Hi folks! Sorry for lack of posting but my home internet died on Saturday and had to wait until now to update! My apologies! Did you perchance catch Nicky Campbell’s “The Big Questions” with Comrade Owen Jones and the rest of the usual rent-a-lefty brigade? Grim stuff! Anyway over to you!!
MONDAY OPEN THREAD!
Bookmark the permalink.
Where did all the posts go ??
£25 000 000 000 000 more ‘Austerity’ needed, with £12 000 000 000 000 coming from benefit.
However it isn’t going to come from the places which it probably should.
So pensioners will see an increase, meaning that the cuts to the rest will be even more!
Girls / Women who deliberately get pregnant to avoid looking for a job will also most likely be unaffected, despite being a huge drain on the countries resources.
Families having too many kids (5+) and we all know who they are in the main, will also be unaffected.
Yet again we will see the ordinary working people unfortunate enough to be unemployed receiving nothing, or next to nothing.
The disabled who have no option to find a job – and those deemed fit which employers would never employ, will be starved to death.
And the young who have had their job prospects stolen from them by waves of immigrants overseen by all main parties will hardly receive anything at all.
In addition to all this there will be the greater demands from the working immigrants who all are eligible to benefits – so the cuts are likely to be even deeper than quoted.
It looks likely that if you are white and have made a contribution to society then you will get nothing at all in benefits, and will be expected to join the queue at the food bank.
Ever seen an ethnic face in a queue for a food bank? Ever seen them asking for Halal food ? Of course not because the government and the BBC HATE white people with a passion!
very, VERY true, its all orrsteriteee for you lot, whilst consistently shovelling money at vested interest, absurd white elephants, or syphoning off the NHS to keep the grasping simpletons in Lord Carters crowd happy, and anything else that’s left to sell off/give away
But … just enough, to have the miraculous ability to spirit up the carrot of a tax cut, in a sad attempt to dupe the public into voting for this incompetent ship of fools again, they ll perhaps discuss it at the next lord mayor s banquet.
All those years in their self deserved wilderness, and they ve learned nothing, hit the poorest, the low paid, the disabled … but face, and act on the real issues? not a bloody clue … patronising, arrogant, and corrupt shills all.
Don’t forget the massive spending on overseas aid which they have also ring fenced.
In 2012, UK aid came to £8.7bn or 0.56% of GNI, an increase of £137m (2%) on 2011 levels. Meeting the 0.7% target in 2013 would mean that Britain’s ODA will rise to £11.2bn this year, £11.9bn in 2014 and £12.3bn in 2015.
One place that could & should be cut! Buying dictators fancy cars in Bongo Bongo land.
yep! oversea s aid – one of those “white elephants”
are there any left in bongo bongo land?
white ele … oops! …… is that racist?
“no racism never applies to whites, is only ever perpetrated by them” ….
phew! thanks BBC for clearing that up
To be a white ,straight , able-bodied male is to be a member of a politically disadvantaged group ………………maybe if there happens to be another major war we could organise a strike!
As one continues to struggle to properly interpret the BBC1 10 0’clock News editorialising concerning the footballer Eusebio who – to quote the BBC –
‘…was born in Mozambique in “colonial times” and so had “no choice” but to play for Portugal’
a word or two from Shakespeare spring to mind – I paraphrase…
‘Some are born Portugese, some achieve Portugeseness, and some have Portugeseness thrust upon them.’
I couldn’t possibly comment.
In the 16th and 17th Century Spain, some Jews stayed and were forced to convert to Catholicism (conversos), and many others went initially to Portugal. These Jewish families had lived in the Iberian region for generations already, and couldn’t really move around Europe freely. England didn’t allow Jews, nor did France, German, or Italy. Portugal didn’t start really persecuting them until Phillip II took over, at which point the crypto-Jews fled to Amsterdam and the New World. They still called themselves Portuguese in public, as that made it easier to move around.
So yes, some achieve Portugueseness, and others have it thrust upon them.
From the excellent polling site ukpolling, comes a piece about the voters which will prove critical in the 2015 general election.
These ‘floating voters’ are the ones which the BBC will need to influence if they want to assist Liebour in winning. This of course is the bias we need to be aware of more than ever.
Spouting the usual left wing bilge is not what they need, as that is simply ‘preaching to the choir’ and a staunch Liebour voter will vote for them without the BBCs influence, and make no difference to the outcome.
Here is the demographic which needs to be influenced:
“Ashcroft’s key points are on page 9 of his report. They say about 23% of people who would vote are Tories who have remained loyal from the last election, a further 6% are people who didn’t vote Tory last time, but would now. On top of that there are 3% of people who DIDN’T vote Tory last time but might consider it, and a further chunk of people DID vote Tory last time, wouldn’t now, but may or may not consider doing so at the next election. That’s basically the battleground the next 16 months will be fought over. I should add a warning not to take the boundaries of that battleground as being set in concrete – people are not that good at predicting their future behaviour, some people who say they’ll definitely vote X won’t, some people who say they’d never vote Y will, and so on. Treat things as a good guide, but remember the boundaries are fuzzy and changeable.
Those former Tories are still fairly Toryish (after all, they voted for them last time) and most want to see the Conservatives win the next election, prefer the Tories to Labour on policy issues and (despite being dissatisfied with him in general) think Cameron would be the best PM. How things pan out at the next election will largely depend on how many of those people will go back to the Tories (many are currently UKIP, but many others are don’t knows) and at the other end of the scale, how well Labour hold on to the support they’ve gained since the election.”
Watch out for bias in this direction as it is this critical group who will decide the outcome of the next election.
Sorry that your “internet” died.
Possibly a tribute on Last Word awaits.
Just saw the BBC website, telling us the about the death of Simon Hoggart-a Guardian mockingbird on the Parliamentary shovel, who did have a few pops(some funny way back) at politicians.
Expect lots on Tories…and less so about the likes of Prescott, Mandelson and Kinnock.let alone Beverley Hughes or Mark Oaten.
Note too the comment from Cory Caulfield-she hopes that “somewhere Alan Coren will be telling him to get a move on, and Linda Smith will be laughing beside him”…some such guff .
Would the God-trashing ex-leader of the British Humanist Society be happy with this…can`t hear her reply due to the crackling maybe?
Utter childlike drivel-as ever when it comes to death at the BBC…it`s either bile(Thatch) or up their arses(Biggs, Nelson, any Beeboid, Savile-er, Miliband(R), Hobsbawm, Cyril Smith etc, etc)
Cory seems as vacuous as her fish namesake on Finding Nemo…so no doubt will be giving us her theology on Last Word very soon.
No slur intended on Linda by the way, but Hebrews 9.27 says something rather different re death that probably means more than other pretty ball in the BBCs ball pool.
And-whilst I`m on this
1. Why not a few minutes singing for the loss of Phil Everly?
2. Why don`t all the footy lardarses(Beeb pundits, spectators and gobshites from the media) play three minutes football for Eusebio and lose some weight. get the heartrate going.
Three minutes applause is hardly exercise, and the great man deserves a bit of obesity fightback!
That word “died” you see-sorry Mr V!
The Left are big on sentimentality, it is part of their narcissism, and as James Baldwin put it is symptomatic of somebody who is seeking to disguise (from themselves) the reality of their cold (hate filled) heart
“Sentimentality, the ostentatious parading of excessive and spurious emotion, is the mark of…his arid heart…the signal of his secret and violent inhumanity, the mask of cruelty.”
James Baldwin, Notes of a Native Son
So Simon Hoggart of the Guardian has passed on and the BBC are Eulogising him in a way only reserved for their political friends. I cannot envisage a similar Eulogy for someone like Peter Hitchens or Melanie Philips.
I always found Hoggart an entertaining read, and his tenure on News Quiz was infinitely superior to Toksvig’s Trotsky Assortment.
I haven’t yet shed a tear for him, but my guess is his replacement on The Guardian will be far to the left of Hoggart, with a fraction of his charm.
I did not realise that Simon Hoggart was the son of that dreary sanctimonious sociologist Richard Hoggart. It explains a lot about his lightness of touch. A rare example of a Leftist comedian who was not filled to the brim with bile.
Agreed-and John Fortune seems to have been the same kind of genial cove who knew where comedy ended, and diatribes begaan(Last Word testimony anyhoo)
Agreed-but sense he got captured somewhat as he got older.
But to be fair, that`s quite normal in the liberal arc of career progression.
I do remember him being funny re Prescott, Hughes, Blears and that rancid era of 2001-2005…but don`t imagine it`ll be getting quoted as Beebwrit anytime soon.
The Speccie used him for wine reviews…and without Labouring a point, to go from a Leeds housing estate(his dad) to getting paid to sip wine for the Spectator does reflect very well on Margaret Thatcher and those who went before her…upward mobility and all that!
Again-no mention of this side to Hoggarts life and times…better to have five minute hates from Glastonbury c/o Mark Steel…oh, how dole!
Who’s going to do the Spectator Wine Club now?
I didn’t catch Campbell yesterday but this morning on the Five Live phone-in he was in full sneering mode.
The subject was “Does the Devil exist?” which, of course, is meat and drink to the smug left because it brings out the nuttier edges of Christianity who believe in the literal teachings of the Bible for Campbell and his fellow travellers to smirk at. After 9.30 they dragged in the disgusting Kate Smurthwaite to yell her own brand of labia-centric Socialism down the line. She’s everything that is wrong with this country in one loudmouthed, barking mad package.
Five Live needs to be the subject of an urgent inquiry, not about this incident, but its clear political leanings. It is the mouthpiece of the Labour party, and if it cannot rectify its egregious bias it needs to be replaced by a new station. For the life of me I cannot understand what Lynton Crosby is doing when it comes to Five Live. I can only assume he has his ears on Today, and does not hear the far more pernicious partiality of Five Live.
Now you say that Milverton.
And yet?
Only one “person” gave us any theology in regard of Satan and his means and methods in the New Testament.
Yes, Paul gave some colour to it, but only Jesus preached on it, saw it as cold reality and warned us all of it(especially Christians in the first instance, although He`d not have recognised that term!)
As for Campbell-didn`t Nick Nick(that name folks?) get his photo taken with Jimmy Savile-who will be in a lesser circle of hell that 95% of BBC staff at current prices!
If in doubt, search the scriptures…Jesus plus me/anybody=majority!
F*** the BBC…and the likes of Campbell only show the maggots emerging from larva stages.
“Nick Nick(that name folks?)” seems to be a reference to Jim Davidson, who like practically every other elderly white celebrity targetted by the police to take our minds off moslem grooming, was found innocent of hysteric sex abuse.
Not at all Ian.
I meant Nick Nick Campbell, I promise.
Saw Jim Davidsons piece in the Sun yesterday, have long noted how much the liberals and the BBC hate him…and he even says in todays Mail that the Bible played a big part in saving his life.
No Ian-I know it was his nickname(actually a catchphrase he used against the police, ironically enough)…but it`s Campbell who reeks of sulphur…Jim D is on the side of the angels I`d say.
Sorry that I didn`t make it as clear as I ought to have done.
What’s the old saying ? ” The best trick the Devil ever performed is convincing people he didn’t exist !”
Father Gary Thomas, a Vatican approved exorcist and inspiration of the Anthony Hopkins film ” The Rite.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZz4ksWJbTE
My idea of hell is not the fire and brimstone, it would be having to listen to the constant, inane, supercilious, chattering piffle, pouring forth from Nicky Campbell’s gob. Verbal diarrhea.
And then there is the wonderful apocryphal story of the missionary who went to convert the Eskimo, and found he had to tone down all that “lake of fire and brimstone” rhetoric, as his audience found the prospect of that sounding positively inviting.
Panto Campo in full effect, the last bit of
that sad excuse for a phone in …
“do you believe evil exists … the Nazi death camps, for example … (wait for it) some would say Iraq?, how about Gitmo?
… “some would say?” … sheesh!
yeah I bet
I bet Stalin’s Gulags never got a mention. Or the prison camps of Kim Jong Whatshisface.
or Mao, or the so soon forgotten Pol Pot, or Armenia, Ghenghis Khan etc etc. Has anyone died in Gitmo yet?
Question, ”Can you explain the illuminati freemasons ?” Fr Gary Thomas ” They’re deeply involved in the Satanic.”
The illuminati ( the globalists ) are pushing the New World Order agenda, of a one world government on us.
1.01.40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZz4ksWJbTE
The Worlds ruling elites go to Bohemian Grove each year and partake in a pagan, occult ritual , ” Cremation of Care,” throwing an effigy of a child into a bonfire in front of a forty foot stone owl. WTF !!!!! If you didn’t see the video, you would never believe it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JlFZJr8ENQ
Go to a Tangled Web, please. This blog is no place for your proclivities.
Before I consider F**king off, let me address your points, it’s so generous of you to recommend that website, most kind, David, I’ll think about it, then again, I might not.
BBC-NUJ + Labour Party = Mass Immigration.
‘Daily Mail’-
“BBC accused of bias on immigration… by its own political editor: Nick Robinson says Corporation made ‘terrible mistakes’ by not reflecting public’s concerns
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2534366/BBC-accused-bias-immigration-political-editor-Nick-Robinson-says-Corporation-terrible-mistakes-not-reflecting-publics-concerns.html#ixzz2pcwlhSFp
No doubt, BBC-NUJ branches will politically capitulate to demands of ex-Ugandan, Muslim, Alibhai Brown:-
“Nick Robinson is wrong. On immigration, the BBC has a duty to moderate our national conversation”
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/nick-robinson-is-wrong-on-immigration-the-bbc-has-a-duty-to-moderate-our-national-conversation-9039980.html
Beeboids’ ‘TODAY’ politically represents AFRICAN, not British interests.
After months of representing the interests of LIBERIA on its programmes last year, this year Radio 4 ‘TODAY’ has decided to spend more of our licence tax on representing the interests of NIGERIA (e.g. this morning).
It’s not as though Beeboids have gone out their in numbers to represent the interests of the Christians being persecuted by the Islamic jihadists, such as Boko Haram. Not at all.
“Nothing has changed at the biased BBC.”
By DAILY MAIL COMMENT.
“First came ex-director general Mark Thompson’s admission that the BBC had a ‘massive’ Left-wing bias and, for years, had been ‘very reticent’ discussing immigration.
“Then, last year, it was the turn of outgoing head of news Helen Boaden to confess that the Corporation had a ‘deep liberal bias’ that prevented it from taking ‘seriously’ the views of campaign groups such as MigrationWatch.
“Now BBC political editor Nick Robinson says his employer made a ‘terrible mistake’ in censoring the public’s legitimate fears about the strain being put on British society by an unprecedented number of new arrivals.
“‘We worried too much about airing views that might offend some viewers and listeners and not enough by the offence caused to people who did not hear their own concerns reflected on air,’ he said yesterday.
“Unusually, Mr Robinson made his remarks while still in the prime of his BBC career.
“Normally executives are scurrying out of the door (with a large pay-off from the taxpayer) before they admit just how outrageously slanted their coverage of immigration and the EU had been.
“But what Mr Robinson has in common with his ex-colleagues is the utter delusion that such bias is all a thing of the past and the BBC ‘has now changed’.
“Consider, for instance, how the Corporation gave excited blanket coverage two months ago to a heavily spun report by University College London, claiming that migrants have made a ‘substantial’ contribution to Britain’s public finances.
Yet, when the UCL’s own Emeritus Professor of Statistics warned last week that the research was ‘fatally flawed’, a BBC still dominated by liberal bien-pensant opinion did not report a word of it.
“As with the Labour Party, we suspect the BBC’s only real regret over immigration is that its shameful attempt to silence all public debate on the subject did not succeed.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2534345/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Nothing-changed-biased-BBC.html#ixzz2pd0ccRlM
I posted a reply to a similar thread on Craig’s blog, and it will do no harm to repeat it here (with some modifications I have thought of since originally commenting)
As with every one of these cosy ‘revelations’ about the past partisanship and bias of the BBC, (vehemently denied at the time, of course), and the usual follow-up statement to the effect that the situation has now been sorted out…..I would like the answer to one simple question, namely “If the culture of the BBC was biased then, can you please point out to me the culture-change programmes, recruitment drives, and statistics to back up your claim that the BBC has actually adjusted the balance in favour of a more neutral stance since that time ?
You do NOT change a business culture (and especially NOT that of an organisation the size of the BBC) without overt and significant change programmes, without management ‘champions’ at every level, without recruitment policies which address the issues directly, without sanctions against the sorts of behaviour you wish to discourage, and without specific and measurable goals and targets to be met so that change can be measured, and it’s success (or lack of) can be demonstrated.
I have seen NO sign whatsoever of any such components of significant corporate change…and strangely enough, no-one from the BBC ever seems able to point to any. The extent of the evidence provided by the BBC is an assertion that all is now well (i.e. NO evidence whatsoever).
Any change management professional will tell you immediately that, in the absence of any such clear evidence of actual management of the required change, then there is absolutely no desire for change, nor has there been any effort applied to the issue. Without these, there will never be any substantial change.
So, in a few years’ time, some other senior BBC ‘whistleblower’ will lament the past partisanship ‘which was true of the BBC a few years ago (i.e. today, in January 2014) – but it has all been eradicated since then….’
Plus ca change….etc., etc.
“Nick Robinson is wrong. On immigration, the BBC has a duty to moderate our national conversation”
——————————————————
Er, no it does not! It has a duty to report the news. Educate and entertain too, yes, but moderators of conversations? No!
Totally agree with your points.
The only thing I question here (aside from why it took them so long to get around to what we’ve been saying and proving for years), is that Robinson is in the prime of his BBC career. Now that Laura K is returning to the fold, even if she’s restricted to Newsnight, he must see the writing on the wall.
Robinson may be a top quality politics junkie with insider connections and a good insight into political machinations and strategies, but I wouldn’t trust him with much any more. He protects politicians instead of informing the public. He gets good gossip, but he also gets things wrong. Labour occasionally played him like a fine violin (Brown/Blair relationship, the VAT rise in the Pre-Budget Report, the scheme to remove Brown from leadership, etc.), and he spent more time defending politicians during the height of the expenses scandal than he did reporting on what they were actually doing.
Maybe he feels guilty now, but he has form admitting things he’s kept from the public and then moving on to hide something else.
He should be a spin doctor for a politician or party, or perhaps a PPE prof somewhere. The only reason I believe him now is because it’s something I already knew. Beeboids have already told us, in some cases years ago. “John Reith”, Hugh Sykes, and Mark Thompson, for example.
‘“Normally executives are scurrying out of the door (with a large pay-off from the taxpayer) before they admit just how outrageously slanted their coverage”
One can only anticipate…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/protokroll.html
‘”During that period I believe the governance of the BBC has become stronger” (but perhaps not quickly enough to control DMI, severance payments, salaries and sundry journalistic failings)”
The rewards for fa… BBC employment (same thing, mind) seem, generous.
‘“Now BBC political editor Nick Robinson says his employer made a ‘terrible mistake’ in censoring the public’s legitimate fears about the strain being put on British society by an unprecedented number of new arrivals.’
How very convenient to wake up to the fact now that the irreversible change to our culture and society that the BBC helped to champion has been well and truly embedded.
The question is, will his documentary include discussing the BBC’s mistake, or will it be only about proving that the political parties have been twisting the issue to suit their own needs? If it’s the latter, then it’s a complete waste of everyone’s time. Everybody knows politicians do that. Discussing the BBC’s duplicity and censorship is more important.
BBC Drama getting into the act.
You know my methods.
How original of BBC to attack the Tories. Surely to deserves an award? It brings a tear to my eye when I think of their bravery. Thank goodness the BBC and The Labour Party have a moral compass. Bring on the One Party State I say.
You do have to wonder at the mentality of those who go to such lengths to insult but who lack the guts to do it openly. It might have been better to have spent more time on the script if last night’s offering was anything to go by.
“…It might have been better to have spent more time on the script if last night’s offering was anything to go by.”
Agreed. Last night’s episode was dire. Actually painful to watch. ‘Sherlock’, if its North American success is anything to go by (and it always is, as far as the bureaucrats at BBC Worldwide are concerned – and it is for North Americans that so much of the Corporation’s publicly-funded ‘original content’ is actually made), was all set to become the new Golden Goose for the ever-greedy Corporation.
Judging by last night’s creatively challenged episode, they seem to be hell-bent on killing all prospects of that.
You’re probably right about Worldwide. Dr. Who is essentially simulcast in the US these days. No more waiting for months. I hear Downton Abbey is going to end after the next season, so it’s probably scramble time.
If you want to have a real laugh, check out the schedule for BBC America.
Also notice that they have the BBC World News, but not BBC World News America. It wasn’t even remotely commercially successful enough to keep at one hour, so they cut in half, and then dumped it altogether to late afternoons on a few PBS stations. Yet the SOB who exec produces it is still given free rein to write the occasional hate piece against Republicans on the BBC News website.
Never mind the Peabody Awards, as those were given out because no US media organization can even begin to compete with the Leviathan’s international resources, plus we’re suckers for the accents.
Seems a huge amount of effort for very little reward and, outside the high fives in the edit suite, possibly a rather dangerous precedent as there may be those teetering on not being totally convinced about that DNA-borne impartiality.
Still, nice of the Telegraph to have ‘spotted’ it and brought it to the fore.
I they hadn’t, the kids in PR would have had to have found other ways to crank the outrage meter to eleven.
I see that John Ray on “Dissecting Leftism”
http://dissectleft.blogspot.co.uk/
picks up an article that notes that Obama’s birth certificate contains words/places that did not exist in 1961.
1. In 1961 people of colour were called ‘Negroes.’
So why does Obama’s ’birth certificate’ describe him as “African-American” when the term wasn’t used at that time?
2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama’s birth as August 4, 1961 & lists his father as born in “Kenya , East Africa”.
But Kenya did not exist until two years after Obama’s birth, until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the “British East Africa Protectorate”.
3. On the Birth Certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is “Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital”.
But the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called ”KauiKeolani Children’s Hospital” and “Kapi’olani Maternity Home”, respectively. The name did not change to Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged.
4. In Obama’s book on his father he states how proud he is of his father fighting in WW II. Barack Obama’s “birth certificate” says his father was 25 years old in 1961. That should have put his father’s date of birth approximately 1936.
How many 3 year olds fight in wars? Even at the end of the War his father wouldn’t have been more than 9 years old.
I wonder if there were similar doubts about a Republican president (George Bush for example) the BBC would report it?
Hmmmm. I wonder.
“2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama’s birth as August 4, 1961 & lists his father as born in “Kenya , East Africa”.
But Kenya did not exist until two years after Obama’s birth, until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the “British East Africa Protectorate”.”
The East Africa Protectorate, or British East Africa was established on the 1st of July, 1895 and disestablished on the 23rd of July, 1920.
In was then known as the “Colony of Kenya”, simplified as Kenya, from that latter date in 1920, until Independence in 1963 and exactly one year later, on the 12th of December, 1964, it became the “Republic of Kenya”, or just Kenya.
“before 1920 (if you were born there) your birth certificate read East Africa Protectorate, but from 1920 onwards it was common to have Kenya listed as the place of birth.”
Fair enough.
Obama is self obsessed, inept, arrogant, dishonest, and corrupt but also a born in the US.
Yes, and before anyone else tries it on for size, the reason His college records are sealed is not because He’s an alien but because it would reveal that He got in not because He’s the smartest man in the room and better than all of us as the BBC believes but because He was a half-assed student who got in as a legacy due to His father.
That wouldn’t have helped the myth at all, so Harvard has dutifully protected Him, as have all the courageous hackers who claim to speak truth to power.
It also seems from evidence that
“there was a Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in 1961. It merged with the Children’s hospital to become The Kapi’olani Medical Center For Women And Children in 1978.”
Also it seems that although Obama DID say his father fought in World War II it was simply a slip up. What he meant to say was that his maternal grandfather fought (if that is the right word – he was in Ordnance & Supply) in that war.
Yes, but when the President said He never met His uncle or His half-brother, He was lying.
I can understand why people still cling to hope that the Birther stories are true. He’s lied about so much else, including in His “autobiography”.
None of this has ever been reported by the BBC, of course. To do so might give permission for prejudice and give ammo to His enemies.
Kapi‘olani Maternity Home changed its name to Kapiʻolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital in 1931 and remained so until 1971 when the name was changed to Kapiʻolani Hospital.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapiolani_Medical_Center_for_Women_and_Children
Kenya was known as Kenya long before independence. My grandfather was posted there during the war, and it is stamped on his papers as such, no mention of the British East Africa Protectorate. Also, I believe Obama meant to say his grandfather had served in WWII, but mis-spoke, as Gordon Brown did when the fawning buffoon referred to “Obama Beach” at D-Day. However, even if Obama is not the Manchurian candidate, he certainly behaves as if he is.
I must say I am surprised that US Presidential candidates do not have to prove their eligibility to stand before they are elected, it might save a few problems later on!
There was quite a fuss made when Arnold Schwarzenegger said he was thinking of running for the presidency, even though Arnie candidly admitted that the law would have to be changed to allow him to stand, as he was born in Austria.
Now, what party does he belong to?
The RINO party I believe.
Birthers on Biased BBC??? Get over it. You’re beating a dead horse. Obama was elected and will finish his term.
The only real question is whether, given his stellar record, in office, and collapsing popularity the BBC will be as fawning at the end of his term as it was at the beginning?
Yes he will finish his term and it shows in his demeanour . But ,I’m guessing, the birthers believe if they can show his election was illegitimate then any legislation enacted during his presidency will be rescinded.
Whatever the truth of where he was born , and that isn’t clear by any means, his official biography is a pack of lies. Question is if not his nationality, then what is he covering up?
“The only real question is whether…the BBC will be as fawning at the end of his term as it was at the beginning?”
It depends if they can get any mileage out of it. If they can’t (see New Labour) they will completely ignore his time in office. If they can (his father may have been a jerk but he was black jerk and for the institutional racists at the BBC that matters) then he will be mythologized (like Franklin Roosevelt or John Kennedy) so that what the BBC will say about him will bear little or no relationship to the reality of his terms in office.
Looking at the evidence it seems that he was born in Hawaii, but I make no apology for linking to an article that questioned it, firstly (given the unreliability and active omission in all reporting of him by the BBC) because by raising it I at least know a little more about his background than I did, but secondly, and more importantly, because, as Stewart points out, his official biography (and anything reported by the BBC) is so unreliable, even his claim about where he is born should not be taken for granted.
The arguments against him being born in Hawaii do not seem to stand up to critical scrutiny, but neither do many if not most of the claims made about him by the BBC.
The hope [on Biased BBC] is that discussion will illuminate the dark cloud of obscurity and disinformation provided by the BBC.
Classic bias this morning as BBC Radio Manchester allowed us oiks to talk about ‘migration’. No, not birds, but people. Of course, this being the BBC it was only eastern European ‘migration’ that was up for discussion. It’s always been with us apparently, the Flemish weavers and all that – although I’m pretty sure they didn’t come in their millions. It is, after all, a numbers game. Some berk said he was delivered by a Jew who fled Germany, wit woo, not sure what that has to so with anything, maybe he can ask a Romanian car washer to deliver his grandchildren. Anyway, our intrepid reporter in Manchester was asking peoples opinions, most according to her were pro-immigration (Hmm, I suppose we’ll have to take her word for it although if I was to take a straw poll in my local most would be against any more of it), ‘as long as they pay taxes’, ‘my daughter has a house in France’ (???) etc etc. There were, according to the reporter, a few dissenters from the beeboid line, pity we never heard anything from them but all the pro-immigration voices were presented, one after another, giving the impression that people were pro-immigration. In contrast to all the polls I might add.
One person complained that derelicts around Piccadilly station were eastern European, the woman in the studio then asked the reporter whether she’d seen any. She hadn’t but she did see a Mancunian who asked her for money. Clever how they rubbished that person’s story in a flash, I didn’t see any so they don’t exist, she must’ve imagined it. By this time I was shouting at the radio and cursing BBC bias … if I have a heart attack I want it written on my gravestone that the BBC killed me.
Er…..whereabouts in Manchester was that straw poll held? Wasn’t Media City, was it? Or maybe it was in one of the districts afflicted with endemic moslem grooming…..
Ian, it was supposedly central Manchester although it could’ve been anywhere, we only have their word for it and I wouldn’t trust them lot to tell me the bleedin’ time. Yep, I wonder how the abused children of Rochdale/Oldham/Bolton/Rotherham/Oxford (delete as applicable) feel about immigration. There’s a father in Blackburn who had his daughter run over by a Kurd, a mother in Blackpool who’s daughter was put in kebab meat etc. I wonder how they feel, not that they’ll get a voice on the BBC.
The questions are always loaded too, do you think immigration is good for the country, not do you think immigration is bad for the country. How about this, do you support your replacement by foreigners, would you support immigration knowing it will affect your children/grandchildren, are you happy to see your cities colonised, if you like multiculturalism so much, why do you not live anywhere near it, I could go on …
A few e-mails were read out, one guy wanted mass repatriation, the beeboid gulped at that. Other than a few extreme examples like that (they always seem to find a budding concentration camp guard don’t they … or maybe they make them up) the majority were pro-immigration. The whole thing was a set-up.
They raise the spectre of Jewish people fleeing SOCIALIST Germany, then with the next breath they go off on one about Zionism.
A good programme from Der Spiegel – Something the BBC should watch because it involves ‘investigative journalism’, not just paying four people to sit around a table usually a tame professor from a polytechnic I mean university and a Labour MP who will chat to Richard Bacon, all following the Labour line on immigration :
The BBCs idea of investigative journalism involves finding the most unlikely ethnic minority to give their own distorted opinion.
Any white person in the UK saying the things the Germans say in this documentary would find themselves in court if not in prison. The only people allowed to say these kinds of things are the Pakis, exactly as they have in Sheffield.
Clearly the woman (1:10 in) is a bigot.
Copyright 2010 Gordon Brown MP (Labour)
Ah yes: Comrade Jones, the BBC-appointed voice of a generation, with an open invitation to come on air and talk about anything…. except the sales figures for his masterpiece ‘Chavs’ (and especially just how many were bought by actual real people with their own money).
According to recent figures from the Audit Bureau of Circulation (“the industry body for media measurement”), Shouty Boy Jones’ organ, the Independent, now has an average daily circulation of just 68,700. This is fewer that some local newspapers, such as the Liverpool Echo, 77,800 and the Manchester Evening News, 74,700. So why is this extremely unrepresentative individual from an extremely unpopular rag never off BBC television and radio?
And how many of those copies of the Independent are bought by the bBBC itself?
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3458/exclusive_bbc_bias_exposed_as_newspaper_purchases_reveals_continued_guardian_bias
‘…extremely unrepresentative individual from an extremely unpopular rag never off BBC television and radio?’
It’s a mystery, deepened by none of the representation numbers (well, the ‘speaking for the actual nation’ as opposed to a rather niche vision of it) adding up.
You could try an FoI but, funnily enough, as part of their trust and transparency drive what guides such decisions is their little secret.
Good point. Considering that the vast majority of newspapers sold are ‘right wing’ then surely the BBC should represent this.
Based on newspaper sales the politics is surely settled and there is no place for deniers?
What really angers me is the way in which the BBC arrogates to itself the right to pronounce judgements on what’s politically acceptable to debate and what’s not (as alluded to by Nick Robinson’s revealing article in the Daily Mail). Just look at the amount of extended airtime the BBC devote to that motor-mouthed, egotistical, opinionated extremist Left-winger, Owen Jones – and who is he? What experience does that little pipsqueak have concerning life? And, apart from Nigel Farage and Peter Hitchens, who always get heckled and booed by the rigged drone BBC audiences, the Right is always portrayed to be isolated racist Neanderthals, out of synch with public opinion. But we now know that the Right have won the argument on immigration and have the strength of public opinion to back them up. You wouldn’t think this on the basis of the BBC’s terrible lies and manipulations over the last 15 years.
They give Universal Owen Jones the platform because he’s young and purports to speak for the poorest and most vulnerable. You know they have endless meetings where they declare this voice is vital and it must be represented, early and often. It doesn’t matter that he’s wrong all the time or misleads or can’t do math or is shrill or is unable to debate instead of shout his opponents down. The Beeboids love him just like they love Galloway. He’s good drama for their shows, and “speaks truth to power”. Most of them agree with everything he says anyway, but that’s almost secondary to the fact that he’s a good radio/tv act and ticks a couple of needed boxes. If they could find somebody more articulate and a bit more accurate, while still being young and loud, they would. Unless he was on the Right, of course.
Those at the BBC in charge of booking OJ Simpleton for every show on which he conceivably might be an “appropriate” guest are apparently too young to realise he comes off, due to an uncanny resemblance, as a Twenty-Teens apparently-earnest version of a Nineteen-Eighties Hugh Laurie satirical sketch about shouty little schoolboys who believe they have all the answers about everything, even to questions they had not been asked.
British political class to BBC and ITV:-
‘Prepare British viewers for the worst which Islamic jihadists can do to us, without specifying the Islamic tenets which inspire those Muslim murderers.’
“ITV and BBC told to learn lessons from graphic Lee Rigby murder coverage”
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jan/06/itv-bbc-lee-rigby-murder-coverage
Unless I’m reading this wrong, the only lesson here for the BBC is that they should have censored even more of the insane murderer’s speech than they did.
This tells us that ending the Trust and putting Ofcom in charge of keeping an eye on the BBC isn’t going to fix a damn thing.
Anyone who thought it would, would have to be extremely naïve.
No government quango, nor Ombudsman is fit for purpose, as they’re all either to lazy / scared / incompetent to do they job they’re appointed to do.
Some of them such as the Local Government Ombudsman are actively engaged in protecting the people they’re supposed to be monitoring, but have no real power over them anyway!
Why would Ofcom be any different to any of the others?
Bit worried about the OFCOM option being touted, even as an ‘of course they wouldn’t be interested’.
Quite how oversight over the BBC would be improved by an already renowned useless money sink headed by an ex-Labour strategist and a spring DG seems… optimistic… if seeking to sell further claims of transparency or trust.
Evening Standard : Commons Whispers :
‘Politicos visiting the BBC at Portland Place are being warned not to leave coats or handbags unattended in the newsroom because a thief is at large.’
You mean a Socialist is at large.
this rentagob leftie karl marx of leafy middle class leafy stockport owen jones bloke is really getting on my nerves,ok.we all know he is ed millibands unofficial adviser on all kinds of policys but what is this obsession with the bbc and radio 5 live by constantly paying him his £100 fee to appear on all these programmes on the bbc,he aint doing to bad earning his nice not working class but capitalist £150,000 a year wage working at the independant newparers is he,very nice indeed and,not bad for a leftie heh.but what really annoys me about this middle class leftie is he thinks that he is the voice of the working classes ,no your not mate,yu have not got a clue about the struggles of the working classes,less of owen jones and more of peter hitchens on the bbc and radio 5 live,
The Independent is the newspaper for people who are too thick to understand the Guardian. But the reason the bBC buys it, and interviews its hacks, is to provide balance.
Well I can’t understand even the Independent ,let alone the Guardian. Both of them seem to have columnists who live in a different country to me, well of course they may just send in their copy from their homes in Tuscany and only set foot here to appear on the BBC.
I always thought that the Guardian was written by teachers for teachers and we all know that those who can do and those who can’t teach.
“Whose fault is M&S’s stagnation?”
here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25622235
I would say much if it was the fault of the BBC when it ran a long promotion on John Lewis
How to use BBC licence tax to finance visits to many countries around the world.
Here’s how:-
BBC (opening paragraph)-:-
“In 2001 the world began talking about the Bric countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China – as potential powerhouses of the world economy. The term was coined by economist Jim O’Neill, who has now identified the ‘Mint’ countries – Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey – as emerging economic giants.”
So Mr O’Neill has been given a series of programmes on Radio 4, starting this morning, which enable him to visit Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey with a view to talking up their economies. Nicely worked, Jim. At our expense.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25548060
Beeboid extravagant ‘economics’ by propaganda and self-promotion.
I would normally agree with you, George, if he was visiting the “BRIC” countries but, frankly, who would really want to visit the shit holes on the “MINT” list? Even at licence payer’s expense?
I once gave up a very good job because of an upcoming requirement to make frequent visits to Nigeria.
BBC-Democrat catching up with ‘Jihadwatch’ re-‘Jihad Jane’?:-
1.) ‘Jihadwatch’
“‘Jihad Jane’ gets ten years of prison dawah for plotting murder of Muhammad cartoonist.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/01/jihad-jane-gets-ten-years-of-prison-dawah-for-plotting-murder-of-muhammad-cartoonist.html
2.)BBC-Democrat:-
“‘Jihad Jane’ Colleen LaRose gets 10 years in prison”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25630399
owen jones v david vance on stephen nolans show,thats the debate i would love to see owen jones put back in his box
More censored Beeboid headlines on ‘fracking’:-
1.) BBC-
“Flare ‘fired at police helicopter’ near Salford protest camp”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-25622863
2.) ‘Daily Mail’-
“Police raid anti-fracking protest camp after a flare was fired at a police helicopter as it tried to land”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2534600/Police-raid-anti-fracking-protest-camp-flare-fired-police-helicopter-tried-land.html#ixzz2peLQgcD0
BBC’s Sherlock attacks Boris Johnson as ‘dithering’ and ‘self-interested’ – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10552826/BBCs-Sherlock-attacks-Boris-Johnson-as-dithering-and-self-interested.html
Good they managed to get attention away from the actual episode.
I’ve quite enjoyed a few (mainly thanks to high production budget/values and some charismatic acting), but this was dire.
those white lefty twitter and keyboard warriours attacking the former world champion boxer evander holyfield for his views on homosexuality last night on channel 5s big brother should if they feel brave enough confront him with there anger when he leaves the big brother house
If a mans views can’t be challenged because he is an aggressive thug capable of physical violence then he’s not much of a man, and his views are blatantly wrong because he is unable to defend them without resorting to violence.
I’m not suggesting that Holyfield is in anyway incapable of defending his views, I am challenging your point about those capable of physical intimidation being able to say things without fear of challenge.
If I hold a gun in my hand then are my views automatically right?
I see that the BBC have a programme entitled “The Truth About Immigration” on BBC2, tomorrow night at 9.30pm.
Oh hell, batten down the hatches……We’re going to be talked down to again, because obviously we’re narrow minded waycists..
Hmm, wonder if this has anything to do with Nick Robinson’s recent comments.
Only insomuch as Robinsons comments were a pre-planned primer for this program. Which will doubtless explain, with the aid of a series of pro immigration experts , how we have got it all wrong
The BBC have realise that continually casting as bigots and racists those lost sheep who feel that immigration has had a negative effect ,is failing to deliver their engineered consensus. They are now going to try a more consolatory approach, showing us how to properly interpret our first hand lived experience.
The idea that their received truth might be wrong is ,quite literally, anathema to them
The BBC’s stance on Immigration: “who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”
Hmmm, what next? The Truth About Iraq, About the EU, About New Labour, About Global Warming … are the Beeb changing, have they suddenly become investigative journalists rather than left wing propagandhists? Not really, they’re digging Millimong/Labour out of an immigration hole of their own making … it’ll be the same old shit that they’ve been pedaling for years, they pay their way and they’re a positive boon to dreary old England, they’re no trouble and they commit absolutely no crimes (despite the 12,000 in our prison system) and not forgetting they’re all scientists and doctors and not, I repeat not, disease-ridden, third-world peasants who wouldn’t know one end of a scalpel from the other.
I just can’t bring myself to watch or listen to any debates or programs regarding immigration where the BBC is concerned because it’s not good for my health. You just know the way it will go.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2534345/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Nothing-changed-biased-BBC.html
thought people would like to see that this blog is being heard on some issues. congrats to David V, David P, and Alan on their coverage of bbc on immigration…
Newsnight interesting tonight discussing the breathtakingly stupid Tory proposals to cut benefits by more than £12 000 000 000 000
Now as of April this year there were 20.3 million in receipt of benefits, with 9.6 million where benefits make up more than half their income.
5.3 million of these are pensioners and not only can their benefits not be touched, but they are guaranteed an income of at least 2.5% – not bad if you’re Lord sugar in receipt of a state pension!
So as the remaining 4.3 million are the ones who receive most, they can be expected to take the biggest hit. For sake of argument I shall take the entire figure as falling on them, and leave the others because the growth in benefits due to pensions increases and more immigrants claiming benefit needs to be accounted for.
A £12 billion benefit cut falling on 4.3 million people equals a cut of £2800 per year. What Osborne is effectively saying is that he is going to abolish state benefits because it will be completely impossible to live on the pittance left.
Watching the people at the factory when Osborne announce this, it was clear they were utterly amazed, some looked like they wanted to walk out!
The consensus of the panel appeared to be that with the policy the Tories have in one announcement, made themselves unelectable. As someone not a Lib Dem or Liebour supporter, I would have to agree as there is no way even a free market liberal like myself would consider voting for them now, there must be many others thinking the same way.
It wouldn’t be so bad if they weren’t offering free medical treatment to the world, or allowing every immigrant who wants to come a job, a house & benefits, or they weren’t giving billions away in foreign ‘aid’.
They have done next to nothing to see the tax revenues from companies like Starbucks, Vodaphone, Amazon, Kraft (Cadburys) etc etc are paid. In fact one quick expenses lunch with the taxman and hundreds of millions are quickly forgotten about.
Forget the BBC bias come the election, they don’t need to do any shilling for Liebour, the Tories have done it all for them !
I disagree. The party may well be heading for defeat. Deservedly so as it is hardly conservative and offers no real alternative to the liberal hegemony. . But the money is going to run out.
Governments have only the money we provide via taxation.
Unless they create it out of thin air. In the end that always leads to rampant inflation. It looks as if this time it will be delayed but it will happen.
The spending decisions needed to be in the hands of fiscal conservatives but were not. Osborne is as profligate as anyone.
It is too late to avoid the inflation coming down the road. We will all suffer but look on the positive side. A dose of reality, however painful, will lead to the end of the liberal left and a restoration of reality in our country.
Nobody at all has the right to state money. It is just irrational. Paying social security is the foundation of the welfare state. That is a contract between the citizen and the state. it is definitely not rights based .It may well be prudent for the state to pay over and above this to avoid unrest but a right it is not. But no welfare state can survive if demands are made on it by those who have not contributed over their working lives. This is why benefit tourists are so dangerous as they undermine the basic principle of the welfare state.
I believe that the state has a moral duty to assist those people who they have either deliberately, or ignorantly made unemployed / unemployable.
The continual arrival of huge numbers of migrants means that they have forced wages down and taken jobs which youths who want to work would have done.
The Tories love this as a stream of cheap willing labour makes bosses rich! They just don’t want to think about the consequences.
Ever since the 12th century this country has had a form of assistance for the poor, and this has carried on more or less constantly since then to now.
The Tories are proposing to end this, have you seriously thought of the consequences?
Kids in filthy rags living in shanty towns begging on the streets, stealing food from bins. Is this what you want to reduce the British people to? Sounds like you’ve been reading pages written by Jo Brand and her Marxist loonies !
We all know that those countries in Africa where they have no welfare state are such a shinning beacon of hope and achievement that we need to emulate them!
There will be little or no ‘rampant’ inflation. Governments borrow money rather than print it so as the ‘quantitative easing’ happens the government simply pays the interest to itself, and prints more money to pay off the last lot it borrowed!
I think you need to read up on contract law! Once established a contract gives the signatories legal rights, and obligations enforceable by law!
Taxes by big foreign companies are going unpaid – more than the amounts being talked about cutting. You talk about governments only having the money they raise from taxation, well if they fail to collect it that is their fault and we need another government!
No welfare state can survive once mass immigration begins. The left have made a choice that they wanted to betray the British people and to end the welfare state for the sake of Political Correctness and ‘diversity’.
The UK and the EU are both heading for total economic collapse in the long run, but that might be a couple of decades away.
And a sincere belief no doubt.
One to admire in many ways.
However, on a blog about BBC accuracy, objectivity and integrity, do you think the BBC is as interested in holding the BBC to account once they get Labour back in?
“No welfare state can survive once mass immigration begins.”
So why do you expect the Tories (or anyone else for that matter) to be able to maintain welfare as it is?
You are right to this extent: you can have a welfare state, and you can have mass immigration, but you can’t have both!
I will disagree, or wish to correct one thing that you said. You said, “state money.” The State does not have any money. The monies it gets is either through taxation or borrowing, with the latter having to be paid back through taxation. So basically it is ‘Taxpayer’ monies we are talking about, and they are getting fewer and fewer. This is because of EU rules that we signed up to. Rules that allow Corporates, quite legally, to arrange their finances in such a way as to pay the minimum amount of tax. The drive to lower wage levels leading to lower tax receipts etc. They have made a rod for our backs, and no matter who you vote for, none of them either have a clue, let alone the will to do what is right.
Releasing people from the need to cough up £145+ to pay to maintain the Liberal Left in some comfort would be a far better start in my opinion, but they won’t do that.
Hello thoughtful,
Sorry to be a pedant but better me, as a friend, than Dez or Albie – the accepted usage of “billion” in the UK (since 1974) refers to one thousand million, so you have three zeroes too many in your number (first para above).
Some of us refuse to except the American usage of the word ‘billion’. Consequently thoughtful is only wrong to have accepted the figure of 12 billion , instead of the 12 thousand million it actually is.
“Forget the BBC bias come the election”
—
Oh, I don’t think I will.
Like you, I share little enthusiasm for the current shower, if perhaps not so politically vocal so often and OT here, but in the nightmare of governance by the least bad, the national broadcaster slyly edging folk by all means (especially promoting inaccuracies) to the worst party of all through ideological or commercial self-interest is something I will maintain a great interest in.
Pedant alert ! Isn’t 1 billion 1,000,000,000 (the US definition 1 thousand million, used here as well) therefore 12 billion is 12,000,000,000. It would be nice if our UK budget was calculated in the old definition of a billion 1 million million (1,000,000,000,000) as we’d be considerably richer.
Tits! Didn’t realise it had already been pointed out. 🙁
So Nick Robinson has admitted the BBC is in the business of censorship of views it deems “unheplful” or some such rubbish.
At last.
Nothing much more to say. We always knew it and now it is at last being admitted.
Removes the justification for the tax in my view.
The BBC is not impartial. it is in the same position as any other media outfit. Why fund it by taxation?
Indefensible.
Indeed. Amazing how this was the raving of lunatics until the right sort of person says so. I’m sure the BBC will treat Robinson as the heroic whistleblower he is……..
Nick Robinson knows all about censorship ! As political commentator on BBC News at 10 in 2006 censored PM Tony Blair’s speech in Las Angeles with the words “This is what the PM meant to say ……….” and then proceeded to completely distort his speech by emphasising a small part of his speech out of all proportion to what Blair actually said ( I will get round to writing it up on my blog )
Just caught the Newsnight feature on Gove’s “attack” on the left’s revisionist view of the First World War. Apart from Paxman’s sneering response ( though we all know Jezza has previous history on the subject anyway) Who else but to refute these ‘scandalous’ accusations but the very historian Gove names in his Daily Mail article – left winger Sir Richard Evans – a direct right of reply courtesy of dear old Auntie. I wonder if any centre-right historian in the same situation would have such access to the national media?
Now, after fifteen years or so, our national broadcaster is forced to finally post a report that reflects what the British people want:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25630036
Too little, too late. The BBC should be closed down as a result of their deliberate lies and bias.
But vast amounts of space given to the thoughts of Vince Cable (god help us) and the final quote in the story is….tadaaaaa:
In the BBC item he is described as
(no mention of when he held that position) meanwhile Daniel Hannan on EU funded Portes (in the Telegraph)
Link:
Is there a creature in discovered space more close-minded than a self-conscious liberal?
” What is unique about Mr Portes, though, is the almost unbelievable pomposity of his tone, his insistence that he deals only with facts and leaves opinions to others.”
Unique? Telling the blatant opposite of reality often enough in hope of swaying opinion? No wonder the BBC are keen on him.
“Whenever I asked whether I might reply… “We are a non-partisan newspaper,” he’d say, as though that closed the issue”
Well it did… does… simply by saying it. BBC SOP #101. Hall, Boaden, Hockaday… same hymn.
“… he went into paroxysms, pointing to some report where the NIESR had criticised the EU’s austerity programme, and then demanding, in his inimitably narcissistic way, an apology”
Sounds straight out the Flokker manual.
Drip, drip, drip…
When there are 147 PR drones working in complement, a lot can also be achieved beyond producer and editorial coordination and choices too.
Something to think about.
Michael Gove is a rare kind of politician. One of a very small number who are brave enough to take on the ideology of the Left-liberal establishment. This is why he is so vilified by the BBC through its ‘comedy’ proxies. Gove is a hate figure because he takes on the vested interests and their despotic rule through Marxist flavoured posturing.
This time the battle ground was the Somme 1914-18. No wonder BBC Newsnight couldn’t fail to add its own bombardment to try to keep Gove and any other potential opponents of ‘the Blob’ cowering in their bunkers.
http://standpointmag.co.uk/features-october-13-the-blob-has-run-schools-for-decades-not-any-more
‘The Blob seeps into every corner of the community, and subsumes any attempt to destroy it, becoming more powerful with every attack. It is a convenient metaphor for what Gove calls the education establishment. Teaching unions, local education authorities, teacher training providers, and education quangos are the core components of the Blob-a bloated morass of vested interests. ‘
Obviously you can add to that morass the BBC.
Newsnight is increasingly unintentionally amusing.
Their hero Richard Evans (leftist historian) was joined by Paxman (amateur leftist historian) and a female historian from Canada (supposedly neutral but in fact rather in agreement with all that was said in the BBC one-sided debate)
Evans began the giggles with his asertion ‘I don’t think my view is particularly left-wing’. A bold rather unscientific statement of denial. You’re biased – No, I’m not. Where do we hear that kind of argument?
His prat fall came as he went on to single out for praise ‘the Welsh government’s’ plans for WW1 commemoration. (That will be Labour-led Wales).
Evans outlines their plans and of course they involve celebration of conscientious objectors, joint commemoration with the Germans and celebration of the Xmas truce – so nothing particularly Leftist in emphasis there then….?
I had a small book now sadly missing written by an artillery captain on the retreat in 1918 in the face of the German attack.
It is a remarkable story of comradeship and real courage. He does not gloss over the facts of war especially the sheer exhaustion it brings mentally and physically.
He describes one incident when he witnesses the bravest man he ever met. A padre who stayed with the wounded and dying at a cross roads while the Germans shelled it .
The padre knew it meant his certain death but says that he is a priest and that is what he must do.
There is so much more to the war than ritual left wing theorising.
Discussion on 5-live this morning re WW1 – BBC commentator specifically mentioned Mr Gove – yet the (left wing?) professor continually attacked Mr Johnson. Mr Gove was not mentioned in the discussion – even though eventually both parties said that the isdue was complex and the professor specifically conceded that Blackadder was a satire.
Talking of immigration…sorry….migration:
The final episode of a stowaway’s story
The bbc speculate as to why Jose Matada stowed away on a flight to London:
His future employment enabler was in Switzerland though – so either his geography was rather poor, and he confused Swiss Cottage with Switzerland, or it was the sad conclusion to some tragic love story. No speculation that he might just be trying to join the thousands of other illegal “migrants” enriching the UK with their diversity.
But in evidence at the inquest we have (from Local Grauniad):
Strangely, she didn’t mention the ill fated romance or that he was going to “get her help in finding a job”. She obviously wasn’t giving the coroner the full story. The bbc need to make these imaginary facts known to the authorities!
A tragic tale, to be sure. And one has to feel for any who do not posess the necessary funds to bury loved ones as they wish. One might feel that if this story does provoke the necessary impetus to raise money, the cubicle gardens may then see merit in fund raising for the living here, whose colleagues in times past simply vanished with out trace?
“The bbc need to make these imaginary facts known to the authorities!”
At the very least, the basis for one of those ‘enhanced’ documentaries the BBC calls dramas.
Get the guys from Dr. Who or Sherlock on it, and there’ll be Keith Vaz at the end to catch him pitch centre at Twikkers, to bear him Officer & Gent-styly straight to the nearest benefit office after a civil ceremony with Diane.
It was a tragic story with an unpleasant end but the bbc’s take on it is predictably ridiculous.
By saying that he was “desperate” they imply that he knew the danger of what he was doing but had no other choice – which is, of course, complete bollocks. Even if we believe the tale of unrequited love spun by the bbc, would that compel him to do something that invariably leads to death by freezing and hypoxia? Un-fucking-likely. He was, obviously, simply ignorant of the dangers of riding in an aircraft wheel well.
The only motivation for this story is voyeurism – someone came to a sticky end in some leafy London suburb due to falling out of a plane. If it had been an illegal immigrant who fell off a lorry trailer at Dover and got run over, I doubt we’d have heard anything of it.
‘..the bbc’s take on it is predictably ridiculous.’
In extent and slant.
Clearly it was news due to the sad nature of the death, but also being ‘unusual’. No doubt. Factual report, at the time.
However, the rest, and such as the combover effort below, was/is a sign that Lord Hall Hall’s obsessive packing of the top floor is seeing vast cadres of minions being brought in for these makeweights to ‘manage’, and clearly none of them can find much to fill the dead air space their roles have been apparently created to meet, and are now resorting to ‘might have been’ scenarios in lieu of stopping where the story ends.
Or, in the case of seasoned pros like Humph, cherry picking out of context and creating a fiction.
Whatever it is, it is not news.
I agree, a vast proportion of the alledged news is just space filling trivia. Cut out the never ending editorials and skateboarding dog stories and you could cut the whole operation down to a handful of staff at a fraction of the cost.
The BBC has far too many staff, too many channels and a budget that is several billion pounds a year larger than it should be, were it to just fulfill its public service remit.
For some reason it is allowed to pretend that it is some global, multi channel, commercial broadcaster but without the inconvenience of share holder accountability. They don’t even regard themselves as being accountable to the licence payers.
It is time for the BBC to get back to the core values of public service broadcasting – or go truly commercial and compete in the market place.
On the other hand, completely dismantle the left-wing monolith and put the fekkers back in the real world – on the dole.
Had to laugh when watching Look North last night – in 6 months time, the Tour De France is coming to Yorkshire for a grand total of two days
The BBC Yorkshire team’s response is to create a Tour Correspondant role to create the occasional fluff piece for the local news. Somehow, I don’t think YTV will be throwing money at someone to fill such an insubstantial role like this
All aboard the Gravy Train!
I’m really looking forward to 30 seconds it takes to pass my vantage point on Harrogate Rd. Talk about all the local media gilding the lily.
N Campbell at his sneering best this morning, had Farage on re-immigration, as a pre cursor to 5lives orchestrated charade “Your Call” … banging in with Enoch/rivers of blood/faashhhissssst palava.
sorry folks! … I can t be bothered to listen in.
The drone is relentless, BBC 5live extoling the “joys” of immigration, over to “super” diverse Bham … yay!
on to Boston Lincs, where they somehow find some bod to bleat about how great it is in the town?
look … the facts are in … over 77% have had it with immigration, that’s 77% yep! a lot more than voted for the shitpan airheads we have in No10 …
sooooo one has to ask where is the 77% representative view of the public on the BBC? because they’ve been blabbering on all day and it looks like 90% of airtime is positive pro immigrant?
Another Labour triumph, the death of of the combover(sic) is all down to Kinnock
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-25622093
Hope this works out better than the Labour Party’s other great achievment – “the end of boom and bust”.
Suddenly the BBC discovers “immigration” and gives wall-to-wall publicity to tonight’s upcoming programme by one of its own on the subject. However, the flavour of what is to come was revealed on Today this morning. Reading metaphorically between the lines I suspect that we will get a mea culpa concerning the BBC coverage of EU “temporary” migrations and more or less nothing on the other, arguably more damaging to this country, migration from the subcontinent and Africa. The BBC is already revving up the (re)demonisation of Enoch Powell and it was Robinson this morning I think who steered the incest discussion away from “skin colour” back to the BBC’s relative comfort zone concerning the EU.
We also heard Humphrys’ predictable jeering at the UKIP position on immigration. Humphrys has, basically, 3 modes of asserting his personal belief during supposedly impartial searches for the truth:
1. the angry interruption mode where a coherent case is not allowed to be developed by the interviewee (contrasted with the easy ride given to those espousing the Humphrys-supported position);
2. the “I’m not a scientist or mathematician – I’m ignorant, me” mode (generally used against scientists or others who don’t buy into the CAGW fraud or economists/financial commentators who don’t support the tax, spend and freeze Labour line) where a blank refusal to understand or follow an argument and Humphrys insistence on endless repetition of minor points prevents the coherent development of the interviewee’s case; and
3. (deployed this morning with Farage) the “it’s all a joke isn’t it – surely you don’t seriously believe this crap” mode.
Humphrys treated and attempted to portray Farage as a joke politician supported by joke loonies and, thereby, damning the concerns expressed by Farage as “extremist” nonsense. Tellingly I’ve never heard a serious analysis of Powell’s speech on the BBC – even at the time it was made. Yes I’ve heard over and over again about the “rivers of blood” bit (a classical reference by a learned classicist) but you never hear the rest of the speech (available here) much of which was startlingly prescient.
Thus does the BBC undermine serious debate on a subject it has ignored, underplayed or subverted and will (despite Robinson’s programme tonight) continue to do so. I’m sure readers of this blog can think of other examples of subjects where the BBC does exactly the same.
Just before the Farage interview, John Humphrys was talking to Nick Robinson, who said he had asked Nigel if it was worth the country being less well off if immigration was stopped. “So be it” was the reply.
“Aha”, said Humphrys, “so Nigel Farage admitted the country would be worse off.”
Mr Humphrys will of course have heard all of the interview Nick Robinson did, so perhaps Farage did admit it, but based on what we were told on that section of Today, Farage admitted no such thing. “So be it” meant it would be worth it if it happened – something quite different to saying it would happen. Humphrys appeared to be reflecting his own prejudices onto Farage’s answer.
Sadly, that wasn’t dealt with in the subsequent discussion between the two.
If nothing else in the forthcoming reviews, etc, it may be worth the powers that be insisting that the BBC offers links to the full raw data or entirety of interviews before they get to work in the edit suite.
They can’t really object as this is the ultimate in information and education, and can be there as a service to those who may seek it.
Namely, anyone who knows full well that what the BBC offers up these days is seldom the full or even an accurate story.
‘Humphrys appeared to be reflecting his own prejudices onto Farage’s answer.’
Or creating an entirely new one to suit.
So Nick Robinson says (beginning @2:12 in) that the reason it’s okay to draw a line under the Rivers of Blood speech and openly discuss immigration today is because it’s also about white, Eastern European immigrants and not just race? LOL! Even when they’re supposedly having a “warts and all” discussion about immigration, they still can’t admit what the real catalyst is. Pace Mrs. Duffy, who really was complaining about whites from Eastern Europe, if it wasn’t for a certain type of mass immigration in a short period of time, this debate wouldn’t be happening. What a joke.
As for his question to Farage, it was about cutting immigration, not stopping it altogether. And it was he who said that Farage admits that curbing immigration would make the country poorer. He’s spinning a hypothetical. If that’s going to be the tenor of his documentary, it’s hardly going to be the approach to truth he claims it is.
Robinson said his real purpose was to challenge both sides about their being less than honest about their own side of the immigration debate. He’s already started being dishonest about Farage’s statements, so it’s not a good sign.
Farage addressed it to Humphrys and cleared it up. But Humphrys still tried to say Farage wanted a total ban on immigration, which is not true. It was nice to hear Robinson admit that the BBC deliberately tried to squash certain opinions, but he also said people just want to hear their own opinions reflected back at them. If the BBC is going to be dishonest about certain opinions, what’s the point?
The Truth About Immigration.
is bBC program about immigration.
therefore it will be anything but the truth.
An excellent forensic take-down of the execrable Mr Humphys, Umbongo.
I agree with you. Interestingly on the Daily Politics today Robinson was interviewed, he looked very tired and said that he was completing the still in the process of completing programme. I realise that i am becoming a paranoid conspiracist ( the BBC drives you to it) but surely it isn’t usual to be still working on programmes like this with only 9 hours to go before they are on air.
Unless of course you are having to make some late changes. I wonder what they could be and why they are being made so late in the day?
It’s not unusual. But you can bet some specific edits are being required. Judging from the dishonesty he displayed to Humprhys on Today, it’s not encouraging.
BBC News this morning tried to present Cable and Farage as “dismissing immigration caps” – agreeing with each other!
This gave the impression that both were ideologically opposed to caps. An absurd way of presenting the information.
I know Farage recently commented on being in favour of giving asylum to genuine asylum seekers but the BBC is playing silly buggers by spinning today’s news on immigration this way.
here is the original version of the BBC article regarding immigration –
http://24allnews.com/public-backs-immigration-cuts-poll/
(couldn’t find it in the cache, but this had the text in full (not sure about the first paragraph, but it is broadly the same as the article I read when they first put it up last night)
here is the new edited version –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25630036
Seems to me that the first version is direct to the point, and very clear. The second is more ‘bloated’ and contains this gem-
“Labour said the “gap between the government’s rhetoric and reality on immigration is continuing to undermine public confidence”.
Ever since mass immigration begun opinion polls have consistently show an overwhelming opposition to its continuation on the post war scale. (Despite the increase of immigrants and children of same as % of population) The only thing more consistent has been the liberal inquisition’s contemptuous dismissal of that consensus
This morning, the BBC News channel had a report about American Jihadist Colleen LaRose – “Jihad Jane” – who tried to kill a Swedish cartoonist for “insulting” islam. The report ended with a close-up photo of LaRose and the BBC presenter saying that “she is challenging American perceptions of what a terrorist looks like.” How prejudiced to assume that terrorists are generally dark-skinned, bearded muslim nutjobs when one of them is a blonde-haired, blue-eyed muslim nutjob.
I’m confused….
Why are these two being sentenced if they are only “alleged” to have taken part in the plot?
Or, to put it another way, why does the bbc refer to them as alleged participants even though they both pleaded guilty?
Were they waterboarded, or something?
Link: Usual bbc news bollocks
Challenging American perceptions of what a terrorist looks like, maybe, but not challenging the perceptions of what a terrorist’s religious beliefs usually are. Nice try, BBC. Islam is not a race. Nor is “Latino”, for that matter. But race is the only tool the Progressives in the media have, so everything looks to them like a racist nail.
A Professor Linda Colley on Radio spouting a load of left wing crap about Shakespeare, trying to twist his John of Gaunt speech in Richard II into a completely different socialist diatribe against the country.
It’s only when you begin to dig a little you find her left wing pedigree as a Grauniad contributor.
Yet another biased program which should have been neutral.
http://www.theguardian.com/profile/lindacolley
“Attacking Tories is what the BBC exists for, Boris Johnson claims after newspaper in ‘Sherlock’ calls him ‘dithering and incoherent'”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2535124/Attacking-Tories-BBC-exists-Boris-Johnson-claims-newspaper-Sherlock-calls-dithering-incoherent.html#ixzz2piqa3dyR
I actually found all this quite funny, especially as the only ones doing the BBC PR Dept’s job for them have appeared to be the Telegraph & DM.
If the Tories and they hadn’t reacted then the Graun would have had to quote The Indy quoting the New Statesman quoting a ‘source who says’, to spin it up.
Certainly a vast amount of effort for a prop that was not exactly on screen for long.
However, the schoolkid prank is out, and much tee-hee in the tuck shop at the housemaster po-faced covering for them by saying the BBC doesn’t do such things and it was just…etc…etc…
More seriously, prodding a stick in the strained balloon that is the BBC’s credibility for impartiality over and over may not be the smartest play.
Getting seem as the unofficial opposition trying get a clearly inept official opposition in to sign the chekky that sees the BBc right for another decade might look less than objective or professional to some.
Nigeria:
– INBBC attempts to reduce Islamic jihad persecution of Christians to a ‘sectarian’ conflict again.
And INBBC Radio 4’s, ‘Today’ is pushing Nigeria as an attractive economy!
1.)”What is Behind the Jihad in Nigeria?”
http://www.frontline.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1262:what-is-behind-the-jihad-in-nigeria&catid=35:nigeria-rep&Itemid=182
2.)”Nigeria gunmen ‘kill 30’ in Plateau state raid”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-25637066
“Islamic Terror Attacks on Christians
(Since 9/11)”
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/ChristianAttacks.htm
Is INBBC interested in this on Islamic LIBYA?:-
“GCHQ spies ‘heard Gaddafi give order that led to murder of WPc Yvonne Fletcher … but FAILED to pass the message on in time'”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2535112/Governments-listening-post-missed-Gaddafi-order-open-fire-protesters-demonstration-Yvonne-Fletcher-murdered.html#ixzz2pixB69zR
As the bBC said it was all fatchers fault, everything was fatchers fault.
Have just watched a report about a violent riot at HMP Oakwood on BBC News Channel where criminals broke up the interior and attacked staff. The report was without question designed to be, and was, an attack on the management of the prison itself and private prisons in general. Not a word of criticism of the prisoners, they were clearly to be considered as victims.
The tone of voice used by the reporter was clearly indicative right from the start, he gave the impression that the management were at fault, that they had attempted to hide facts about earlier incidents. Someone stated to be a former prison governor said these big prisons didn’t work – I wonder if he was the independent voice of experience we were expected to believe he was. Then more implied criticism. All we had by way of counter to this was a short recording of, I think, the Chief Exec of G4S.
And then into the studio to hear from someone from the Howard League for Penal Reform.
Partiality and bias again.
The BBC must be stopped. It is a subversive force, undermining our society.
This is quite funny. A BBC presenter tries to assert that the ‘polar vortex’ in the USA is a consequence of global warming / climate change, only to quickly be corrected by the meteorologist interviewee.
Oh if only we lived in a country with such freedom to be able to speak freely and tell the truth!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25633049
Good catch. That is, of course, Katty Kay, anchor of the ludicrous BBC World (Propaganda) News America, and the highest profile BBC journalist in the US. She appears regularly on MSNBC and as the guest host of NPR’s Diane Rehm show. She’s also business partner and good friends with White House spokesman Jay Carney’s wife. She gets invited to all the best White House shindigs.
Katty is also the most openly hyper-partisan of the lot, and that bar is set pretty high. She’s a committed Warmist. For example, there was the time she expressed her astonishment to her guest (now ex-)Nanny Bloomberg that the US public hasn’t completely bought into Warmism.
She “read somewhere”? That’s just sad, but very revealing of her mindset. If I said that to one of of the journalists who used to lurk here, they’d smack me down in a second, and rightly so. The professional meteorologist tells her it’s not a new phenomenon, but hasn’t happened for twenty years, and she refuses to believe it not once but twice. Don’t confuse her with facts or scientific expertise when it contradicts religious belief.
Katty is moronic in that video clip. The interviewee says “it’s been 20 years since the polar vortex moved this far south”
Katty then asks if these events are becoming more frequent.
The interviewer has an agenda, asks the questions and doesn’t listen to the responses.
SYRIA:
Islam Not BBC (INBBC) finds it difficult to decide which Islamic jihadist groups (i.e., ‘militants’, insurgents’, ‘rebels’) to support at present.
But whoever turn out to be INBBC’s favoured Islamic jihadists, it will probably, and stupidly, term the conflict an ‘Arab Spring’ or some such.
“Syria conflict: Rebel-on-rebel clashes spread in north”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25627344
For INBBC to report?:-
“FRENCH BROTHERS CONVERT TO ISLAM – QUICKLY SELF-DETONATE”
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2014/01/french-brothers-convert-to-islam-quickly-self-detonate.html
BBC political bias, and Sky News political bias too.
“SKY below the belt with Farage over Enoch Powell
The British media has got to drop the politically correct attacks on UKIP and play fair. ”
By Donna Rachel Edmunds.
[Opening excerpt]-
“What the UK really needs is a televisual news channel with a centre right editorial line. Much is made of the BBC’s bias, which is understandable as the corporation is financed through a kind of poll tax.
“But Sky News, the only other mainstream news reporting TV station in the UK, also sometimes betrays a left wing bias, perhaps unconsciously. The net result is a sharp imbalance in news reporting on British television screens.”
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4565/sky_below_the_belt_with_farage_over_enoch_powell
Every time some leftie interviewer on BBC or sky news plays the racist card in dealing with UKIP don’t worry about it they pile on votes by the thousands, THEY SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED!
very true. The liberal is quite stupid at times.
This ‘Daily Mail’ report doesn’t fit the BBC-NUJ propaganda for continuing mass immigration into Britain from all countries, including, of course, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan-
“Beaten, abused, raped… the Pakistani brides as young as 14 who are forced to marry strangers and lured to wretched lives in Britain ”
By RICHARD PENDLEBURY
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2534906/Beaten-abused-raped-brides-lured-wretched-lives-Britain.html#ixzz2pjJPZYR1
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I wonder how many just wanted to go to university?