vince Cable being given free reign to tell us all that we are simply not being given the facts and that most immigrants are hardworking and do not take out more than they put in. Yada Yada Yada ! Not only that, apparently we are all being irrational and politicians should do much more to convince us that all is sweetness and light. No challenge whatsoever from Marr and the whole thing was simply blatant and biased propaganda and totally insulting to the thousands of people who have to live in the real world of a broken NHS, overcrowded schools, Muslim rape gangs, Roma beggars and thieves and all the rest of the diversity “riches” we all can genuinely touch, feel,see and hear on a daily basis.
Well here’s the thing you arrogant,insulting,disengenous cretins. When the Romanian’s and Bulgarians start flooding in come January I suggest that you and the rest of the BBC traitors are going to experience a shit storm of public anger, the likes of which you will never have seen before…..you simply do not get it do you ?
Yes, Beeboids’ leading political article online today:
-a propaganda piece for Bulgarians’ mass immigration into Britain.
“Bulgarian President Rosen Plevneliev warns Cameron on immigration”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25481859
This follows on from the British and European political class’s policy of Islamic colonisation of Britain and Europe, via implementation of mass immigration.
“Is mass immigration a denial of political realism?
“Public opinion was and continues to be held in contempt by the European political class. Mass immigration was never a matter for the European peoples to decide.”
By Vincent Cooper.
[ 2 pages ].
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2245/is_mass_immigration_a_denial_of_political_realism
‘Telegraph’ (£):-
“Nine in 10 babies born in parts of Britain have a foreign parent.
Iain Duncan Smith vows to end ‘something for nothing’ culture for migrants as official figures reveal that nine in 10 babies born in parts of Britain have a foreign parent.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10532695/Nine-in-10-babies-born-in-parts-of-Britain-have-a-foreign-parent.html
Loved the idea of the “Bulgarian President”(or whoever) “warning” David Cameron about being “racist and xenophobic”(or was that the Rumanian one?).
And loved the notion of his using “the Observer” to warn Cameron..and therefore the rest of the UK no doubt.
Had it not have been Sunday, he`d have had to use those other ciphers of the Green Nazis who hope to be inserted up Islams bottom…namely the Guardian.
Oooh…so scared of this Uncle Bulgaria…what`s `is name?…put it up in fairy lights before we run out of consonants!
F888off Observer-sickle cell anaemic inbred bitch of the Guardian!…hang `em from the nearest low energy lampost!
Funnily enough the BBC followed this story re Bulgaria on the 8am news this morning with something about Britain being full of malnourished types fishing bins for old herring bones to suck on.
How does the Beeb square these two stories-if we`re all going to bed hungry, how can letting loads more Roma in help us?
Why the hell should I have to compete with them to eat my Festive Swan?
Nil desperandum…tomorrow we`ll be back on trend with the obesity pandemic as per?
I myself am stuffing the swan with tumbleweed..the BBC would rather I eat it than let it blow across the credits by way of “analysis”…gay v Islam…obesity v cardboard city malnutrition?
Boy-how do you stay on trend with the BBC agenda without your head swivelling and spinning like Saviles champeen medallions?
We all know the president of Bulgaria is taking the god given opportunity to rid his country of it’s centuries old Gypsy problem, and foist it on us .
I imagine that thousands of these people are in possession of passports for the first time in their lives.
Why do you think that that Hungarian (ex) commie twat face was giving us chapter and verse re: our iniquities on this selfsame subject a few weeks ago ? There’s the hint of sudden panic that they’ll actually have to keep these apparently wondrously thrifty and hardworking folk for themselves instead of letting us enjoy them instead (as seen in their wet dreams), so the shrillness is perfectly explicable.
10 million ‘economically inactive’ adults in Britain in 2003
2 million jobs about to be added
2 million immigrants fill them
10 million ‘economically inactive’ adults in Britain in 2013
Someone explain to me (and our half-wit political class and pretrendy leftie commentariat) the logic in this
Fear not. Just as ‘Hope’ & ‘Change’ made everything better in the US, here ‘Unique’ explains all.
Apparently.
Liberal do not do reality. Liberals do fantasy and dreams.
Suddenly, and it is always suddenly, there is a change in the world. What sparks this change is only ever visible in hindsight.
It will come and sweep away the liberal world. Sadly it will also not be as welcome to a conservative as you might think.
They- the liberals- will have bought it upon themselves and on all of us. It is too late to change what will happen.
The worst generation in our history will be reviled down the ages.
What they have done is beyond belief. I repeat no people has ever voluntarily ceded their land to another people. Never.
Have to enjoy the smell of irony failure in the afternoon. The latest from the BBC on FaceBook:
BBC News
A protest in Brazil against a decades-old ban on topless sunbathing failed to attract more than a dozen women: http://bbc.in/1bYFLbJ
Instead, hundreds of photographers turned up for the event on Rio de Janeiro’s Ipanema beach.
Including the BBC’s finest, one had to gather.
Just have to wonder if it was still news when nobody turned up except a bunch of fellas who drew boobies on their manly chests (as coyly selected by the FB team) and the world’s media?
I say not.
But as a potent illustration of too many in the media chasing not enough content, hard to better.
And while there are slow news days, there’s the glacial variety that shows what’s required to keep the 8,000 strong cubicle farm ‘occupied’ to spread this thin ‘story’ around.
Perhaps George Soros’s pay check hasn’t reached the Rio Prostitutes Collective this month.
IRAQ:
-INBBC obfuscation on latest Islamikaze.
1.) ‘The Long War Journal’:-
“Al Qaeda suicide team kills Iraqi general, 17 officers”
By BILL ROGGIO
Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2013/12/al_qaeda_suicide_tea.php#ixzz2oDQx2D5c
2.) INBBC:-
“Bomb attack kills officers in Iraq’s Anbar province”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25478063
Whose foreign policy to blame, Beeboids?
Is the dam about to break?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10532598/TV-licence-should-be-abolished-major-inquiry-into-future-of-BBC-to-hear.html?utm_content=buffer447d6&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer
What will be washed away if it does
Just, don’t mention… um… ‘Rover’…
Is Beeboid high-cost greenie propagandist, Hampstead Harrabin, already penning his latest anti-shale gas missive?
“Hurrah! The European Union Will Not Be Regulating Fracking For Natural Gas”
By Tim Worstall.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/22/hurrah-the-european-union-will-not-be-regulating-fracking-for-natural-gas/?ss=business%3Aenergy
Yes, we can probably expect another BBC missive or two about how inconveniences like democracy and national sovereignty only get in the way of progress.
It doesn’t matter a pigs burp to the people of this country whether fracking goes ahead or not. The government has decided that ALL of the gas found will be use for electricity generation. ALL of the money will go to the government, and if generating prices begin to fall they will be brought back up again by further and higher stealth taxes.
Any complaints or protests will be dealt with in the usual way of blaming some poor company, and the terminally stupid will of course believe it !
TURKEY.
Two reports:-
1.) ‘New English Review’:-
“Erdogan Suggests ‘International Plot’ Attacking Controversial Turkish Corruption Probe ”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/bloga.cfm/blog_id/51388/Erdogan-Suggests-International-Plot-Attacking-Controversial-Turkish-Corruption-Probe-
BBC-NUJ only gives light political touch to Islamic political conflict in Turkey. (Of course, the NUJ, inc BBC-NUJ trade union branches, support entry of 80 million Muslim Turks into E.U):-
2.)BBC-NUJ:-
“Turkey corruption inquiry: Ministers’ sons charged”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25475859
Ooer Mrs. It looks like Great Britain will have another belt of Climate Change for a couple of days. Best of luck to all those who are travelling. Slightly off track, but is Nick Clegg a complete prat and on the same planet as most of the residents in the U.K.? The guy has completely lost whatever plot he had and to think he is deputy Prime Minister. Gawd help us.
“…….is Nick Clegg a complete prat….?”
Why : Yes, yes he is.
Easiest competition evah.
Oh, and Deputy PM has, let’s face it, hardly a gleaming roll call of talent ringing sonorously down through the long ages: remember the uneasy feeling each August for years knowing that ‘Taffy’ Prescott was once more in charge of this benighted country ? Shudder.
My seaweed is swelling up. If anyone on this forum lives near a watercourse I would suggest getting some sandbags, not for the storm coming through over the next couple of days, but for the double storm next weekend. If the jet stream stays where it is, next weekend ain’t going to be pretty.
We live three quarters of the way up a decent-sized hill and the ground here hasn’t been vaguely dry since mid-September at least: this latest donation of unwanted rain (heavy downpours every day since last Saturday and counting), plus bloody bloody wind, means that we’re now living surrounded by a fair approximation of a swamp, so goodness knows what it’s like for poor sods on lower ground with all the water draining onto them.
More whizzo flood plains fun for the people living in developments built thereon by unscrupulous spec. builders (is there actually any other kind ? Rhetorical question.) in cahoots with councils eager for brown envelopes stuffed with readies from the same.
I feel for you Buggy. Dartmoor is now a fully laden sponge, it can cope. It will release water when it has to. The same can be said for Exmoor, but the trouble with Exmoor releasing its waters is that, as you say, those planners were only too happy to build on the flood planes of the river Exe and tributaries. Now with the fields built on the water cannot soak away slowly but the run off from all the tarmac, concrete and roofs will flood already burdened rivers to create a greater flood. But of course, the BBC, as it has done in the past, states that Climate Change has caused the flooding. Yeah, right.
You can tell I’ve been a pilot..flood planes indeed. God help me. 8-( Please read as Floodplain.
Here’s another one of those “Echo Chambers” I missed this past week.
Brian Boitano and the gay male athlete
Zurcher isn’t even trying to be impartial. He’s just using Boitano’s announcement as an opportunity to list some pro-homosexual responses to Putin’s anti-homosexual agenda. That’s not “unscrambling” anything. In this case, he’s just reproducing the echo chamber, and using the lazy journalist’s escape of putting his own hopes in the form of a question at the end.
Regardless of one’s point of view on the issue, this wasn’t even an attempt to fulfill the alleged mission of the Echo Chambers feature. It’s just yet another edition of what DB rightly described as editorializing from the Left.
There’s a “push” going on, which started at the Moscow Worlds Athletics Champs and is being kept going by the usual suspects (with ready access to the media), from whom we have heard barely a related dickybird about the lots of homosexuals in Qatar since the awarding of the 2022 World Cup three years ago. Soaring temperatures: yes. Other stuff: hardly.
Curiously enough. #heavysarcasm.
I’m guessing that most people in this country and beyond don’t really give a stuff that Russian schoolchildren don’t have “Sergei has two daddies” or whatever on their required reading lists, whatever the bleederhearti might like to think. The opposite would be the case if Russia handed out the same treatment to gays as the Arab World does, but it doesn’t, and so it isn’t.
If that doesn’t get Scott back from South Africa then perhaps we should be concerned/organise a search party.
Whoops: should read “LOT of homosexuals in Qatar……..”
There may indeed be LOTS of them, but I haven’t access to that kind of info.
A study in Europe suggests that a majority of Muslims believe that sharia law should take precedence over democracy. Not just the so-called “militant minority”. The study did not include the UK – but probably the same views hold here ?
There really is a clash of civilisations, I am sick of our politicians and the BBC denying it.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/12/21/Study-Two-Thirds-of-European-Muslims-Believe-in-Sharia-over-State-Laws
From Auntie herself: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6308683
That’s 37% of 16 to 24 year olds who admitted it would like to live under sharia. Anyone care to put up their hand to the idea that the RoP hasn’t become more hardline in the west in the intervening six years ? Thought not. I think that a simple ‘majority in favour’ probably undersells the facts by quite a lot, since ‘a majority’ can obviously be used to mean any number between 50.0000etc1 and 99.9999etc9.
Our enfeebled politicians have to deny the problem, if they admitted there was one, then they would have to do something about it, in other words, starting up mass deportations, that takes a political will, much easier to do nothing.
8.30 pm Sunday and still the BBC is trumpeting unopposed the thoughts of the pantomime horse Cable-‘n-Clegg as if their opinions represented anything other than a tiny sliver of public opinion.
We often (rightly) accuse the BBC of having a pro-Labour bias but the problem is broader than that. It openly supports any Gramscian position and acts as its loudhailer.
If anything neatly encapsulates the distance between ordinary people and politician it’s the arrogant dismissal of the immigration problem by Cable and Clegg.
Oh and another thing: the Bulgarian President, who seems so concerned with the British image, is affiliated to the party: “Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria.” He himself advocates closer relations between Bulgaria and the People’s Republic of China.
Why didn’t the BBC tell us that?
It occurs to me that Dante (c1265-1321) missed a trick…
Because really a poet of his stature and his gifts is required to properly recount the tortures inherent in that circle of Hell – peculiar to the torment of those souls of a British nature – where BBC Chief Foreign Correspondent (?) Lyse Doucet from her stand point far aloft harrangues her victims with those strained penetrating transatlantic tones.
Oh what sinners we are, what fools, what sad culpable transgressors – oh how the travails of the Middle East simply go to show how bad are we Brits.
Whatever the malady the Arabs foist upon themselves: be it war; confusion; pestilance; or hunger – know ye that it is somehow OUR fault and OUR responsibility.
It may be true that the Sovs (and now we call can them the Ruskies) may be the military quartermasters of the piece – but the full and total guilt is on our heads.
Obama may be the CinC of the last Superpower, the Saudis and the Chinese may be minted – but it is we deficit beset Brits who should pick up the tab.
Oh for a Dante. Still, at least we have Ms Doucet
The BBC news is giving much coverage to the family of the
‘ British ‘ surgeon killed in Syria complaining that they have received little or no help from the British Government.
Just how can any government offer any assistance to anyone who goes blundering blindly into a civil war expecting to be welcomed with open arms, against all advice ,no matter how good and honourable his intentions may have been?
‘May have been’ strikes the right note there. The BBC’s job is to investigate, not to propagandise, and that includes asking why this ‘British’ doctor was there giving aide to the side considered by many to be islamist jihadis.
In a better world it might even go on to ask how many other members of the medical ‘profession’ are similarly involved, but that would be too much to hope for.
At least the BBC isn’t still blindly peddling the “murder” aspect of Khan’s demise.
It doesn’t help when the FO throw out allegations. Let’s hope a post mortem yields the truth.
There have been thousands of deaths in Syria ,why does this mans’ family expect his to be treated any differently?
Milankovitch cycles.
Heard of them? No doubt most people haven’t, and it’s unsurprising as they’re yet another variable in the climate change issue.
It’s a complicated subject, but basically the earths orbit isn’t exactly uniform and changes over a 20 000 year cycle. Just 5000 years ago, the Sahara was green, but over a 200 year period became the desert we know today.
Wikipedia:
“An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that, “Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend that began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.”[19]
More recent work by Berger and Loutre suggests that the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years”
Trying to take the infinitesimal effects of mankinds carbon emissions and extrapolate them into some kind of effect we’re having on the climate is a little like blaming the little old lady pissing in the ocean for a flood half way around the world !
I put a long article/post on this subject including some of your inclusion, on this forum about 3 weeks ago. It will be in one of the *Climate Change/Scam* threads.
There is nothing complicated about any of it, the idea of global warming is a crock of shit, simple!
Golden age of television : not on the BBC
It struck home on Saturday evening when BBC 2 aired a repeat of a cobbled together out-takes show from the Two Ronnies from the 1970s.
Still, as far as the comedy goes, it knocks Citizen Kan’t into a cocked hat
I do like to give credit where credit is due, so take a bow Mark Lowen BBC correspondent in Athens
Now our Mark does post some de rigueur BBC fodder about the scary far right….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24363776
‘Greece’s Golden Dawn: ‘Don’t say a word or I’ll burn you alive’ ‘
But now our Mark reports some good news from Greece
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25431288
Wade through some literally purple prose…
‘They come just before sunset – those magical few minutes in which Athens bathes in a deep purple glow.’
And some Paul Mason inspired embedded with the demo journalism….
‘I joined students protesting this autumn…’
And suddenly the BBC sees a glimmer of light. The first hint is his evident tiredness with the demands of those students who ‘…chanted the same tired slogans that have been heard here for 40 years’
From there our Mark goes all conservative
‘But perhaps it is also that there is a large proportion that quietly supports what has happened. I sat in a bustling bar last week with a lawyer who is among them.
The crisis is changing Greece for the better, he told me. The bloated, clientelist public sector that employed unqualified people in return for political support, is being reformed.
Greeks are learning to live within their means. Tax evasion is no longer accepted. A new culture of solidarity has emerged: a feeling of “we are all in it together”. ‘
Gosh. What would Comrade Mason have to say about that?
‘There is even a spirit of entrepreneurialism being born. It is, he said, a painful transition – but a necessary one.’
Good for you Mark. Credit where credit is due.
Humphreys on Today.
Subject’ Muslim employees of M&S right not to serve pork products and alcohol to their customers. The Ada director waffled on about allowing employees to have their religious rights respected.
I say quite right to! Humphreys should quickly get a Muslim cleric on the programme to confirm the fact that Muslims MUST have nothing to do with either product; Humphreys can ask the cleric and all proper Muslims to condemn all Take Aways, restaurants and shops owned by Muslims that sell these and demand they be closed down.
Of course in the UAE, Spinneys, the supermarket equivalent of Spar sell such products as do restaurants and cafés, although the pork section in Spinneys is separated by a discrete curtain.
What we have in the UK is another example of Muslims pushing the boundaries and the BBC being totally hopeless at confronting the issue, or pointing out the double standards practised by Muslims at home and abroad. Don’t the BBC have any researchers to come up with these simple points?
As for Chaoudary and his ilk going on (quite rightly) about the numbers of Muslims killed during the Iraq invasion by US and UK armed forces..
Might I suggest a researcher, makes sure that Today interviewers have past and current figures of Muslims killed by other Muslims for being the wrong kind of Muslim, the number of bombings of Mosques and churches and ask him to explain that.
We also have the right to boycott M & S. A much over rated shop anyway.
Yes, BBC interviewers should be briefed with statistics and statements about Muslim killing of other Muslims. And about how Muslim terrorism had been going on for yeasrs before 9/11 amd the MATO invasion of Iraq .
But the problem may be that the BBC editorial and research teams are riddled with people who actually accept the Choudhury line that it is all the fault of the West – lots of lefties as well as Muslims in those groups of staff, probably having a chilling effect on anyone with more truthful and robust views.
sorry – “NATO invasion of Afghanistan and the later invasion of Iraq”
What I cannot understand about this whole subject is that nobody asks why it is OK for Muslim corner shops to sell Alcohol and Pork, Islamic restaurants to sell Alcohol and Pork, for Islamic rape gangs to drink Alcohol and eat Pork, yet Muslims working in Non-Islamic establishments in the Uk get to say otherwise. And here’s a further question that nobody at the bBC is asking. MArks and Spenser is Jewish, many Muslims demand we boycott M and S for supporting Israel.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&q=mand+S+supports+isreal&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest
and yet they have no problem working for a Jewish company.
Myself I have written to Marks and Sparks told them I am boycotting them and I am switching to Waitrose. (Funny enough I did this about 2 years ago)|
It’s called hypocrisy, the 9 / 11 hijackers went to bars and strip clubs in Miami.
It was oddly refreshing to hear a religious Mohammedan advocating tolerance and open-mindedness when it comes to observing religious law, with Humphrys acting as devil’s advocate almost to the point of calling her a kuffar. Then the barrister really started expressing unapproved thoughts, which are not at all very far from ideas expressed here about there being a limit to this encroachment as it conflicts with British culture. That’s twice in one week that the BBC has allowed without qualification – some might say promoted, even – what we’re usually told are unapproved thoughts. Humphrys asked Choudray why doesn’t he leave and go to some Mohammedan country if he hates Britain so much, and now this. Plus Humphrys expressed another unapproved thought, on which more in a minute.
It would have been better if the Mohammedan law consultant had been male, as his word would have had more weight with that community than a woman’s, but maybe she’s the only one who agreed to take that side of the argument or was available. Although perhaps this segment was never really intended for conservative Mohammedan ears in the first place.
I think the Today producers might be over-reacting just a tiny bit to recent complaints and took sides against appeasement here. It doesn’t begin to make up for Friday’s Choudray debacle, but it’s a good sign that, for the day, at least, that they have their priorities straight. They know they’re going to get complaints from both sides, and because for a change they’re aware of the BBC’s reputation on Islamism and its encroachment (how could they not after spending the weekend reading complaints about giving a platform to Choudray? Like I said, yesterday, they’re not all stupid over there.), they weighted the segment against M&S’s appeasement decision so that they’ll get less complaints this time from the general public rather than catering to a small minority.
It is a biased approach, and I know it’s not right to complement the BBC when they’re biased in a direction we approve of, but at least it shows a dim awareness of reality for a change. However, Humphrys ought to get in a lot of trouble for one statement he made, which I bet most people missed and will get glossed over.
When the barrister brought up the issue of gender separation in schools as more evidence of the need for an “outer limit” on appeasement (he used the term “accommodation”), of what can feel like enforcing elements of Islamic law on non-Muslims, Humphrys first tried to say that it wasn’t strictly relevant to this issue. It is, of course, and the barrister made that point. Shockingly, Humphrys said, “That’s got to be simply wrong.”
Oops. He should never have given such a blunt opinion on that issue. I wonder if he felt like taking a stronger stance today in response to critics.
It reminds me of when Justin Webb was the BBC’s North America editor and would get complaints in the comments on his blog about being biased on something. He’d then obviously make an effort to be biased the other way for a moment, just to prove that he wasn’t, before reverting back to type.
Hopefully, the Today staff won’t have to worry about people loading their AK-47s (in Mark Thompson’s parlance) while they write complaints about today’s segment where both guests – including a female Mohammedan, no less – took sides against allowing people to obey Shariah Law in the work place.
Having said all that, there’s one thing we didn’t learn from either this or the separate news brief the BBC put up in the business section. Who prompted this in the first place? Was it a response to a simple request from an employee or two? Was there pressure from some Islamic group and we got a corporation’s reflexive, unthinking, response to put grease on the squeaky wheel? Or did the wet HR department just decide to do this unilaterally, because multiculturalism, innit? It’s a bit odd for this to seemingly come out of the blue right at the peak of the holiday shopping season. Not really the best time to suddenly start this rule, so why now?
I think that’s kind of important.
Headline for jailing of Denis MacShane reads: “MacShane jailed for expenses fraud”? Who is MacShane? Banker? Footballer? Article then explains he was a former MP. Read further and you might just work out that he was a Labour MP and Minister. (He also, incidentally, worked for the BBC before becoming an MP, though we are not told that in this article.) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25492017
Imagine not only the headline, but the prominence if he had been a Tory Minister: “Tory former Minister jailed for fraud”?
Yes I noticed that, I am pretty sure that when the guilty party is a former tory, then the bBC ensures that the headline says just that , but when its a thieving labour MP, well that snippet is kind of left out until later.
How about…
Europhile Ex-Labour Minister and Former BBC Journalist Denis MacShane Convicted of Fraud
or
Former Labour Minister Convicted of Fraud
for short.
Ex minister convicted!