Mid-week Open Thread
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Fedup2 Nov 15, 06:11
Midweek 13th November 2024
Have left the UK for warmer climes for a while … BBC ‘ news propaganda ‘ They seem surprised that… - Zephir Nov 15, 06:04
Midweek 13th November 2024
First comment below this video on Youtube : “I think David lammy should be Arrested for calling Donald Trump nasty… - tomo Nov 15, 06:03
Midweek 13th November 2024
He was key talent at the BBC until Tommy Robinson caught him out….. (as I understand it) [img]https://i.ibb.co/ggmgLdg/Screenshot-2024-11-15-at-06-01-47-John-Sweeney-on-X-real-Donald-Trump-has-picked-Tulsi-Gabbard-effec.png[/img] - Zephir Nov 15, 05:51
Midweek 13th November 2024
[img]https://i.postimg.cc/wTfT3Bby/Capturergfge.jpg[/img] - JohnC Nov 15, 05:21
Midweek 13th November 2024
Sri Lankan leader’s coalition headed for victory https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crr9n2w0lyzo A BBC article which is totally different in tone with what they… - JohnC Nov 15, 03:05
Midweek 13th November 2024
This sums up the Left perfectly. They are constantly watching GB News just looking for any chance to complain or… - StewGreen Nov 15, 00:27
Midweek 13th November 2024
Quick bit of info from GBnews.. “Musk has retweeted GBnews twice in the last 24 hours” One tweet was about… - StewGreen Nov 15, 00:20
Midweek 13th November 2024
The Alison Pearson case The police are now saying she was wrong to say it was a non-crime hate incident…
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
The time has come my little ones
to talk of different things
of paedophiles and Palestine
of climate change and meme’s
BBC radio 5 not exactly enamoured that the Welshman who beat up a couple of burglars was acquitted in 23 minutes.
How DARE he stand up to those freelance socialists.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/cleared-jury-20-minutes-businessman-6554476
Good old British common sense is still alive and well – or at least not as sick as we thought.
thanks god for lawyers, defending this mans right to protect his property. Lets hear it for the lawyers wooohoooooo
The best result since Mark Duggan. There may just be enough sensible, good people left in the UK to save us yet!
No David, thank god (and those 17th century non -conformists ) for the jury system.
I’m sure the liberal inquisition will abolish it as soon as possible.
Heres another example of why jury independence is vital (took a while to find but should’nt be fogoten)
http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod1/1_5_lay_people/1_5_2_juries/16_stephen_owen.htm
Lawers played no part in it
of course lawyers played the most important part in it. they are the ones who presnted the case to the jury, so they could form an opinion bsed on the facts
They are trying already, look at the EU arrest warrants .
The guy says this verdict is evidence that your criminal justice system works, but I say it’s still in dire shape if he even went to trial in the first place. Madness still reigns.
The fact that it went to court is a dreadful indictment on our society.
Some senior Police, and CPS people must have believed a jury would convict.
They certainly didn’t bring the case because they wanted to show him up ad a hero.
The burglars by the way got a 75 quid fine!
75 bloody quid, that says even more about our liberal lefty establishment figures. It can only get worse!
CPS have no skin in the game, so they can waste everyone’s time and money with impunity and persecute innocent citizens for having unapproved thoughts. I haven’t looked it up, but I bet they offered the poor man some plea deal with the threat of a life sentence if the jury convicted him. A life sentence for assault? Do actual criminals ever get that? Meanwhile, attempted burglary (surely not their first time, either) gets a fine barely more than half that of not paying the London congestion charge, FFS? No wonder the police didn’t bother helping him in the past. It wouldn’t have made a difference. Somehow I don’t see this issue being one of Nicky’s next Big Questions.
Same problem with prosecutor abuse in the US, really.
I would say that, despite the acquittal, it is important that the defendant and the circumstances be examined in the court of law. Failure to do so would lead to cases of vigilantism – cases where the innocent are killed or forced to move home – as is the case of several people falsely accused of child sex abuse. In this case it was held that the amount of force used was proportional to the circumstances. In other cases it may be held that the amount of force was disproportionate.
Much of the rage in this case derives from the fact that the man was arrested protecting his own property whilst the criminals got away with a slap on the wrists (figuratively). In the cold light of day the full circumstances have been brought to light and, we hope, judged without favour or prejudice. We certainly don’t want Judge Lynch on our streets.
Its on the list of achievements of cultural Marxism “8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime”
Don’t be surprised that’s exactly what we have as it’s what Politicians since Nu Liebour have been working for.
“Failure to do so would lead to cases of vigilantism”
I don’t know if there’s a legal definition of vigilantism but, IMO, a vigilante is someone who pursues a criminal unnecessarily, when the immediate threat has passed (“Death Wish” style). Defending yourself, your family, or your property at the time of the attack or invasion is not, IMO, vigilantism.
It seems to me that the police and the Left have a protectionist attitude and are far too quick to make accusations of vigilantism.
It would appear to be the broken legs that concern people. As crime is not my lifestyle choice, I’m not an expert on the precise amount of minimum force required in a wide range of scenarios. Most people aren’t. Since the criminal chose to pick up a fence post first, it seems obvious to me that the businessman would want to ensure that he couldn’t use it. It seems the court came to the same conclusion.
I’d give him a medal.
Your slippery slope is based on a false premise, Arthur. This wasn’t vigilantism in the slightest. This was somebody confronting criminals on his own property, not forming a lynching posse with the neighbors and riding around the countryside. The man didn’t know the criminals were still there when he left home. All he knew was there had been a break-in, so cannot be accused of being a vigilante.
I think the violence meated out was thought to be a bit excessive by the Police and CPS. One of the men he beat up had two broken legs.
But as someone in authority pointed out recently, other people who have come from different sky’s tend to carry out their own justice.
So on balance, I’d say these thieves got off light.
Even if breaking the criminal’s legs was excessive, the life sentence threatened surely is far more than the average career criminal gets for a similar assault.
True.
The moral some people might take from this story is that if you’re going to beat the crap out of burglars in defence of your home and family then you should not call the police.
It would even improve the crime statistics. Perhaps not a promising development for society in general, though.
‘..if you’re going to beat the crap out of burglars in defence of your home and family then you should not call the police.’
May depend on which police.
I think it was a Whicker’s World when he was chatting with some cops who’d been called to a crime scene where a home owner had shot an intruder. Seems he’d been holding a gun on the guy, who tried to negotiate release by saying best to let him go as he’d be inside only a few years and when out would return to rape his wife and kill his kids.
Seems the cops ‘took a view’ on his reaction and justice was a wee bit more blind that time than some may feel was intended.
Mr. Whicker appeared to understand though.
BBC 5LIVE
BBC DELIBERATELY CONFLATING RABID HATRED OF JEWISH COMMUNITY BY ULTRA FAR RIGHT FASCIST HUNGARIAN NATIONALIST PARTY,JOBBIK (WITH ITS OWN MILITARY WING) INCLUDING ITS CONTINUATION OF THE “BLOOD LIBEL” MYTH, A VISIT BY ITS LEADER
… ON HOLOCAUST DAY!
With
Micheal Savage, Robert Spencer being denied access to the UK, and earlier by Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders? … why?
does Micheal Savage have a military wing?
has Robert Spencer ever called for violence against anyone?
We have genuine, deliberate, organised, “tooled up” fascists
…. a writer? and a radio host?, even the most rudimentary
reading of the facts should puzzle anyone … what could be the reason?.
If you listen in to V Drearybyshire, you ll hear talk of the muslim community? a diatribe by a “hate not hope”
gobsh-te, even a recording of M Savage mentioning “the Muslim community” … WHY? after all Jobbik has aligned itself with … wait for it 😀
the “Poor Palestinians TM”, so they re supportive of the ahem … “Islamic cause” … how strange?
The BBC … dangerously subversive, insidiously deceitful
they didn t sack this guy because he was Muslim
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19286023
“The Morocco World News reported in early November that Vona even told a Turkish university audience that “Islam is the last hope for humanity in the darkness of globalism and liberalism.” On a speaking tour of Turkish colleges, Vona also highlighted Hungary’s ethnic and blood links with the Turks, recalling the once-enormous Ottoman Empire which conquered Hungary and stretched as far west as Vienna.”
hmmm … got this from “hate not hopes” own site.
surprise surprise … he didn t say anything about that, on air this morning. 😀
how can the BBC infer victim status in the same breath
slyly add Muslim community in with the at risk list?
this is patently untrue
Yesterday morning Npower’s chief executive Paul Massara was interviewed by the Montague Woman. He was asked what the effect was of Labour promising to hold energy prices for 20 months. I don’t think he gave Sarah the answer she wanted. He explained that at head office in Germany if they had money to invest somewhere in their empire they now gave greater consideration to whether it was worth investing in the UK and I am not surprised that part of the interview is not available on the BBC’s news clips. It was not the part of the interview that Radio 4 then led with at their 9am news which managed to find the part which had a minor criticism of David Cameron (sorry I am unable to find that part of the interview either or it has not been made available )
Have just listened to a 15-minute left-wing tirade by Linda Colley slagging off the UK system of an unwritten constitution, suggesting that we should introduce a written constitution. Virtually no attempt to put the substantial case for retaining an unwritten constitution; she referred to cited advantages in sneering terms. No mention of the impact of elements of written constitution from the EU/ECHR and whether these had been beneficial. No consideration of whether written constitutions had actually proved beneficial, for example the communist countries where paper rights meant absolutely nothing, or the problems the US have with their different branches of Government.
I wouldn’t mind polemical programmes like this if a) the opportunity was given for different views to be expressed and b) the political stance of the presenter was openly declared. But with the BBC it is all one-way traffic, going left, left, left…
You have only to listen to the verbal gymnastics that are used in the US by the liberal left to circumvent the constitution,and put their own interpretation on it.
This one may have been a bit orphaned, and seems interesting given the BBC’s juggles on funding models, so forgive my porting over…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/brought-to-you-by-me.html
‘If it’s all that simple, why not take sponsorship in the UK, Mr Bowman? Or would Lord Hall like to answer that one ?’
Oh, dearie me. Those are questions. The BBC doesn’t like questions. Especially the top tier.
Maybe in due course a ‘spokesperson’ will emerge to either express comfort in all things, or point at the latest #foiexcluded swerve from the world’s least trusted and most opaque media monopoly?
‘A place where ‘native’ takes place…. where you are sponsoring BBC editorial…’
So not only are they removing the no ads argument, they are trying to bluff its way through getting paid to make nice.
Those daft puff pieces by Mr. Sopel from the Middle East now explained if not excused.
Unique funding indeed.
Of course the BBC is interested in overseas commercial revenue. It’s part of why they caved in to China right before the last Olympics, and why they cut BBC World News America in half and dropped it from the BBC’s US commercial channel and dumped it onto a few PBS stations in favor of more Gordon Ramsey reruns. They’ll soon need Worldwide revenue to pay for the World Service, which means less profits to funnel back into executive salaries and perks and office renovations.
WDR is probably asking a rhetorical question about UK sponsorship, though. He can’t actually believe it’s an option. In reality, it would be impossible to find some combination of license fee and sponsorship enough to keep the BBC afloat at anything like its current leviathan size, never mind going commercial altogether. There simply isn’t enough of a domestic market for it. So they can’t even start.
Aside from that, it’s interesting that WDR doesn’t ask how the ever-increasing expansion of the BBC tentacles like this has anything to do with the BBC’s remit.
Speaking of remits, the BBC seems to have added a new string to their ‘we didn’t say it… he did’ #1degreeofseparation armoury… the ‘guest editor’. Hot on the heels of Russell and KT, we bring you…
BBC World News
From our Facebook guest editor Stephen Sackur in #India.
A GUN FOR WOMEN? – spotted this story on the BBC India website, an Indian arms manufacturer making a new tiny handgun aimed at the women’s market – trying to exploit the fear induced by terrible cases of sexual violence against women which are sadly all too common in today’s India. http://bbc.in/LclrdM
This idea seems so wrong I don’t know where to begin. How many Indian women really want to be armed?? Who could afford the $2000 for this gun? And how could the manufacturer seriously sell it in maroon jewellery case because ‘women like their ornaments’ ? Bonkers. Let me know what you think.
He’s prodigious, I’ll give him that… about half a dozen since lunch.
Thing is, there’s a dubious precedent at play here. Now you may agree (as I do) that aspects of the story are troubling.
But so too is the notion of anyone handed control of the BBC edit suite, broadcast switch pulpit being given carte blanche to declaim what is, or is not ‘so wrong’.
It could, in the wrong hands, be open to abuse.
Bonkers indeed.
Did anyone see the BBC2 programme last night “Russia on Four Wheels” (I think it was called)? A road trip undertaken by two beeboids, starting in Sochi, with one driving off north to Murmansk, and the other headed off eastwards.
Second episode last night, the first on Monday, the whole trip seemed to take 3 weeks in the making.
Quite informative I thought, photogenic countryside, not too serious, slightly deferential maybe, lady beeboid (Anita Arnand) somewhat irritating, but it all changed about halfway through last night’s episode when they both introduced (in different cities, one city each) the newly implemented “anti-gay” laws, asking sundry russians their view on that.
Why did they do that, I wondered? There had been no prior reference and none after, it was just completely out of character with the whole piece, and just riled the people they were interviewing.
Quite bizarre, that of all the things they could have raised, that should be the one. Still, there was no mention of global warming which was something.
Ah, but gayness causes global warming, apparently (or the other way around), so it’s there by implication.
Speaking of global warming (or more realistically, over-blown climate change), this is refreshing, innit…
http://www.thegwpf.org/change-uk-free-nuclear-fracking/
I watched the first episode. It soon became obvious that the two idiot, “look at me I am so diverse, inclusive, liberal and free” presenters were struggling to get their heads around the reality of a nation that has been through so much conflict, death and revolution in its history. A nation where communism has failed and been replaced with capitalism, virtually overnight. Yet here were these two prancing idiots trying to offer us their banal views on Russia today with absolutely no comprehension of the historic reality of how it must have been to live through some of the events. I turned it off when Anita, or whatever her name is excitedly told us that she had an interview with a Pussy Riot member lined up !………for f***s sake does anybody care !
Banal, lightweight, lefty BBC crap for like minded juveniles.
‘just riled the people they were interviewing’
Seems the BBC are also still trying to work folk into a lather about the two toilets side by side at Sochi.
Sadly not looking like it’s even working as they try their very own bit of non-diverse finger pointing, as a few posters (esp. parents with young kids) seem to see it as a neat idea.
Not sure if, at 20,000 (Ok, and counting, along the breeding colonies of the top floor and cubicle gardens), the BBC can yet tell the entire world that we are either with them or… they’ll do a daft report on us.
Anita Rani actually. I cannot see what her particular qualifications for this program are. Does she speak Russian?
I stand corrected, Anita Rani it was. She didn’t speak a word of Russian during her trip, so I guess not. Her qualification? Fancied a bit of a jolly, nothing else on her agenda for 3 weeks.
” Does she speak Russian?”
It’s enough that she speaks the international language of victim empathy (a bit like Esperanto only with even more insufferable adherents).
If they are so fond of gays maybe someone could arrange for them to be dragged of the street by a gang of rough Russian homos and violently sodomised in an alley.
The BBC reported this upbeat story about how the easing of sanctions on Iran as part of the nuclear deal is helping improve the lives of ordinary Iranian citizens.
What they don’t want you to know is this:
The whole deal with Iran is a sham. It was only ever meant to be a public relations stunt for the President and His Administration, to show that they’re great on foreign policy and making peace. The BBC is happy to promote the idea that the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate-in-Chief has accomplished something good for all. In addition, they’re pleased to see the easing of sanctions on Iran, because they see sanctions as “collective punishment” of the people. Do a search of bbc.co.uk with that phrase and be inundated with results.
Except for Israel, of course. Sanctions and boycotts totally justified there, and the population does deserve collective punishment. That site search I’ve suggested will not produce any results with Israel as anything but the villain. BBC journalists themselves sympathize with the boycott:
Tweet deleted after he got caught.
With regard to the bbc and sanctions against sovereign states, they certainly promoted sanctions against South Africa during the apartheid (and that’s pronounced apart height, not apart hate, by the way) era. The fact they were prepared to destroy a first world economy in South Africa, then, and a first world economy in Israel, now, is typical of the abominable thought processes that pass for civilisation in the confines of the bbc.
I’d just like to see some moral consistency, that’s all.
It seems that the £20,000 or so that the BBC spent sending Linda Yueh to Davos was good value.
Linda Yueh @lindayueh 6m
You never know who you’ll run into at #Davos…. pic.twitter.com/KykVovFyAX
Yet Linda Yueh seems to think that it is all hard work. As she mostly seems to do selfies I wonder what work she actually does.
Is Laura K back on the roster yet, because her ‘folk going in and out of doors’ could complement Linda’s efforts nicely.
I give up: who the heck is she so excited to have met in that picture ? Looks like an even-rougher-than-the-last-time-I-saw-her Goldie Hawn, but what would she be doing in Davos ?
Who is it ?
Listened to Mishal Hussein interviewing Matt Damon at Davos (Today programme, Friday morning); and Matt said one minute he was bumping into the PM of Finland and the next he was bumping into Gordon Brown. I thought Davos was for the rich and the influential. In which category is our ex- Prime Minister?
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/cast-list.html
Seems everyone is impressed, if concerned there will be enough celebs to keep the BBC contingent in sound bites..
‘Doubtless there’ll be important interviews with Emma Thompson, Lang Lang, Bono, Ellen McArthur and the grand old Duke of York.’
Shame on you!
Don’t you remember that Gordon Brown saved the World?
He’s more Davros than Davos.
BBC R5L’s Claire Thompson setting the agenda ahead of tonight’s QT and QT Extra:
In that one question one can almost taste the resentment that must be present in BBC newsrooms over the fact that unemployment has fallen faster than expected.
AND the economy is racing ahead AND crime figures are the lowest in 30 years – so the BBC just ignores that and leads on NHS waiting times…..
I’ve just remembered why the Tories can’t take credit for the recent jobs figures. Remember the BBC mantra for economic issues they don’t like:
“It all started in America”.
How dare they take jobs!
No Claire, let’s give credit to the Lib Dems for their inner-thigh stimulus policies.
Plan B, Claire. Why can’t we get rid of the Torreees and have nice progressive Plan B, like Monsieur Hollande has implemented avec so much success en France!
It’s starting to look like just about anything from the BBC now ends up with ‘What do you think’?
Seems bizarre to be demanding £145.50 when they are clueless.
Of course it’s just another #1degreeofseparation ploy, as (for now) they can’t say what they think directly, so they set it up, pose the question, filter the answers to get the one required and… presto… ‘speaking for the nation’.
Seems bizarre to be demanding £145.50 when they are clueless.
No they’re not clueless at all, they know what they’re doing. You see, the facts aren’t good for the narrative – economic growth up, unemployment down, employment up, tax allowances up etc. What to do? You throw out ‘what do you think?’ and gather up a load of voices saying things are still terrible. Narrative sustained.
‘The Tories’.
Not ‘The Government’ or ‘The Coalition’.
Slip of the tongue? Who cares? No-one at the BBC – they don’t even know they’re doing it.
The BBC have done everything they possibly can to present the falling unemployment figures in a bad light.
“Unemployment falls to the point where the bank of England will consider raising interest rates” was the entirely negative spin put on it by the BBC, with dire predictions about what it would mean for people with loans and mortgages. This even after the bank of England had said it was not considering an interest rate rise because of continuing low inflation. This was an entirely ignored by the BBC until the very end when it got a brief mention, but only in the terms of how continuing low interest rates was very bad news for savers.
Everything is bad news according to the BBC. Blame the Conservatives. And if it happens to be good news then it is certainly nothing to do with the conservatives.
Not setting the agenda, just piling on the obvious. The question is whether or not the allegedly impartial, third-party QT production staff bases their decisions on which questions to allow from audiences on the BBC’s news agenda, or on their own allegedly impartial, third-party interpretation of the week’s headlines.
I know which my money’s on.
I was born in Dundee and lived and worked in Dundee all my life. I watched QT last night and paused on the crowd shots and can confirm I have never seen any of these people before. Dundee’s population is about 140k so it is possible, and even some of the audience members had Scottish accents, but there was Australian accents, English accents, and to my mind predominantly West Coast Scottish accents. I don’t know why they would need to bus in lefties to Dundee, it would be as ridiculous as sand to the arabs/ice to the eskimos/etc/etc, but it does lend credence that the audience is not local. Wasn’t Jim Sillars excellent? One of the last lefty shitebag dinosaurs roaming the Scottish wastelands……….and ‘Thatcher’ mentioned 28 minutes in too…………….
It begins:
Report: Obama Admin. Worries Israel Is Riling Up the Jews
BBC beliefs confirmed. Nothing is His fault, you see, and it’s okay to accuse Jews of dual loyalty. But remember kids, unlike with the dirty Jews, it’s wrong to say that Mohammedans in the West are increasingly more loyal to their co-religionists than to the countries in which they live.
David, forgive me for criticising one of your fellow countrymen but Mr Kerry comes across as (I was going to say a bit, but in reality I think he’s a lot) thick. How did someone such as he manage to climb the greasy pole to such a height? As I recall some years ago he didn’t acquit himself at all well during one of the presidential campaigns (I can’t recall if it was the Bush second term election or the obama first term election).
Kerry is an old hand at sucking up to our enemies. He thinks he’s helping, and that the real enemy is in the US public. So does the President. They actually believe that Israel is the root cause only because of what it does, not because its existence was considered evil by all the Muslim countries even before it started. Quietly, they also want it dismantled, but they can’t say that out loud. So they continue to push the phoney two-state solution. Same goes for most BBC employees, I suspect.
But the worst thing about this whole Israel whipping up Jewish anger narrative is that there are plenty of non-Jews standing in support of Israel and criticizing Kerry and the President over this. They can’t be accused of dual loyalty, so this argument kind of falls flat. I realize the Beeboids will simply declare that those are all Evangelicals who are equally dangerous because they believe the End Times are upon us.
I see BBC News is in a little quandary over the acid attack case. On one hand the burka-wearing assailant wasn’t a Muslim (sigh of relief in the editorial office) but on the other hand the perpetrator is a black woman. Hmmm.
Don’t remember this being reported on BBC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBtct-z9JS8.
This can’t go on !!!!
Odd, the caption says they were ‘angry’ (which excuses much, apparently).
Usually that gets the MSM out.
Can’t believe Paul Mason wasn’t alerted the day before at the very least.
It was filmed and posted by the Muslims themselves. They seem to be claiming it as some sort of victory, shouting “cowards” as the several hundred of them chase a few dozen police. What eventually happened I don’t know, why there were no repercussions I don’t know, why the BBC did not report it I do know.
After reading about that Welsh businessman facing the full force of the law for defending himself and business, it can be hard to retain much faith in the enforcement or legal systems.
But I do reserve sympathy for most beat bobbies place by armchair commanders in impossible situations.
Here we appear to have more than threatening affray in progress, yet nothing to prevent it.
These noble warriors taunting with cries of coward know full well if just one of these hi-vis heroes stood ground and a beard got even singed, Dave & Theresa would be round with a press corps in tow within the hour to personally rip their epaulettes off whilst apologising to the bandana-wrapped charmers popping 2-star in their drained Cidre bottles.
It must be appreciated that in UK nu-law, if you’re pissed as you beat someone up, if your religion forbids drinking, you get a pass. Or something.
Looking forward to the interviews and arrests of those caught on camera perpetrating violence. The Mets softly softly approach doesn’t seem to be working too well does it?
Still they’ve had a team investigating film of the Spurs supporters chanting Y….D’s in support of their team and the CPS is prosecuting three of them!
So reassuring to know that London’s police can see so clearly the real danger to London’s public.
Funny Crimewatch last night should feature the EDL kicking off with Plod (UAF nowhere to be seen – at least in the BBC’s footage), and loads of mugshots for us peruse. ‘Look, here’s one trying to kick a police dog’ (and missing).
Funny the BBC shouldn’t make much, if anything, of this either:
http://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2014/01/18/uk-police-confirm-muslims-run-their-own-justice-system-in-no-go-zones-where-murders-and-rape-go-unreported/
‘Parts of the UK are becoming no-go areas for police because minority communities are operating their own justice systems, according to the Chief Inspector of Constabulary.’
Agenda? What agenda??
Tonight there are numerous reports about the acid attack on a black woman by someone in a Jilbab – (Satans Postbox).
Whilst this has been a horrific crime and worthy of reporting, the BBC has taken the opportunity to describe it as a Muslim veil, with the clear implication that it was worn by someone who should not have been wearing it.
It has taken pains not to say anything about Muslims and the oppression of women through this garment. It’s pretty obvious that they feel there is as great a crime in the ‘missuse’ of this hideous garment, as there was in throwing acid.
There is of course the point of view that these garment should be banned in public because the can be used to disguise the person wearing them, but that has received no discussion what so ever, and it’s unlikely that it ever will.
Not fhe first time the burka disguise has been used to help commit a crime
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22811466
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-18678522
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8021627.stm
This is very curious – kill someone in public view using a method favoured by people of a particular religion then quote from the holy book of that religion and the BBC feels it necessary to ‘keep it secular’ in their reporting.
Then again report on public disquiet on a form of clothing favoured by a particular sect of a certain religion and again the BBC ‘keeps it secular’.
But now Radio 2 News has been banging on about an acid thrower using ‘religious’ dress to disguise themselves, and as you so rightly say, it is as if the acid throwing is trivial, the real crime is the offense and opprobrium that while surely accrue to those followers of the BBC’s favourite religion.
Meanwhile the web team manage without making any religious comment at all.
i think it is very disturbng the way the bbc and radio 5 are lining up these anti isreali guests on there phone ins to defend anelkas nazi salute tribute to his racist and anti semetic comedian freind in france,one example is professor ellis cashmore who was on bbc radio west midlands this morning who said he found this anelka story was just a storm in a teacup that was blown out of all proportion by the media and he has jewish freinds that must be self hating in my view that said they found this story quietly amusing,what a disgusting thing to say from this leftie so called acedemic and you have to wonder if he was making it up about his so called jewish freinds.it is strange how the left and the far left are coming to anelkas defence,would they take the same stance if it was nick griffin that stood accused of making this nazi salute.i dont think so.
Some people feel that if others blame the Jews they must be right . That’s because the BBC always reports against Israel and rarely gives any credit to the Israeli innovations and medical advances that save lives. See as an example this week’s news positive news from Israel. http://verygoodnewsisrael.blogspot.co.il/2014/01/right-down-to-wire.html
The BBC can’t report stuff like that except very rarely lest they get “complaints from both sides” about being a Zionist puppet. They’re dedicated to impartiality, you know.
blown out of all proportion?
its only a deliberate reminder of a genocide
running into millions, mass murder factories,
a muslim (as it nearly always is) trying to keep it up front and personal, with “it won t be long” imperative … yes!
what s the problem? eh?
why doesn t Ellis Cashmore draw a funny cartoon, a bit of lampooning … try tearing a couple of pages of a book …
what could be more innocuous, more inoffensive? …… hmmm unless
Well, strictly speaking it is being blown out of proportion. Just as Di Canios affiliations were made much of but were irrelevant to his actual worth as a manager. So what if the dumb ass is a racist?
What galls me is the BBCs attitudes to both cases. In one the perpetrator required perpetual damnation and for the other, well, meh? Now what could the difference between the cases be?
The thing about the Anelka inverted Nazi salute, or indeed Paulo Di Canio’s Fascist salute is, no matter what the reasons behind it, it has no place in a football match or indeed any sport. Same goes for the Black Panther fists.
When taking to the track, field or arena, you should leave your politics and other baggage at the entrance.
“Labour picks BBC man to oppose John Randall for Uxbridge & South Ruislip seat in general election”
http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/local-news/labour-picks-bbc-man-oppose-6556365?
Chris Summers demonstrating what the BBC actually mean by ‘impartiality’.
That’ll be another nail in the charter’s coffin (now beginning to resemble the sole of a Wigan millworker’s clog).
Keep ’em coming.
BBC man standing for Labour is a bit of a ‘dog bites man’ story – totally predictable.
The BBC in full unctuous fawn mode (albeit 70 on the Mandela Scale) about some ole` trout who tickled their tummies the last 30 years. She`s gone to smooth linen suits in the next dimension apparently(who knew?)
Some Jocelyn(what else)…she`d be double-barrelled as a surname were she not a widow I expect.
The BBC have mentioned her death in black tie voice now for a few bulletins since lunchtime.
Anybody alive who even heard of her “Voice of the Viewer and the Listener”( the “Listener” added in 1991 when that august pile of Punch went south I expect!)? Not me anyway…
The fawning over her shows that she was no Mary Whitehouse…tea and baps with no mention in their bulletins over anything unpleasant like Savile and Brand/Wossy.
Whitehouse got a panning from them as I recall.
But lots on Lady Floella Benjamin and the joys of cBBC…
VLV…Order of the Brown Nose for those nomarks…and the Savile period piece seems not to be there anymore online!
But they`re good at welcoming Entwhistle…Sept 2012..and without a trip on the revolving door, they`re welcoming Tony Hall!
Until I found this site I thought I`d have to pester Barry Took to tell the BBC that they`re shit…I had never heard of Jocelyns jalopy for Archers cringers, and all round landed toadies!
The BBCs idea of “license fee payer challenge” alright!
Bad week for the BBC-they lost some 41 year old on the World Service we`d never heard of…but boy do they go on about him…might have grown up to be self-employed and not some gobshite for the BBC had he not clocked off so early.
Sorry-the BBC make me sick at times like these…after the way they treated Thatcher, the gloves are off.
We`re the collected ghosts of Mary Whitehouse- and old Jocelyns a tweedy bath loofah for them all.
Mary W, Margaret T in heaven?…hope they`re pleased with us all here!
Sorry to appear a bit thick but I didn’t follow any of that. Who died?
Jocelyn Hay-ex chairwowan of the VLV(Voice of the Listener and the Viewer)…been going since 1983, with that word “Viewer”-for the new fangled telly types-tacked on in 1991.
Errors above then eh?
No, not thick at all-I`d never heard of VLV.let alone her…but the BBC mentioned enough today to imply she`ll get a warm bier on Last Word very soon.
The BBCs kind of rebel that challenges the sock garter length in The Archers…but doesn`t seem so arsed about Saville, BBC pay offs or Russell Brands audio collage for Kristallnacht in 2008 alongside Jonathan Ross( did we ever see any of that £18 million?…or did hie manager take it to hell with himself just before Winterval?)
When will the BBC do a tribute to one of their many charwomen-who actually DO things at the BBC for the primsters like Hay or Jenni
Murray?
And if any are white English and with tweedy voices or double barrelled names…then my names not Salman Rushdie!
ChrisH’s effusions are usually incomprehensible. The best action is to scroll through them unread.
‘The best action’
Or, oddly, for some, read them, say you don’t, others shouldn’t, and go OT (mea culpa, me too) on BBC Bias to indulge in a personal-style commentary based on opinion followed by an instruction based on no more than self-belief.
Can’t imagine where such a mindset prevails.
Which is, sadly, what I did. I am sure Chris H had something good to say, but could not relay it.
We all know how the BBC *bigged up* Mo Farah, even had him shortlisted for Sports Personality of the Year award, well, it would appear he has done a runner. Haven’t heard much about this on the BBC, I wonder why??
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2014/01/mo-farah-from-lefty-hero-to-tax-exile-in-10-short-months/
Didn`t listen to the fekkin awful Toady today, but did hear some remark from some conchie who was avoiding WW1 because he was a Socialist…was a conscentious objector, and , in all conscience, could not leave his business etc.
The tribunal said that if really WAS a Socialist as he said…then he`d have no conscience to obey-so F888 off and get some `in( I paraphrase!).
Joyful…yet no BBC type saw the genius and long-suffering cri de couer of this man in the face of a bleeding heart do-goodin Socialist butt scuttler whining on.
I think we have our “screw the BBC/Guardian card here”
A conscious Socialist cannot exist-it`s an oxymoron, and has been since 1917 if truth be told.
A conscientious Socialist-has no conscience-axiom above…so f888 off and get a job…we`ll help by closing all your bunny hutches like the BBC, Unite in the meantime.
Great bloke on that tribunal…who was he, and can we have him alongside Ray Honeyford in the Angels Alcove?
I would certainly be a conscientious objector if there was a war today.
I don’t believe this is a country worth fighting for, especially not to keep these arseholes in power which is ultimately what soldiers are there to do.
In any event so many immigrants have been allowed in that there’s a ready made invasion force already here.
Lets face it if another government did take over the running of the UK it’s hard to believe it could be any worse than what we have now !
Hmm well it’s a sad irony that natural selection has a big fault in that the brave are reckless and strong willed die young ! mainly in war, where as the timid and safe minded survive and on it goes until we as a species cower ourselves out of existent !
As I feel the oft abused lefty phrase ‘lions led by donkeys’ should actually be ‘lions died so donkeys could live ‘!
The BBC always seems keen to report on the activities of Parliamentary Committees.
Let’s see if it covers this.
‘Among the documents recently submitted to a UK Parliamentary committee, a live grenade nestles in the straw.
It was written by a scientific luminary, Pierre Darriulat. For nearly 50 years, his professional life has been devoted to particle physics, nuclear physics, condensed matter physics, and astrophysics. For seven years, he was Director of Research at CERN – one of the world’s largest, most famous, and respected laboratories……’
And this is what the distinguished prof has to say about the IPCC’s ‘Summary for Policymakers’ (you know, the one cooked up by politicians and environmentalists):
‘Darriulat says “the main point to appreciate” is that, because the Summary was written for policymakers rather than for other scientists, it “can not be a scientific document.” His next remarks deserve to be displayed on every billboard in Times Square:
When writing the SPM, the authors are facing a dilemma: either they speak as scientists and…recognize that there are too many unknowns to make reliable predictions…or they try to convey what they “consensually” think…at the price of giving up scientific rigour. They deliberately chose the latter…they have distorted the scientific message into an alarmist message…’
Could be a long wait or if the BBC do cover it, they’ll get one of heir tame warmists into the studio to singlehandedly pooh pooh the poor old prof. (who, of course, won’t be interviewed) – maybe along the lines of ‘Well, I used to have a lot of respect for Darriulat but I’m sorry to say he’s gone a bit bonkers in recent years’ (as used on David Bellamy some years ago – Jeremy Vine Show I think it was).
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/12/20/celebrated-physicist-calls-ipcc-summary-deeply-unscientific/
I remember that episode of the Jeremy Vine show in 2006. He had Jonathan Porrot on.
It turned my stomach. I could not believe the little rhetorical tricks they used to verbally ‘assassin’ David Bellamy.
I actually took notes.
How’s this for balance?
http://order-order.com/2014/01/20/see-the-bbc-noticeboard-mocking-tory-cock-ups/
A BBC spokesman said: “We don’t immediately know what staff notice board Mr Wilson is referring to, but whatever it is; it won’t have anything to do with the BBC’s output.”
Or to put it another way
‘Run along little boy and stop bothering the grown-ups’.
If the BBC ‘don’t immediately know’ will they be investigating to find out or doesn’t this evidence of bias warrant that?
Also will the Conservative Party be making a formal complaint?
Actually I know the answer to both questions – NO
“If the BBC ‘don’t immediately know’”
—
Presumably another example of that astounding uncuriosity one keeps hearing is a corporate specialty.
There is an interesting report on WUWT of a dispute between BBC Scotland and the University of the West of Scotland about the UWS’s Bias in Broadcasting research on the Scottish Referendum Ccampaign..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/23/ho-ho-bbc-threatens-academic-demands-raw-data-for-study/#more-102006
On the News at 10 tonight, I learnt all about something called the Minimum Income Standard. Now, this might be a concept well known to readers here, but I’m embarrassed to say that I do not recall hearing of it before. The BBC seemed to have moved along from the Cost of Living crisis with the development of this model.
To demonstrate the point, the BBC highlighted the case of poor old Wayne, a pizza delivery owner on £12k per year. He seemingly lives a pretty miserable life, well below this Minimum Income Standard.
And yet, if you look at this link closely, you will see that he owns a pretty large TV, nicely positioned and wait till the end and he drives off in a newish looking Ford Fiesta (or something of that ilk).
I’m not against effort and resourcefulness, all for it in fact and credit where credit is due, but he seems to have made his £12k pa stretch.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25872489
He also expected us to believe that he can only afford to live on soup, and in the next breath told us that he could now only go down the pub with his mates once a month instead of several times a week. ……..Yea right !
As an aside, it would appear that the BBC have had to man the boats to come up with an answer to Coalition claims that the cost of living is starting to improve IF tax cuts are taken into consideration.
BBC News seem to have thrown everything at this in the last few days in an effort to disprove. This Minimum Income Standard appears to be just one attempt.
Throwing Messrs Landale, Peston and Easton at the subject from different angles on News at 10 tonight demonstrated to a degree the panic there is over this at the Corporation just at the moment.
Live on soup it loks more like he’s been living on his pizzas
Look fair play to the lad for working hard , but that £12,000 is probably what he declares (how else would he pay the insurance on his car) and I think he probably isnt doing as well as he deserves , but he int no tolpuddle martyr.
But more interestingly did you notice the side swipe at pensioners? a recuring theme of increasing frequency for the liberal/left in general and the BBC in particular. Can you quess why?
Look out for more of it
Two seconds on Google reveals that Mr Grills is also a town councilor, and Deputy Town Mayor. And a glance at his Twitter feed tells you which party he supports. Not quite what the BBc were suggesting.
“And a glance at his Twitter feed tells you which party he supports”
—-
By sheer coincidence, perhaps explaining also near the first words out of Mr. Easton’s mouth in complement… “And the Labour Party say…”.
Sounds like another BBC vox pop titch-up. Which researcher plea to mates got this typical local young person into the BBC edit suite?
Frankly I got as far as ‘research suggests’ before the eyebrow started cranking.
Party member
What happened here ?
This is exactly the kind of political planting that shows that the BBC isn’t neutral.
Helluva smart new-model Ford Fiesta you have there, Wayne. Also you look remarkably well fattened for a man living on soup.
Many thanks Charlie, the BBC are only too keen to show Conservatives who they think are not telling you the full story, eg the estate agent lady who bought her flat with the help of a government scheme. Somehow I don’t think they will be identifying pizza man’s hobbies that come with expenses.
Thanks Charlie, the BBC was only too keen to tell us about the estate agent lady who bought her flat with the help of the government scheme. It helped their narrative. Telling us about pizza man’s hobbies that come with expenses would have spoilt their tale.
Yes I noticed the car and the frequency of the pub; what would be wrong with pizza man and his chums going round to each others house each work for a beer (cheaper) or a coffee (cheapest). Money cannot be that tight for this young man.
If yo listen to the article, fat boy slim isn’t a pizza delivery man, rather he owns a Pizza business. As for him eating soup, he could do with losing a few hundred weight.
Reading his twitter page he bought a new Xbox in Nov, owns an Iphone, and is very Anti tory.
All of which seems to have escaped the BBC staff who either sought him out or if more senior were astoundingly uncurious as to how he ended up being filmed and quoted.
I would dearly love to hear a non #foiexempted explanation for the process that brought him to our screens, Mr. Easton.
Full marks to Charlie for the catch and others for further researching that should have a few in the BBC involved in this tits-up (I meant stitch before, but hey) buying new brown cords about now.
Rule #1 in effect?
“new research has suggested.” You know what’s coming next….
“Figures published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation….”
Says it all, really.
I’d say the Ford Fiesta was an own goal.
Flat doesn’t look bad, either.
Oh for good sake….The BBC’s “comedians” are putting on a show to “stop UKIP forever”…
“Impartiality is in their genes”
http://www.royalexchange.co.uk/event.aspx?id=788
If it’s as gloriously successful in its objective as was the fondly-remembered ‘Red Wedge’ back in the 80’s then it’ll provide more amusement than any of these pricks have ever done in their ‘comedic’ careers.
Pass the popcorn.
Ben Elton lives in mono cultural Australia now, loves the ethnics and lives as far away as possible from them.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1226529/After-25-years-moaning-Britain-comedian-Ben-Elton-Australia.html
Don’t they all?
Dawn French’s £3 Million pound mansion, I’ve never seen anything quite like it !!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/propertymarket/wordonthestreet/6437025/Word-on-the-Street-Dawn-Frenchs-house-best-house-on-the-market-for-the-money.html
Dawn French also has a 40 room holiday home, Neptune house, Fowey in Cornwall, my God it’s a bloody castle !!!
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/50144889@N08/5604098540/
It would need to be large.
Australia has loads of problems with rioting Muslims just like everywhere else. Where ever Muslims go they cause problems, and Aus is no exception.
Comments Mo?
Excellent news. More votes for UKIP. They really do fancy themselves these so called artists and entertainers. The BBC’s tame house cats . About as scared of the big world outside as the cats .
Where do they find these people.
Pod Central basement. Rows of unopened pods still there.
Was a season ticket holder at the Exchange for years.
Was thinking of trying it again.
Not now.
Finding out where politicians or celebrities live is fascinating, their houses tell you more about them than what they actually say.
‘Comedian’ Jimmy Carr’s £8.5 Million pound house, ‘our’ Jimmy doesn’t pay tax like the little people do, that’s for us, so he paid for his house in cash in a suitcase !!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161852/Jimmy-Carr-apologises-pulls-shore-tax-avoidance-scheme.html
‘Finding out where politicians or celebrities live is fascinating’
And BBC 5 Live presenters.
A favourite story of mine is this corker from out-door socialist Rachel Burden
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-2005814/North-turn-BBCs-MediaCity-Radio-5s-Rachel-Burden-makes-move.html
‘We won’t sell our house,’ says Rachel, 35, referring to her four-bedroom Edwardian home in Ealing, valued at £650,000.’
‘London prices are likely to rise faster than other parts of the country so we want to hold on to it and let it out.’
I discovered this report after being rather annoyed at our Rachel urgently exclaiming to a guest on her show that rising house prices were not good news for all. He had mildly suggested that house price rises were positive news. A fair comment you might think and we expect balance from the BBC – but it was done in a tone of ‘what-about-the-workers-oh-how-could-you-say-that-to-a-woman-of-the-people!’
Andrew Neil lives in the south of France, works in London for 4 days, then jumps on a plane and has a long weekend in Nice, maybe that’s why he has a continually smug smirk on his face.
http://www.connexionfrance.com/my-life-in-france-andrew-neil-10277-news-article.html
And when she does sell it will suddenly become her main residence again, so as to avoid capital gains tax.
will she be letting it at an affordable rent I wonder?
It is ‘buying to let’ that has most stamped on the fingers of first time buyers ,a practise that the BBC has not only failed to address but continues to promote through the monstrous ‘homes under the hammer’ the vilest of all property porn programs.
Isn’t this actually a rare instance of impartiality?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/25859320
The description for this editorial on the main sports page is “The price of sporting fame should not be racism, misogyny, homophobia or any form of discrimination or cruelty, says BBC Sport’s Ben Dirs”. Seems fair enough, until you start to realise that the use of the word ‘misogyny’ instead of ‘sexism’ seems to suggest that Dirs either doesn’t acknowledge that misandry occurs or even exists, or that he doesn’t think it’s important enough to tackle. By association, I imagine the term ‘racism’ in his mind only applies to white people being racist towards other races, and that he doesn’t think there’s any other targets or perpetrators despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Even if it was and/or is the case that the majority of discrimination is carried out by white men (which I simply don’t believe is provable anyway, it’s an ideological belief based on Dirs’ own prejudice) why make the distinction? Discrimination and prejudice based on race/gender/sexual orientation is bad full-stop. People like Dirs only serve to feed the racist/sexist myth that white men are the root of all evil.
You might argue that I’m reading to much into what is clearly a fluff piece, but it’s the BBC. There’s no accidents when it comes to their representation of social issues, even in sport articles.
Is Ben Dirs his real name or just a nom de plume to help secure the job?
Oooerr, missus!
On Today John Humphrys led a discussion between Conservative MP Matthew Hancock and Labour MP Cathy Jamieson on government figures showing that most British workers have seen their take-home pay rise in real terms in the past year.
Apparently the figures are sound enough that both Jamieson and Humphrys failed to lay a finger on Hancock. This didn’t stop Humphrys though. In desperation to make good news for the Conservatives look bad, Humphrys attacked the Conservatives by claiming that they were forced to adopt what Humphrys asserted was the LibDem policy to lower taxes. Hancock pronounced himself amazed that Humphrys was trying to paint the Conservatives as the party of high taxes.
Humphrys brought the discussion to an end satisfied, I guess, that he and Jamieson (ie BBC/Labour) could at least claim a draw with the government on this one. Certainly Labour must be relieved that its “cost of living crisis” bunkum – although under intensive care – survives as part of the BBC Narrative.
This travesty had been prefaced by the usual pathetic “vox pop” exercise which demonstrated nothing except the BBC penchant for searching for any old rubbish which could make Labour look good. Even then, the “evidence” produced was, to say the least, equivocal.
5L was in full on damage limitation mode this morning. Nicky jumping on any opportunity to dismiss the good news and remove any credit from the government. Had this been a labour led recovery, not sure we’ve ever had one mind you, they would have been praising the government all day every day. I feel so sick that I have to pay for these smug, left wing and biased public servants!
When the news of the drop in unemployment was first announced on BBC1 News at 10 a couple of days ago (well that was the first I saw it), I thought the Queen had died. Hence this, on the face of it, good news had been overshadowed by a major tragedy thus occasioning a rather downbeat delivery. I hadn’t realised that the “major tragedy” was the damage caused to Labour and the BBC/Labour “cost of living crisis” meme by good news on the economy.
I fail to understand how the BBC, or anyone else can discus mass unemployment without mentioning mass immigration
Slightly old news maybe but the BBC tells us that the Guardian has flogged its life support system (Autotrader) for around £700 million. What the BBC doesn’t tell us (and neither has Lady Hodge nor her tame PAC) is that due to the Substantial Shareholdings Exemption – a piece of 1992 tax legislation not repealed in the 13 years of the last Labour government of which Hodge was such a conspicuous ornament – the Guardian‘s tax bill for the profit on this disposal is precisely £nil. Moreover it appears that the Tax “Justice” Network, the BBC’s favourite lefty
lobbyistsexperts on all things tax, has so far AFAIAA remained silent on the issue.All quite legal certainly but surely not “moral” in BBC or Labour terms. When is a representative of UKUnCut or even Giles Fraser going to be interviewed by Humphrys on Today expressing their (and Humphrys’) indignation? I look forward to the demos outside the Guardian offices although, I suspect, that I’ll be sorely disappointed.
For there to be a tax liability there would have to be some form of capital gain, and as GMGs partner APAX bought half the company in 2007 for ‘nearly £700 million in 2007’, presumably GMG bought the other half for a similar amount at the same time.
If they have now sold it for between £6 – 700 million then they might well have made a loss. In addition the company would be able to off set any previous losses against tax, so regardless of any exemptions, they would be unlikely to have owed anything in any event.
presumably GMG bought the other half for a similar amount at the same time.
No, GMG was involved with Autotrader long before that. I don’t know the cost to GMG of setting it all up.
There’s nothing to stop GMG putting their money where their morals are. HMRC will accept a voluntary donation from GMG, as the did fro Starbucks, I think.
You know thoughtful, many of your comments on this site are extemely good value. Some – like this one – are ill-informed.
Insofar as tax on the disposal of this asset is concerned, the capital gain for tax purposes (which is levied under normal circumstances at the CT rate) is the difference between the sale proceeds of the asset and the cost of the asset. What a part of the asset sold for 6 years ago is immaterial. It’s extremely unlikely – I would put the probability at nil – that the cost to GMG of Autotrader exceeded the sales proceeds thus producing a (capital) loss.
Furthermore AFAIAA Autotrader never made trading losses while owned by GMG: FFS it’s the profits from Autotrader which have kept the whole group financially above water. It’s possible, I suppose, for the trading losses of the Guardian to exceed any profit on the disposal of this asset. However, even assuming that such a gain could be used to ameliorate trading losses for computation of CT, GMG made a profit on which it does not have to pay any tax because a statutory exemption relieves it of such a liability.
An organisation not in bed with Labour and all points left applying this tax break would have received an avalanche of abuse in respect of tax “dodging” from the usual suspects. However, the Guardian‘s tax affairs are beyond criticism – or even mention – by the BBC.
I have just watched on the bBC the most disgusting piece of reporting on Drugs going. The UK is the last country in the Western world to allow Khat (African drug) now it is going to be banned. Now watch how the bBC sends the message that:
1) People are going to lose their jobs
2) Khat is a peaceful past-time
3) If the UK ban it, people will turn to terrorism
4) There’s something racist about all this.
5) 8 min video in which ends on something of a high.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25854577
The comments near the end about “white men” were priceless!
I thought the Somalian saying something to the effect ‘It would be like telling British people they cant go to the pub’ (around 6min 20sec.) was the best bit.
– Exactly what they would be told in a Muslim country and increasingly are told in Muslim controlled areas of Europe.
Almost monthly BBC West do a report on the ‘poor’ Somalians in St Pauls Bristol regarding this matter. The accompanying film always show them ‘enjoying’ their favorite drug in their hostelries.
Aw poor Somalians, it seems to go completely over the presenters heads that since 2007 we can’t enjoy a cigarette in a pub, or chase a fox. But the Somalians and their like can enjoy a chew on khat and a leg of lamb that has been sadistically slaughtered, hey but thats OK its cultural …
Next week: Panorama gets Alex James to recant his previous anti-cocaine mewlings, and returns to Colombia and environs to wring his hands over how making cocaine illegal has caused such strife among the poorest and most vulnerable, declaring only racists would want to decide what people from other cultures do with their lives.
Still, it’s nice to see the BBC be on the receiving end of criticisms about elite whites telling non-whites how to run their lives for a change. They probably laugh it off and don’t notice the irony.
Did anyone else notice the well-rehearsed catchphrase “introduced” by Chuka when interviewed about the government’s latest figures on pay rises in real terms?
Typical of Labour they began with a sound-bite: “Cost of living crisis? What crisis?” – referring to something the government didn’t actually say. After Chuka finished his little piece the BBC presenter repeated the phrase.
Did you catch the feature on the cost of living on the Ten O’Clock News last night? Pure propaganda; basically the reporter questioned the veracity of the coalition claims on rise of average wages factoring in tax cuts versus cost of living (fair one, but he didn’t actually give any evidence to support this position), and then pulled a new way of measuring cost of living out of his arse: apparently, rather than a calculated poverty line, peoples’ views on what constitutes a wage capable of supporting a “decent standard of living”, means that lots of people aren’t as well off as they’d like to be. Personally as news I think this rates somewhere around the level of “Bear defecates in tree-bound areas”. This was then illustrated by a two minute blurb on some pizza restaurant manager living on his own in a flat in Devon who doesn’t earn enough to eat anything other than soup (funny considering he was a bit of a bloater, and MANAGES A PIZZA RESTAURANT) and can only afford to go out on the piss once a month. Poor lamb. This was slightly undermined by cutting to him driving away in his nifty little 09 registered Ford Ka
See comments above. It turns out that the fat man living on soup is a Labour-supporting Deputy Mayor.
Seems there may be a market for a ‘News Review’ (in terms of coverage) programme, and the perfect title would be, these days, ‘It Turns Out’, as the format could be extended almost infinitely on what the news actually was, how the media (and one in particular) covered it plus, by way of sequels, the fun and games later on with ‘story evolutions’ to the point of stealth edits, closings for comments and even vanishings. For instance, where before I could view the video, there now seems a bit of an issue. My browser playing up, I’m sure.
I know there have been and still are such as ‘What the Papers Say’ or ‘Newswatch’, but some may feel there could possibly be an element of self (to the point of conflict) interest on the part of the broadcaster responsible for topic selection, guests, questions and edits.
How shocking…
Was listening to good ole’ VD earlier and the debate in respect of the “cost of living crisis”.
From 01:17:45 – a nice little intro from VD then straight into a lengthy montage of Ed Milimarx soundbites.
How can this be described as anything but biased?
Had I been a lefty wonk (and thank the Good Lord I’m not) and had the montage been of Cameron I’d have been justifiably peeved.
But of course it wasn’t was it? Nor is it ever likely to be from either VD nor the Beeb as a whole.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03q5m5v
In other news…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/moved.html
‘taken a month off, and will move to another, so far unnamed, post’
The top floor must now be bursting at the seams with such treasures.
‘…had his favourites … and to have “frozen out” those whom he did not like’
Crikey, any top editorial position on any topic within the BBC must beckon, surely?
Still, actual transgressions aside, it looks like they are sorting out the issue of hideous white maleness in the lower levels.
‘His sagacious analysis failed to spot that the team was one of the few places in news taking on new, raw staff from diverse backgrounds and turning them into journalists that other, more risk-averse, departments would eventually nick with glee’
And last, for fun, some satire:
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/upgraded-exterior-filming-resource.html
‘We have an independent review which has highlighted the importance of the show to audiences and to the BBC as a whole, and supports investment in the exterior lot.’
May have to escalate ‘independent review’ to the same level of BBC credibility as ‘trust’, ‘impartial’ and ‘transparent’.
One excuse for building the big new set was that the BBC could now offer tours to the public. How are all those other newly-developed BBC tours going, then?
BBC 5 Live is now institutionally Leftist.
The bias is blatant; easily noticable in the attitude of the presenters and consequently part of the character of the channel.
Presumably those listeners who do not happen to enjoy a constant whine of leftist campaigning have turned off leaving 5 Live with a rump of an audience fitted to their output.
One can only imagine the audience profile – the BBC are hardly likely to shout about the under represenation of those in non-public sector gainful employement.
And the bias is self-reinforcing due the BBC’s keen adherence to Left-dominated Twitter.
For example, look how Nicky Campell respondes to the wrong kind of listener complaint:
Timmy Tour @TimmyTour 6 hrs
Sign of the times. @BillBailey on @bbc5live to talk about prostrate cancer. @NickyAACampbell spends more time talking to him about Twitter
Nicky Campbell @NickyAACampbell 6 hrs
@TimmyTour @BillBailey @bbc5live we did loads on prostate and given your previous comment it’s goodbye, goodbye, aufwiedersehen, adieu
And what did Timmy Tour tweet to offend our Nicky?
Timmy Tour @TimmyTour 6h
–Anyone notice Nicky Campbell these days on @bbc5live when interviewing women? Increasingly adopts tone of tortured camp old drama queen
Fair comment, you might think?
Interestingly, I think, this bit of negative lister feedback was not sent directly to our Nicky – I notice that Campbell searches tweeter’s timelines to inform his responses. Which is how he found that comment. Perhaps someone more expert in the ways of Twitter can confirm that he does this?
What I do note again and again is that if you are a Lefty campainger then Campbell’s attitude is markedly different.
I paraphrase here – but you will get the point….
Hey! Didn’t swat that hateful Tory hard enough, you capitalist-running-dog, Nicky!
Oh sorry, I did try my best – he’s a slippery bugger, will do better next time – right on! Keep fighting the good fight.
Well, as I have mentioned before Campbell’s response to me congratulating one of his interviewees on her dealing with his aggressive tone was to accuse me of being Satan, so I am used to his personal abuse. It certainly added a certain cachet to his phone-in earlier this week on unpleasant tweets in which his shocked tone seemed to indicate he rarely remembers his own contribution to the medium.
Talking of Campbell…
After being stunned by the bias on last night’s Question Time Extra with Nolan and Pienaar I thought I might spend my hour at the PC answering emails on Friday morning to also give me an opportunity to note the content of the Five Live phone-in. The subject: “Do you feel better off under this government?”
Thus, immense coffee on one side of the keyboard, and notepad on the other I began… Who said men can’t multitask? Oh, yeah. I remember. Women.
It followed a very, very familiar phone-in template.
Guests, Lord Digby Jones and some guy from the Left Foot Forward blog. Remind me not to look for that later.
First off a clip of an interview with a Tory MP from a chat with Campbell conducted earlier in the show. About twenty seconds, if that.
Then five texts were read out, two in the yes camp, three in the no camp.
The Left Foot Forward guy then had a stab, and was frankly appalling not in his view, which is his affair, but in his style, umming and ahhing to the point of incomprehensibility.
Digby Jones next, robust as is his wont, and for me at least sounding as usual as if he had walked straight out of The Pickwick Papers. I like old Digby, but you’d be hard pressed to find a blustering capitalist more likely to infuriate the left. I rather wondered if that was the point of his appearance and if Katy Hopkins was busy skinning live puppies, so unavailable.
Then the calls: twelve in total. A grand total of two in favour of the government, one not sure (why hang on the phone for half an hour to say I don’t really know?) and nine against, one of whom was a Labour councillor, announced by Campbell in such a way as to seemingly celebrate Five Live’s apparent scrupulous impartiality.
Interestingly Digby bailed out at just gone 9.20 and the LFF guy just… vanished into the ether. The man who wasn’t there. After the 9.30 news a far more lucid lefty from the New Statesman was introduced, contributing without challenge, including being allowed to wrap up the show, when Campbell mumbled something about having Tory on earlier, presumably sensing a certain imbalance in the programme. Lest we forget, that “Tory on earlier” was a short clip, not live on-air at that moment, and certainly not given a full minute or two to say what he wished.
So many questions…
Was the LFF chap dumped because of his utter hopelessness? Did Digby disappear because he was doing quite well? Did the competent New Statesman chap get brought on as a last minute substitute?
The phone-in follows this pattern often when political topics are covered. A few texts at the top which are pretty balanced. A right winger who always seems to have to go by 9.30, and a left wing commentator who can stay until 10 to talk unchallenged. The calls at the top of the show tend to be in favour of the government, which gives an impression of balance, while the following fifty-five minutes tend to be against. If you listened to the first ten minutes you’d say things were about even. The truth is somewhat different over the full hour: a subtle manipulation.
The ICM/Guardian poll last week showed Labour’s lead over the Tories had shrunk to three points. Statistically virtually a tie. The coalition as a whole is at 46%. You wouldn’t get that impression listening to Five Live. You would imagine Labour are heading for the greatest victory in General Election history.
Five Live’s Controller is long overdue a few awkward hours in front of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee to answer for what is going on at that station.
Excellent analysis of the programme – thanks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-25877374
HA HA HA !
Now why can’t there be more people like him ?
I saw a report on the Lunchtime News on the tragic case of the Philpot family.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25874958
Not bias, more admission of key information, leaving the viewer none the wiser as to what happened and why.
I seem to remember that he burnt the house he was living in down, but things got out of control, and innocent children died as a result.
There are two things I want to cover here. First is the fact that this man sired children in order so that he could live a comfortable life on Welfare. Welfare being a sacred cow of the Liberal Left and the BBC.
Secondly. There are many photo’s on the web of Mike Philpot yet, the BBC only chose two, both showing him wearing an England shirt. Now this last point to many may sound a bit, well, odd. But the BBC have a history of referring to England as, the Regions’.
They also enjoy portraying England and Englishness in either a negative manner or, as some quirky and to be laughed at.
I have recently complained to the Beeb on this, and had to refer and use their own blood charter against them in order to highlight their bias.
As an aside, I did not know that each of the ‘Home Nations’ was individually represented on the Trust. The things you learn.
OTish to a point, but Errors of Omission are by definition hard to locate.
I was wondering if our across the pond colleagues knew any more about the story here, as this side I am aware that our national broadcaster can get astoundingly uncurious and forgetful if it is octogenerian abuse from the wrong quarters (for the narrative, that is).
I must also confess that given Ed & Co’s less than stellar dalliances with rallying catchphrases of late, I thought going with ‘Vision Zero’ was… ‘brave’ in face of potential typographical croppings possible, especially where multiples are posted.
‘No one in the media pointed out that Bill de Blasio, like Obama, was using human shields to silence questions about a result that he couldn’t deliver’
Can happen here, too.
Sorry, forgot a key bit:
http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/totalitarians-of-new-york.html?
Don’t get me started about our new Comrade Mayor. I’m the last person in the world to defend either him or Nanny Bloomberg, but that bit about the Upper East Side not getting cleared being some sort of political retaliation is 100% bogus.
First of all, the Dept. of Sanitation screwed up in many areas, not just there. Apparently Comrade Mayor’s own neighborhood of Park Slope (where all the right-on wealthy live, sort of like a combination of Notting Hill and Islington) was well taken care of. But I happen to live a few blocks away from one of the big depots where they keep the plows, and my neighborhood is always cleared early and often, better than most of the rest of the city, and this time I was very aware that the plows showed up much, much later than usual and didn’t run as often until much later than usual.
Furthermore, I was in the Upper East Side in the middle of last month during the first big snow storm of the season, and it was very obvious that the roads were much worse than in my own working class, mostly Hispanic neighborhood. That was before Comrade Mayor took office, and the same guy was in charge of the Sanitation Dept. then as now. They screwed up this time, no question, and somebody should (but won’t) look into why his wealthy Democrat money neighborhood got the first class treatment while few others did.
Otherwise SultanKnish is right about both politicians caring more about emotional legacy issues and trying to force their personal belief system on everyone than about taking care of the city. Bloomberg did the latter in his first term, but by the time he got to his extra-legal, undemocratic third term, it was all about his legacy of trying to change people’s behavior. He once said about the President and ObamaCare that it was good to try these big bold things because fifty years from now nobody’s going to remember if a politician balanced the budget for two years but will remember if he did these long-term changes to people’s lives.
They don’t care about serving the public: they care about changing us to their own liking.
PS: Comrade Mayor is now consulting Chicagoland boss, Rahm Emanuel for how to run a city. We’re doomed, doomed!
Fascinating as it is to learn the exact longitude and latitude co-ordinates of your house in relation to a New York Sanitation depot, but what has this got to do with the BBC, David ?
On the Daily Politics today some Muslim, who ironically was a Liberal Democrat, was going nuts because another Muslim said that cartoons of the prophet didn’t upset him or offend him. The one who is isn’t offended was advised by the police not to appear on the programme to explain his views, because of the death threats he had received.
Andrew Neil and his guests all agreed that there was something seriously wrong with a society that allowed a minority to seek to silence views they don’t agree with.
But of course they didn’t go on to say that the BBC has voluntarily been silent on many issue involving Muslims for many years. Nor did they say that this is yet another example, there are many many more, of the problem of trying to get two groups with very different values and cultures to live together in harmony.Which begs the question why on earth did the liberal left allow so many aliens into our country and still seek to allow even more in. Sooner or later they are going to have to face up to what they have done. I will be interested to see what the Lib Dems do about a member who is seeking to silence a the perfectly legitimate and entirely reasonable views of a fellow Muslim. Of course if he were not a Muslim his views could be conveniently labeled racist and the BBC would be out to get him banged up as such.
So come liberal left lets hear what you have to say about it. You need to find an answer, because there will be many many more instances of this sort of thing, and you won’t be able to cover them all up.
Is that the Quilliam guy Nihal was mocking for hiding and avoiding the BBC the other day? I guess he’s not so cowardly after all.
The Beeboids must be really pleased with themselves over this. They started this whole story by having some guy wearing a Jesus and Mo t-shirt on Nicky Campbell’s Big Questions, and Nawaz as one of the guests discussing various religious and offense issues. The guy with the t-shirt was sat front and center, and he was there to start a debate about whether or not Mohammedans had a right not to be offended. Nawaz’s tweet was a follow-up to that discussion, and it snowballed from there.
Well done, BBC. Don’t sprain your arms patting yourselves on the back.
As with that wee girl taking on the Taliban, letting Aunty’s finest ear-whisperers launch you on a campaign with assurances they’ll be right behind you seems to extend mostly to the first broadcast.
Then you are on your own.
Reminds me of that famous sketch where the supposedly darkness-shrouded witness is actually fully exposed.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9121001/agitprop-for-toddlers-the-oddly-strident-politics-of-cbeebies/
As one who loved, was inspired and guided by such as The Wombles & Clangers, I have to concede ‘social messaging’ has been around and can often be no bad thing in kids’ programming, but it just seems in days gone by it was more passive, empathetic, cleverer and more effective for all that.
Now it just seems like right-on commissar has mandated a creative team bolted on a kid/cartoon/puppet skin over a box-ticking requirement like the Edgar-the-roach in MIB, and the result is about as palatable.
I think one or both is due to return, and a shiver of dread passes down my spine at what some £300k BBC HeadOf will turn it/them into.
I see that the filibustering in the Lords, to prevent the EU referendum bill passing, is newsworthy enough to be placed at the bottom of the news page.
How entirely predictable that this bunch of unelected, ermine-clad buffoons should deny the people a democratic choice.
The game is rigged from top to bottom.
Be careful pushing the politicians wish for them. We are well served by having an unelected house and you will almost certainly find that the people who did this have been planted by their own party.
The reason politicians want an elected house is so they can control it with the whipping system – don’t comply with party wishes and you won’t be selected as a candidate next time.
We need an unelected house which the Politicians cannot control when they fail to do what they want.
In the past month the unelected house blocked a major piece of Culturally Marxist oppressive legislation called – causing annoyance in a public place, which basically criminalised anyone for doing anything someone else found annoying.
I desperately don’t want to see a rubber stamping upper house and I’m not so dim that I’m taken in by the Politicians seeming attractive offer of elections either.
BBC radio 4 More or less pushing the ‘immigrants contribute more to society than they take out’ line. However what they don’t make clear is whether they are including ‘migrants’ into account as well as immigrants and of course there is no differentiation of countries of origins.
Neither is there any mention of time in the UK as immigrants are not permitted to claim benefits for the first two years (unlike migrants) if only the first two years of immigration is taken then it’s a given that they will contribute more than they take.
Just another example of a program which used to be non political attempting to explain statistics turning into a totally biased version and using it’s subject matter in a twisted way to present a conclusion which has been decided in advance.
Sorry to return to the
bogusLabour cost of living non-crisis: at around 4:00 on BBC News 24 there was another fatuous vox-pop exercise. This time from shopping mall in Swansea. Both interviewees (in work BTW) had difficulty confirming that they were actually worse off over the last year although – to be fair – they tried to please the BBC “journalist” by implying that they noticed that increases in pay (takehome? gross?) were absorbed (wholly? partially?) by increases in living costs.For some reason the interviewer failed to ask either interviewee by what percentage their take-home pay had increased over the last 12 months. This would have been a simple enough question to be posed (and answered). On the basis of the answers to that question, the viewers would have been enabled to compare the increase with inflation and discover directly for themselves the extent (or non-existence) of the interviewees real increase in income .
However, in practice a BBC “journalist” (and this one was no exception) avoids, if possible, posing a straightforward question since the reply might contradict the Narrative. In this case the response being sought was of the “we’re starving thanks to Tory cutz, the bedroom tax, rampant inflation and a shortage of houses” variety. God forbid a BBC “journalist” should just try to lay the salient facts before the BBC audience and let them decide if the “cost of living crisis” is real or just a gleam in the eyes of Labour and the BBC.
This was just another example – in the endless flow of examples – of the BBC’s signature crap journalism exacerbated by BBC bias.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396005/Cash-cash-gang-filled-bus-26-fake-victims-staged-accident-car-make-bogus-compensation-claims-totalling-250-000.html
A story which you would hardly recognise as the same, the way the BBC reported it.
A gang of Pakistani Muslims criminally and fraudulently arranged a crash between a bus and a car, and filled the bus with 26 people who knew it was going to crash.
Here are some of the names (although the BBC never made mention of them.
Mohammed Gulzar
Shoaib Nawaz
Nisar Hussain,
Liam Howden,
Javed Khan
Saeeda Ali Bi
Sami Selam,
Kiran Shaheen
Seven others had already admitted conspiracy to defraud before the trial. They will all be sentenced later, while three others were cleared.