Anyone else catch Peter Mandelson being allowed a gentle canter on the Today programme this morning as he explained how Miliband has shown courage and real leadership by denying the British people a referendum on EU membership?

On time and for your edification, a new Open thread! Please detail the bias here!

As David has mentioned the BBC has been particularly fawning about Bob Crow so far….he is presented as a roguish lad with none of the tough  realities behind his actions given any credence…..Thatcher was immediately, within minutes of her death, being denounced as divisive and hated, Crow is apparently ‘loved and respected’.  Pienaar has been glossing over all the complaints targeted at Crow….his high salary, living in a council house, his holiday as the union was about to strike….Crow was just a loveable rogue.

Ken Livingstone only had nice things to say about him according to the BBC…..

Mr Johnson’s predecessor Ken Livingstone told the BBC the “endless strain of being a media hate figure” may have taken a toll on Mr Crow.

And Crow wasn’t a serious threat to anything he was much misrepresented by those with an agenda….

Mr Crow’s class-based politics made him a regular cartoon villain for some newspapers.

The nearest the BBC comes to the truth is in this ‘Magazine’ article:

Bob Crow, who has died at the age of 52, was an intensively divisive figure. But he was easily the best-known trade unionist in the UK.

To his admirers he was a working-class hero and fighter who stood up for his members and won. To his enemies he was a bully who inflated his workers’ wages by bringing misery upon commuters.

In the eyes of his opponents, Crow’s achievements were gouged by exploiting his position in order to inflict misery on travellers. But to his members it was a testament to his tactical acumen, negotiating skills and mastery of industrial relations.

But such views were not reflected in the news and other coverage as I listened today.

The Telegraph gets the tone about right:

Bob Crow – obituary

Bob Crow was the belligerent RMT leader whose tough tactics were loved by union members but hated by commuters

He had John Prescott, a former official of the union, expelled for failing to renationalise the railways, then resigned from the board of Transport for London after the exasperated mayor, Ken Livingstone, urged workers to cross the RMT’s latest picket line. In 2004 Labour expelled the RMT from the party.

But what about cuddly Ken, did he always think such nice thoughts about Bob?  From the Guardian:

Tube strike: how Bob got on with Ken

I think that the right to strike is our second most important right after the right to vote. What appals me about the RMT is that by misusing the strike weapon, basically as a bullying technique rather than to resolve a genuine and irreconcilable difference, they undermine that. It certainly would not be right, I don’t think, to impose on people in Unite and the TSSA the loss of their right to strike because a small handful of people on the RMT executive are behaving rather more like a protection racket than a proper industrial union.

Not as if the BBC didn’t know that…from 2009:

Even the former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said in 2007 the RMT executive behaved more like a “protection racket than a proper industrial union”.

So far they have managed to avoid repeating Ken’s previous thoughts today.

An irony is that it may have been privatisation of the railways that gave Crow so much power, the BBC tells us….though he surely would have had more over a nationalised monopoly:

Ralph Darlington, professor of employment relations at Salford University, says the union’s confrontational style can be traced back to rail privatisation.

“I think we could characterise the RMT as one of the most militant and left-wing unions in Britain. The politicisation has come about in the face of the challenges which they feel they have faced.”

What of Crow’s communist ideals?:

“When I see Ronaldo earns half a million quid a month and people say train drivers are greedy working nine hours downstairs in them temperatures – nah, I think it’s the rate for the job. The reality is it’s a jungle out there.”

So its dog eat dog and damn everyone else as long as his union members get their pay rise.

The boy done good but there was a price to pay…..the BBC loved his tough negotiating stance ignoring the threats and just telling us how wonderfully successful his last minute negotiation were…the reality was a bit different, not quite so romantic:

Often his first step was a strike ballot, with negotiations only on the eve of disruption, if then. He once told West End retailers who warned that another Tube strike would put them out of business that they would be “casualties of war”.

Retailers…pah…who needs them…they just feed the greed,  materialism and consumerism that is destroying society and the planet.  No wonder the BBC likes him.

Nick Robinson at least recognises that Bob has been transformed into a second ‘Saint Bob’…..though he thinks it is more to do with Crow’s admirable belligerence and entrenched opinions rather than what is more likely…the romantic appeal amongst the BBC trots of someone who opposed the Bosses……

Bob Crow: Public enemy number one or national treasure?

No-one, of course, likes to speak ill of the dead but there are other reasons why Bob Crow may appear to have been transformed overnight from public enemy number one to a national treasure.

This was a man who knew what he thought, knew whose side he was on and knew who the enemy were – in an era when that can be said of a shrinking number of people in public life.

The BBC were quick to fill the airwaves with critical comment about C4’s ‘Benefits Street’….not so quick to mention this dangerous programme from C4:

Channel 4 News removes video report from their website after it emerges four of the five ‘normal’ people questioned were from the same marketing agency

Channel 4 News has removed a video from its website after it emerged that four of the five people it interviewed about police relations in Brixton were employed by the same marketing company.

It was deleted from the Channel 4 News website on Sunday after questions were raised over how representative the video could be when the majority of those interviewed were employed by youth marketing company Livity.

The report featured five interviews with apparently random members of the local community, all of whom were critical of relations between the public and the police.

Only one of the four interviewees, youth development mentor Naomi Brown, was credited with having a connection with Livity, with the fifth person interviewed being Lee Jasper – the former chief race advisor to London Mayor Ken Livingstone.

The video was presented by Channel 4 News reporter Jordan Jarrett-Bryan, a former professional wheelchair basketball player who was previously youth editor of the Livity-run publication Live Magazine.

Why is such programming dangerous?  Because it encourages the view that Black people are always the victims of racism whether it comes to not getting something they want or policing or being England captain.

Conservative MP Rob Wilson condemned the broadcaster, saying: ‘This is very disappointing from Channel 4 News. A distorted report could have been very unhelpful, indeed inflammatory, and I hope the people concerned have learnt an important lesson.’

Perhaps the BBC does not report this telling story because they don’t want to give the impression that much of the ‘discontent’ is activist driven and hyped.

But C4 isn’t alone in promoting that grievance driven thinking…Macpherson of course is the most significant purveyor of that excuse…but the BBC isn’t above claiming or allowing the thought to develop that Black people are victims of racism, and, if not obvious racism, then it must be unintentional, unwitting or unconscious racism.  Sol Campbell claims the FA is unconsciously racist…as he has no evidence of actual racism….a Kafkaesque accusation that is impossible to disprove and is used solely to abuse white people….ironically stereotyping them in a racist fashion.

Victoria Derbyshire had Sol Campbell on today to explain his recent comments…she wasn’t exactly hard hitting in her questions allowing him to get away with comments that clearly contradict what he claims.

Campbell originally said this, as reported by the BBC:

“I believe if I was white, I would have been England captain for more than 10 years – it’s as simple as that.”

He’s now saying this….

“People took the 10-year thing too literally, read too much into it and were too quick to comment on it.”

…and that he only meant that he should have captained England more than 3 times.

But that’s not what he said…and he has been roundly condemned, even by other black players, hence his rapid retreat.

But Derbyshire let that slide and didn’t press him on it…until much later when a caller had to do her job for her….and the later news bulletins started reporting his new line without reference to he old as if it had never been said.

Campbell says he was so brilliant that he deserved to be captain….and yet Bobby Charlton (106 appearances) only captained 3 games, Wayne Rooney (89 appearances) has only captained 2 games, Alf Ramsey 3 times (32 appearances), Frank Lampard 3 times (109 appearances)….Campbell made 73 appearances and captained 3 times.

Campbell is talking out of his backside when he claims racism is the reason he only captained England 3 times.

Oh…maybe Sol’s right…look, Sir Bobby Charlton kept appearing in photographs with black people…maybe that’s why he was only given the captaincy 3 times…just like Sol.

Derrbyshire asked Campbell about claims he was gay….Campbell replied that he wasn’t the normal lad about town footballer…he ‘didn’t fit’ which is why such claims arose.

Perhaps Derbyshire might have asked…is that maybe why you weren’t asked to be captain so often…not colour but personality…you didn’t fit in with the team?  But she didn’t.

Campbell claimed a sponsor asked him if he was gay (10:42 ish), and who was disappointed to hear he wasn’t as it would have been a good ‘selling point’ for their media campaign…Campbell said he hoped that sort of attitude has changed.  Would have thought that was an attitude to encourage if you wanted to promote gay friendly attitudes.

When Derbyshire did ask him about his attitude and his claims of racism he said he had every right to make them because this is what he felt.  Well that’s OK then…no need for proof.

She didn’t challenge him on that though you might have thought she would….is it right that Campbell can make unfounded allegations of racism, accusing people running the FA of being racist, and somehow that isn’t slander or libel?

That in a nutshell sums up the problem….claims of racism are allowed to be made, whether against the police or the FA or society in general, purely on the basis of what someone believes or wants to believe.

Channel Four’s little charade adds fuel to the fire, encouraging the belief that Blacks are suffering racism everywhere, especially at the hands of the police…..all of which is highly dangerous adding to the paranoia and giving a spur to those who seek to inflame any situation.

Did you read that the BBC was not sceptical enough about immigration and the ‘European ideal’, according to one of its most senior journalists – John Humphrys? Thoughts? I don’t see how the Today programme has changed in any way and is still a toadying supplicant for the Euro ideal.

I was sorry to read of the death of RMT Trade Unionist Bob Crowe. He was only 52.  That said, I am a little surprised to see the BBC run this as the LEAD story on their news portal all day. Isn’t this a little over the top? What say you? There is also a deference in their coverage of his untimely death which was noticeably absent when Margaret Thatcher died. Perhaps Mr Crowe was more their kind of guy?

Hot on the heals of Humphrys’ admission that the BBC promotes the all conquering EU we have this prime example of that type of thinking in action:

The BBC should say it is based in Manchester instead of Salford in a bid to boost the area’s international reputation, one of the corporation’s star presenters has said.

Evan Davis said it was a ‘serious problem’ for Manchester that areas such as Salford – home to the BBC at MediaCity UK since 2011 – and Trafford refused to be called Manchester.

Salford mayor slammed Mr Davis’s comments – saying it was ‘quite surprising that a journalist wants to rewrite the geography of the country’.

He added: “What really is confusing is when a media pundit tries to shift the boundaries of the city. The Quays are in Salford – they always have been and always will be and people know that.

“People clearly won’t know about Salford if we remove all mention of it from the map.

“This view is typical of a London-centric view of the world. Fortunately the British isles is more diverse than London and a handful of big cities. Our strength in the north lies is our diversity, not in all being the same.”

Ah those xenophobic Little Salfordians, not wanting to lose their identity and be engulfed and absorbed by a giant neighbour.

The BBC…celebrating diversity and difference except when it’s not.

John Humphrys has admitted the BBC is biased in favour of the EU….it has ‘bought into the ideal’

I thought the EU had been the one doing the buying….

The millions in EU funding the BBC tried to hide

John Humphrys says:

Chris Warburton stands in for Victoria Derbyshire this week.

He was discussing this (10:41):

BBC to argue for licence fee to be linked to inflation

The Sunday Times reported that the BBC had a preference for a subscription model of funding.

The BBC have leapt on that suggestion and denied it vigorously….

“The report recommends that the BBC pursue an inflationary licence fee increase with greater commercial revenue. No subscription model is recommended.”

Unfortunately one of those involved in the funding review, David Elstein, didn’t ‘rule out’ a subscription model..indeed he seemed pretty enthusiastic about it saying the BBC would ‘do pretty well out of it’..…and if avoiding the license fee is de-criminalised then the subscription model is probably the best method…not to use it would be ‘slow suicide’….though he suggests the proposal to decriminalise is merely a negotiating tactic by the government…despite many MPs actually urging it.

However he was very enthusiastic about the subscription model.

Elstein is ‘A long-time critic of the licence fee who believes the BBC should be funded by subscription’  and he made some interesting comments (in Jan 2014) about the license fee in light of the BBC’s recent claim that de-criminalising the license fee might lead to a drop in funding…

“Just a 1% increase in evasion would lead to the loss of around £35m, the equivalent of around 10 BBC local radio stations.”

Elstein points out that [discussing the BBC’s reporting, or non-reporting, of immigration]:

“It’s not a happy place to be when you are one of the very few public organisations directly benefiting from the unlimited expansion of the population.

“It’s not [the BBC’s] decision, there’s nothing they can do about it. It is a side product of a certain social phenomenon [and] the BBC might benefit.”

Elstein said the growth in single person households over the last two decades had a similar impact on BBC funding, leading to a “50% rise in the number of households paying the licence fee”.

Wonder how many local radio stations were funded by that increase!

Janet Daley in the Telegraph isn’t impressed by the BBC’s ‘ideal’ license fee + inflation:

The BBC wants even more money

Bizarrely, the BBC itself has chosen this moment to suggest that its licence fee should not simply be protected in future but that it should be unfrozen and (wait for it) linked to inflation. And in addition to requesting these automatic rises in the licence fee – which would mean that every increase in the cost of living would push up the cost of television-viewing – they also plan to introduce paid-for services to compete with iTunes and netflix. What planet, as they say, are these people on?

Here is a suggestion for what it might do. Instead of demanding a licence fee from every owner of a computer or smart phone (which it is, believe it or not, considering), it should make the consumption of BBC content on any device dependent on having a licence. It should be simple enough to introduce: in order to log on to the BBC website, or to access iPlayer, you would need to supply your licence number – just as you have to do now with most subscription-only web services. That way, anyone who wanted to use any BBC service on any platform would have to pay the fee. But you would have a choice. And it is only that – giving the consumer a real choice – that will bring BBC funding into the twenty-first century.

Sounds simple and effective.

Another interesting interview (11:27) was with Alistair Morgan, brother of Daniel Morgan, a private detective investigating police corruption, murdered in 1987….possibly, and significantly you might think, just as he was about to expose that corruption.  Alistair Morgan suggests that if the botched investigation into his brother’s murder had been properly examined the subsequent investigation into Stephen Lawrence’s murder would not have also been ‘botched’ if lessons had been learned.

As Daniel Morgan was white that kind of suggests that botched police investigations are not solely, if at all, related to ‘race’ of the victim…and it should be noted that Morgan was murdered in 1987, the government, despite a long campaign by the family, only initiated an inquiry concerning the police investigation in 2013…compare that to the Lawrence case…Stephen Lawrence murdered in 1993, a review was announced only 4 years later in 1997….and Lawrence’s mother is now a ‘Baroness’  on the strength of her campaigning….though other matters  may have influenced that.

Here you go folks, a new OPEN THREAD to start the week.