Monday Open Thread By David Vance | February 3, 2014 - 3:58 pm |February 5, 2014 open thread First one for February. Bookmark the permalink.
I win 😛
Don’t watch Benefits Street as I hate car-crash telly, but this might be interesting later on…
My money’s on Katie Hopkins for the win unless C5 stack the audience like bBC do.
I have watched a couple of the Benefits programmes. Mostly they are not bad people but people without hope. No hope and no jobs, worst thing the Labour Party could have done for these people is to throw money at them in benefits and large scale immigration to remove any chance they had of getting a job.
A gobshite sock puppet like Price?
M Wright chairing it? more like bloody pantomime than debate.
Immigration? still open door, no change there
benefits? vast majority on them are in work
stuck in the (Tory wet dream) short hrs scam, or pensioners
All in all it will be just another pretty meaningless idealogue s “shoot the scrounger” while the real thieves laugh it all the way to the champagne lounge.
But if Eastern Europeans can come here and make a living, why can’t the residents of ‘Benefits Street’?
The answer is attitude. And you hear it time and again from employers, particularly where the 16-25 age group is concerned.
It is about attitude and if you have the gumption to upsticks and find work in a foreign country then you are already streets ahead of the work-shy.
Thing is, where do they get this work-shy attitude from? Cue Ceebeebies? Or is it the case that everyone calls them work shy scroungers but when they actually try to get work they are at the back of the queue behind foreigners? If you are 16-25 with few qualifications and live in the wrong area just exactly how do you find work?
you get your rucksack on your back and head for the tourist areas of the UK picking up seasonal work, even if its a kitchen porter you have a room, your meals and a reason to take pride in yourself.
If only that was still true. These days those sorts of jobs go to foreigners who are prepared to live in sheds, tents or caravans with 20 other like minded souls.
Have you been to McDonalds lately? Not my favourite haunt but for the last 10 years it has been the case of not spot the Englishman but spot the English speaker. When flipping burgers becomes out of your reach ….
Judging by the flood of lefty comments on the C5 Programme’s website already, if there’s going to be an audience for it, I’d say it will be heavily stacked full of well prepared lefties. I expect Katie to have a very hard time from them.
Apparently the Channel 5 show featured the new face of Sainsbury’s, Jack Monroe (female, natch) who blotted her copy book by using the F word. Jim was dribbling into his brogues on the Today programme this morning being so excited to be interviewing an edgy, tattooed mother, “living on benefits”. The fact that she can also be potty mouthed before the watershed would probably make Jim’s cup runneth over.
Sorry, it was not before 9pm
Hope that comes back right in Sainsburys face. What an image ! A real vicious comment from a very nasty woman. Sack the foul mouthed bitch.
She would be a perfect image for the BDS loving CO OP. Pass the crystal meth ducky.
Looks like Sainsburys now going for the D & E’s demographics.
Stacked worse than a Question Time audience.
Dreadful viewing !
For BBC-NUJ, re-threatened Tube strike:-
“Hypocrisy of red Bob.
“Last Friday, rail union baron Bob Crow issued an apparently heartfelt plea to London mayor Boris Johnson for face-to-face talks aimed at averting two 48-hour Tube strikes, which will bring misery to millions of commuters.
“However the proposed meeting would have been beset by serious logistical difficulties. At the time Mr Crow was in Rio at the end of a sumptuous two-week break involving a Caribbean cruise, and a luxury hotel on Copacabana Beach.
The Mail published comical pictures of him sizzling in the sun on a dangerously flimsy deck chair and sipping cocktails from a coconut in capacious Bermudas and a back-to-front baseball cap.
“But Mr Crow’s flagrant deception over the strikes is no laughing matter. He clearly had no intention of meeting the mayor, or trying to stop the industrial action.
“This union dinosaur is a sworn enemy of the Coalition and would do anything to cause trouble – whatever the consequences for the long-suffering public.
“In one recent outpouring, he called for ‘militant and coordinated action across workplaces’ to ‘stop the bulldozer of austerity’, neglecting to mention that the austerity programme brought Britain back from the brink of ruin to a sustained – if fragile – recovery.
“Just how fragile will be seen if Labour gets back into power. With Mr Crow and his hard-Left comrade Len McCluskey of Unite increasingly pulling Ed Miliband’s strings, the hard-won gains of the past four years would be squandered almost overnight.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2550730/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Fatcats-hand-collection-box.html#ixzz2sHB1aCr0
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
i am very disturbed by this developing incident in harrow in involving this white lesbian couple who have been adopted this 3 year old muslim child,there have already been demonstrations in harrow by the bigoted muslim somalian community over this adoption,no surprise there,this to me is nothing short of religion and culture being used as a cloak by the the muslim community to mask there racism and homophobia towards this white lesbian couple,i have noticed that the bbc and the left are trying to sweep this story under the carpet and that is shocking in itself.where is the outrage from the left and the fake anti racists i ask over this story, to me this is a very dangerous situation when so called minority groups use there culture and religion as a cover for racism and homophobia,you would expect the uaf to hold a demo in support of this white lesbian couple,silence from these hypocrites with double standards i notice,the bottem line is racism and homphobia must not be tolerated in any form or shape in this country just because of the colour of somebody skin or there sexual oreintation,this white lesbian couple are victims on both of these counts,the muslim immigrant community must be told in no uncertain terms that racism and homophobia has no place in england or the uk simple as that.
the loony left and the religious right are welcome to one another.
“Adoption of Muslim girl, 3, by lesbians is halted after protests”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550317/White-lesbian-couple-allowed-adopt-three-year-old-Muslim-girl-against-wishes-family.html#ixzz2sHIWRuLC
Can’t add comments against that story, funnily enough.
Funny that !
But they allowed comments about children being snatched from a heterosexual couple because they were UKIP members and the council sis not want the children to grow up in that environment.
I am beginning to see a definite pecking order here. One where, if you are English, white, working class, male, with or without a job, you are essentially deemed sub-human.
With GAYS and Lesbians somewhere in between.
And when a drug addict mother in Glasgow objects when her parents are not allowed to adopt her two children because they have been allocated to a gay couple instead………
Contrast, compare, contemplate – institutionalised preferential treatment and Lefty Top Trumps all rolled into one.
It isn’t as if the grandparents were UKIP supporters !!
Look, this is very difficult for the BBC. Remember: all people are equal, it’s just that some people are more equal than others. Everyone understands that white, middle-aged, heterosexual males go at the bottom of the pile. But at the top it is impossible to choose between the preferred minority groups. In an ideal world, the child would be adopted by Disabled Black Muslim Lesbians, but no members of the DBML community have stepped forward. The most important thing here is to deny any racism and homophobia, as those attitudes are only found in those hated white, middle-aged, heterosexual males. Oh yeah, and the needs of the child fit in somewhere as well.
Agree with everything you’ve said apart from your last sentence. The policies of the Left over the last 40-odd years – especially their re-definition of ‘family’ – show they care nothing for our children. To them they are just empty vessels waiting to be filled with their anti-Western, anti-Christian, anti-capitalist, anti-freedom of speech dogma.
Good comment Ian
I just thank ‘Allah’ that I was adopted before PC became mainstream. The people I call my family are white, and Christian and actually really ,really liberal.
Me too Pounce. I was adopted in late 1972 – and some of the opinions registered about my blood relatives were none too pleasant either!
It is funny to watch though, the contortions that a populous is subjected to when you submit to government by minority interests. How do you assess the value of one minority’s attitude against another’s, especially when they are both part of your preferred constituency?
For once I am on the side of the muslims ,to place an innocent child with these disgusting perverts must be the ultimate in child abuse!
So this couple were placed ahead of hundreds and thousands of muslim families who wanted to adopt a girl? That doesn’t sound right really. If any muslim family would like to confirm that they applied for adoption then I would like to hear it.
Maybe the adoption agencies were correct in that a Lesbian couple would be more likely to look after a young child than any muslim ones.
Don’t the muslims know the lefty’s brought them to this country to destroy it not to build it up.
I can’t wait until the shtf the fan and every lampost in this country has a lefty hanging from it.
*gets out the popcorn and sits back*
For BBC-NUJ, which has been spouting its propaganda for Labour Party dominated Quangos for quite a while now:
-as though the Labour Party political dominance of such quangos should be taken as the politically default position , as far as Beeboid and their leftist chums are concerned.
‘Daily Mail’ Comment:-
“Purging the Blairites.
“The most puzzling question over the sacking of arch-Blairite Sally Morgan as head of Ofsted is why Education Secretary Michael Gove ever appointed her to the job in the first place.
She and the other relics of New Labour who litter Britain’s quangocracy will never share the Tories’ zeal to genuinely reform the public services. They are simply a roadblock to change.
“It’s taken David Cameron far too long to realise this, but let’s hope Mr Gove’s bold move will begin a proper clear-out. What’s the point of being handed the levers of power if you aren’t prepared to use them?”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2550730/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Fatcats-hand-collection-box.html#ixzz2sHC46zlJ
More evidence of the bumbling incompetence of the Tory political ‘machine’, were it needed.
The words ‘banjo’, ‘cow’ and ‘arse’ come to mind.
“Scrap the TV licence or public support for the BBC will ‘fall off a cliff’, warns ex-Crimewatch host Nick Ross.
“Licence fee ‘should be replaced with pay-per-view or subscription.’
“Warns people who support the BBC now could change their minds.
“But BBC insists fewer people would pay much more under subscription.”
By MATT CHORLEY, MAIL ONLINE POLITICAL EDITOR.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550968/Scrap-TV-licence-public-support-BBC-fall-cliff-warns-ex-Crimewatch-host-Nick-Ross.html#ixzz2sHG6dtLG
Beyond the ubiquity of this oddly unique oft-quoted creature, the ‘BBC spokesman’, an insight into the mindset is provided:
‘However a BBC spokesman warned: ‘Subscription would lead to more expensive fees paid for by fewer people.’
Warned, eh? Well, yes, if the same costs are run up with diminishing audiences as those with the choice of not watching the BBC take their custom elsewhere.
In the real world, that can lead to c)…. they go bust and make their staff redundant. No more fees for anyone to cover.
Presuming those who have opted to continue paying the fees discover there is a limit to their love of the BBC too.
One rather doubts Scott, Albaman and the recycling german drug addict Borg will be able to cobble together quite enough to keep Mark Byford in retirement bliss or Hugs in legal back up.
I have a fantasy list of talentless, biased, waste-of-space tosspots whom I’d love to see out on their ears when the bbc eventually has to compete in the real world. Are you listening, Marcus Brigstocke? Fiona Bruce? etc. etc. too many to mention but some day quite soon….
You just couldn’t make the Islamophillia up!
Beyond Belief on Radio 4 16:30
Officially anyone who declares that “There is one God and Muhammed is his prophet” is a Muslim. But many Muslims argue that the beliefs of the Ahmedi community mean they cannot be part of the faith. There are about 12 million Ahmedi worldwide and their headquarters, originally in Pakistan, are now in London. Their founder, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, claimed to be a prophet, although a lesser one than Mohammed, and it is this claim that critics say put his followers outside the fold of Islam.
Joining Ernie to discuss the Ahmedi are Imam Ataul Rashed from the Ahmedi London Mosque, Dr Sahib Bleher founder of the Islamic Party of Britain, and Dr Simon Valentine, author of “Islam and the Ahmaddiya Jama’at.”.
So a load of Muslims get to discuss Islam on air for 30 minutes at prime time! Can’t somehow see any other faith getting this unopposed air time.
Yes, all part of Islam Not BBC (INBBC)’s promotion of all things Islamic, and the Islamisation of Britain.
You mean except for Songs of Praise and the unopposed discussions of Christian faith in things like Tudor Monastery Farm or Alleluia.
This probably should have been on the Asian network instead, though, where it would have reached an audience who actually gave a damn, rather than one which doesn’t but the BBC felt needed to be educated that not all Mohammedans are in lock-step with each other.
“not all Mohammedans are in lock-step with each other. ”
Since about 13 million Mohammedans have been killed by other Mohammedans, this strikes me as the understatement of the century.
Its the People’s Front of Mecca versus the Meccan People’s Front.
Yes,indeed, blessed are the cheesemakers.
Songs of praise is a few hymns being sung not religious discussion, & Tudor Monastery Farm merely commented on the role of the Catholic church some 500 years ago.
Neither represented a theological discussion!
We’re now hearing on this program that a non Muslim can not be the head of a Muslim country, and that this is fair because a non Jew cannot become Prime Minister of Israel and a non Christian cannot be Pope! Perhaps we could extend that to say that only Christians should be leaders of Christian countries and see how that goes down !
While a non Jewish Prime Minister of Israel is highly unlikely there is no legal bar to it.
That’s interesting. I heard some of the programme Thoughtful refers to and I’m pretty sure one them said it wasn’t possible to have a non-Jewish PM of Israel. There was certainly no challenge to his view.
At least this particular discussion wasn’t the usual whitewash of Islam – the persecution of the Ahmedis was portrayed pretty forcefully. However, how many listeners would have found it of any interest is highly debateable – but then that’s the multiculti World Broadcasting Corporation for you.
Jews get a little time, but usually putting them up to be ridiculed. If anyone heard ‘Unbelievable Truth’ on Radio 4 yesterday (Sunday) the insensitivity towards Christianity was unbelievable as Rufus Hound at 17.50 claimed that Jesus had eaten a guinea pig. But what does the licence payers learn about Sikhism, Buddhism and what of the other religions of the Far East? I haven’t a clue and it certainly doesn’t seem to come under the BBC’s remit.
When they start bombing and airing grievances the BBC will accord them victim status and airtime .
Radio 4 BBC broadcast “Four Thought “on Sunday was sort of positive towards the Jewish idea of the Sabbath but I suppose the BBC can only put this type of programme on at 05.45 AM!!!!.
When does the BBC suddenly care about the plight of oppressed Christians in the Middle East? When it’s Israel doing the oppressing, of course:
West Bank villages’ fate rests on key Israeli court ruling
Apparently a community of Christian Arabs will be blocked from accessing a “public beauty spot”. The Israelis want to run another part of the security barrier through the village, which will obviously disrupt their lives, all allegedly in the interests of clearing a safe passage between two Jewish settlements.
Israel may be going about this entirely the wrong way and there’s certainly nothing wrong with the BBC reporting the event, but my actual complaint here is that Yolanda Knell once again includes the boilerplate:
I’m convinced it’s part of the BBC’s editorial policy, either written or unwritten. It’s there nearly every time. What’s not there every time – or ever – is the reason behind what the BBC refers to as a land grab by Israel. Jews will be prohibited from living in a future Palestinian State, so Israel thinks they need to secure at least some of them now. If everyone didn’t know that Jews would be expelled or slaughtered in the event of the creation of a Palestinian State, there would be no need for this. But the BBC is too dishonest to admit it.
The BBC refuses to report it, refuses to include this background context which is every bit as key as the boilerplate they make sure to include nearly every time.
Worst. Zionist. Shill. Ever.
The silence from defenders of the indefensible on this will be as absolute as usual.
I find the idea that the settlements are against international law absolutely absurd. Is this because a bunch of nations with an axe to grind got together and passed a resolution?
Surely if you attack a country, it fights back and beats you, it has every entitlement to the spoils of its victory!
Yes we should call Western Czech Republic and Poland “occupied territories” too by the same logic.
It’s sad that even you assume that Israel may be going about this in the wrong way? Maybe it is just because we are all so so used to this critical way of reporting what Israel does that we cannot believe that Israel is doing something that may be positive.
Please read http://www.verygoodnewsisrael.blogspot.com to see positive news about Israel’s achievements that the BBC will not report.
Assume? And you direct me to educate myself about some of Israel’s positive achievements? Please don’t insult my intelligence, Lynette.
I’ve been watching and arguing about the settlements issue for about thirty years. I don’t come up with these opinions lightly, or on a whim. The Jewish settlements could be used to seize the moral high ground in the international debate, but that’s not what’s happening. There are better ways to go about this. I assume nothing. I know what’s going on, and I have a well-considered opinion on why it won’t have a positive outcome.
You appear to be taking the position that any criticism of Israel is a de facto condemnation of everything, as well as some display of ignorance which must be corrected. This gets us nowhere, and only plays into the hands of the anti-Israel crowd, apparent proof that they’re right about people being unable to accept any criticism of Israel at all. Perhaps you haven’t read any of my comments about the issue on this blog over the years, or you wouldn’t have leapt to such a conclusion. Have I not written two or three comments in the last couple of weeks pointing out the hypocrisy of supporting a Palestinian State which will have a human rights violation (the banning of all Jews) written into its constitution? Did that mean nothing to you, or did you simply not see them?
I suggest you do some research yourself before assuming I’m ignorant and anti-Israel.
Sincere apologies David, I did not mean it to be taken this way. That’s the problem with email – it was just one statement I focused on “Israel may be going about this entirely the wrong way and there’s certainly nothing wrong with the BBC reporting the event” , Of course you are right criticism is sometimes justified BUT because the BBC reports always so negatively and inaccurately we don’t know if that particular criticism is justified. In contrast, Israel’s achievements cannot be argued with because they can be seen if people want to read about them.
It’s my opinion – based on reality, not BBC reporting – that Israel is doing it wrong in this particular instance, as well as many other instances. There’s so much evidence already there that Israel could show to the world that withdrawing and handing “back”/over land accomplishes nothing because the Palestinians are not true partners in peace. Gaza is just one obvious example.
It would be so simple to shut up about everything else and just constantly repeat the following “A Palestinian State will be Judenrein, with a violation of the international human rights law you’re all supposedly demanding we uphold written directly into its constitution. We think we need to control the area where Jews live because they will be killed otherwise. If you believe Jews are the only people on the planet who are not allowed to live where they choose, just say so.”
Nothing else needs to be said. Pushing forward with more settlements and more expansion like they’re doing this time only gives fodder to enemies and ruins the moral high ground. This is all about emotions now, as facts are suppressed or denied or fiddled. So I say fight fire with fire and take the human rights game to the enemy: the media (especially the world’s largest and allegedly most-trusted media organization) and activist organizations like Oxfam. Then they’ll have to admit what they really think: Israel should not exist and the Jews should “go back” to Europe. The way things stand, the debate isn’t anywhere near being completely honest. Netanyahu and his advisers are fools for not stating the obvious, openly and repeatedly.
I appreciate your opinion BUT the reality is that the BBC slants it against Israel whatever Israel does or whatever Netanyahu says.
Yes, of course they do. Nobody disputes that except the BBC and the anti-Israel crowd. What I’m suggesting is that Israel could turn the tables on their ideology.
You may be right but I honestly feel there may also be an alternative option . We could help change the conversation by influencing the BBC when we complain by asking why they include anything about the way in which Israel is uniquely helping the world in medical, science, technology and humanitarian work. See details also on weekly news blogs at http://blogs.jpost.com/users/just-look-us-now
That will not work, Lynette. We know the BBC is cowed by “complaints from both sides”. Reporting positive accomplishments by Israel, especially sticking them in unrelated reports as non sequiturs, will only cause them to be inundated by cries of “Zionist propaganda!” and, if Mark Thompson is to be believed, threats of violence. And probably not a few complaints from within the BBC as well, as so many of them harbor anti-Israel sentiment. They’re in constant fear of being accused of being controlled by Zionists and pushing Zionist propaganda. It took a heroic effort of editorial integrity (and probably not a few vicious internal debates) to report somewhat honestly about that Gaza Flotilla incident. And you can bet that Paul Mason isn’t alone in his simmering anger about that.
Asking the BBC to report positive Israeli accomplishments will be seen as some sort of coordinated propaganda movement. The BBC producer who used to engage with us under the name “John Reith” was very clear about that. He even occasionally accused people here of being in the pay of Israel in some way.
A more recent example of this kind of Beeboid dismissal is the exchange between Evan Davis and DB. Davis seemed willing to discuss DB’s complaint for a moment, but as soon as DB mentioned that somebody else had the same opinion, Davis dismissed him out of hand. There is no way in hell that the BBC will be moved at all by people writing in to ask them to report positive accomplishments of Israel. They’ll smell a campaign, and it will all go into the trash.
In any case, I don’t think that’s the way to go anyway. The first thing that needs to be changed about BBC is the most important of all – to include boilerplate about how a Palestinian State will be Judenrein in every report in which they include the boilerplate about the settlements being considered illegal under international law.
After that, what needs to change in BBC reporting on Israel is the demonization, where they’re dishonest about 1967, report nearly all military incidents as if it all started when Israel hit back, and act as if Israel is always the aggressor looking for war with its neighbors.
Furthermore, the BBC will need to be forced to stop censoring the reality about Hamas’s desire to destroy Israel regardless of any peace agreement, and to start reporting regularly and honestly about how Palestinians teach their children to hate and want to kill, and do not encourage the desire for a peaceful two State solution.
Nobody is going to be convinced to support Israel because of medical or technological contributions. Most people simply don’t think about things that deeply. All they know is what they are told by the BBC and other anti-Israel media: that Israel is the oppressor and the only obstacle to everlasting peace, full stop. That’s what needs to change about the BBC’s coverage.
It’s a shame that no journalists are willing to engage with us about these things, as it would be nice to get an insider perspective.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/457567/Man-who-let-Baby-P-die-becomes-Muslim-to-protect-himself-from-prison-attacks….why does this religion called islam attract the most vile creatures in this country,why would muslim prisoners want to protect and welcome this sick bastard into there religion ?
Islam isn’t a religion its a ‘system of life’ its made up of religious, legal, political economic, social and military components and something we should all be very scared of as the balance is tipping against us. Anything more than 2% of the population is most scary, and we are perilously close to that.
Good timing with this story sirus.
Wasn`t Sally Morgan in charge of OFSTED as they fiddled and rewrote their reports, once the news of Peter Connollys death went national.
Until then they had praised Sharon Shoesmith and Haringeys Childcare provision to the skies.
But following a few burned files, a few “lost” emails and a bit of the old redaction-turned out that OFSTED were not happy after all.
Ah, the lovely Labour Party in Haringey…Shoesmith could do a bit of jobshare with Dame Morgan perhaps?
Does he imagine that there are no strings attached?
I’m shocked, shocked to find that:
Senators: Kerry Admits Obama’s Syria Policy Is Failing
Who could have seen this coming, eh?
BBC: ZZZZzzzzzzzzz….It was a foreign policy triumph for The Obamessiah…….ZZZzzzzzzzz
Remember Director General, Mark THOMPSON? He’s back!
With his same old weak-kneed ineffectual rationalisations- whether tghey are partiality for Byford, partiality for Islam, or excuses for wasting £100 million on digital media –
“Ex-BBC Boss Defends Role Over £100m Waste”
Thompson really doesn’t give a damn about anything anymore, does he? He apparently didn’t know anything about Savile, didn’t know there was anything wrong with all those massive payoffs, didn’t know about the problems with the DMI. He’s like the US President: didn’t know about anything going on around him, but takes credit for anything even remotely positive and gets away with it all.
Thompson will face no consequences. He’s still the wealthy CEO of the NY Times, and will only become wealthier. How much of your license fee has been spent so far protecting him? More than on proper journalism resources in some areas, I imagine. Thompson oversees and allows all kinds of disasters and faces no consequences at all, while the poor sap at the control board when Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross shouted rude things at an answering machine because Brand was given carte blanche by the Controller got fired without delay.
It’s too bad that the anger and resentment of ordinary BBC staff can’t be harnessed in a productive manner.
‘It’s too bad that the anger and resentment of ordinary BBC staff can’t be harnessed in a productive manner.’
I do detect a degree of simmer…
‘It lacks literary elegance, but makes up for it in suppressed anger.’
‘two specific examples of “the business” aka BBC Vision changing its requirements big-time as his team were trying to deliver solutions.’
Is there a ‘who’ in charge of ‘BBC Vision’ responsible… accountable?
A suggestion here:
‘ a range of names as being “the business” – George Entwistle, when he was at Vision; Peter Salmon and Alice Webb of BBC North; Bal Samra, Roly Keating and Pat Younge (for conceiving the blessed thing in the first place)’
And, in conclusion:
‘ This points both to DG Tony Hall and the CFO at the time, Zarin Patel. More follows, as they say….’
Rats in a sack all right.
Makes Eastenders look like The Waltons.
Oh, sure, but when I detect an attitude behind the printed word, some lurking journalist or media type wraps me on the knuckles.
Aside from that, I found this bit amusing:
In other words, had BBC management done their jobs and steered some sort of DMI product into fruition, the BBC would now and for the next who knows how many years be relying on an already outdated, £100 million albatross because, as with the iPlayer, the BBC thought it best to go way over budget in order to have their own proprietary wheel. Some here may remember that £130 million delight, which at first was Windows only because that’s what management chose. Read the whole thing for a good sense of déja vu. Plus, we’re reminded that in October 2007, trust in the BBC brand was at an all time low. Again. Already. Still. LOL.
I won’t even mention the next round of 100 million to take the platform to the next level. At least the iPlayer works well, and is now a source of some revenue worldwide (not in the US yet, though, due to cable company lobbying).
Now an LOL moment as the next generation of iPlayer developers give us words of wisdom on how to successfully manage a large-scale digital technology project:
Hmm. BBC management structure seems to have been intact and robust enough to put it through rigorous testing and checks. I wonder what’s changed? YCMIU.
A nice bit of left wing propaganda on the BBC last night.
“These four walls”, Sun, 10pm BBC4 – a joint project by the BBC, the Guardian and the Joseph Rowntree foundation, I kid you not.
Billed as an examination of life in ” bread line Britain” and ‘five stories of aspiration set against a background of poverty and austerity, with the aim of finding the real people behind familiar media stereotypes.’
There were lots of people in grim circumstances, some of them more sympathetic than others, but all portrayed as victims of the current government cuts when in reality the exact same film could have been made five years ago. Except of course the Guardian and the BBC would not have been interested in showing blighted inner cities whilst labour were in power.
No explanation about how they arrived at their current state of affairs, but with every one the causes stretched back many many years. But the producers were never going to go down that road were they?
When is racial hatred not racial hatred? Why when the guilty bastard is a Muslim according to the bBC:
Anelka gesture comic Dieudonne banned from UK
When the bBC reports of examples of Racism in the UK, be it:
Women who wear the hijab getting funny looks, abuse on the internet from…abroad. Not being allowed to build a mosque. Meeting up after work in a Pub. The EDL (who have yet to murder anybody in the UK , those who subscribe to UKIP (who again haven’t murdered anybody) generalising that readers of the Daily Mail can only be bigots or referring to anybody who votes Tory as Nasty, the bBC never ever gives a contrasting view of any of the above. They, in the words of the left are evil incarnate and don’t deserve the right to be listened to and thus they must be denied the oxygen of air and silenced.
Now lets look at the above article where an Islamic Racist Bigot has been banned from the UK. Here is how the bBC defends him and excuses his polarized (by Allah) view.
“The “quenelle” is considered by some to be anti-Semitic.”
When I did my equal equalities course , it was drummed into us, that any act which anybody finds distressing or offensive is by default…Offensive. No ifs, no buts, no leg to stand on. This is perfectly illustrated by the number of times the bBC has censored anything which may offended…Muslims. (The latest example being the Jesus and Mohammed cartoon, which 2% of the British Population may find …offensive.) from its news coverage.
Yet, in a media organisation which has no problem berating any white Christian from wearing Nazis fancy dress (Unless of course they are in the Labour Party they remain somewhat apologetic when the prat doing the Nazis salute is…a Muslim.
”Anelka claimed his action was designed purely as a show of support for Dieudonne and suggested the salute could be perceived as “anti-establishment”, rather than discriminatory.”
Of course it is a simple matter (As in all things Rabble rousing by muslims) of being misunderstood. If so why are the left still braying for the blood of Tory MP Aidan Burley. I mean it’s not as if the France Police charged him (they dropped the case)
”He rewrote the shows, dropping much of the material deemed offensive, but fans and civil liberties campaigners accused the French government of censorship and attacking free speech.”
So according to the bBC, this shows that Dieudonne can’t be a racist, as he changed his show in which to conform to the French public prosecutor and actually, this smacks of censorship and is against his human rights. Now remind me again how the left don’t follow suit with..UKIP.the EDL and of course the nasty party. Going by the mantra of the latest bBC blockbuster:
”All for one and one for all!”
Even a Dumass can see that.
” Anelka said last week that he would not walk out on West Brom despite the FA charge and possible ban hanging over him. The striker has insisted that he is “neither anti-Semitic nor racist”.
Neither was Roy Hunniford, Silkcott Smith or Carole Thatcher yet they all we made to pay the price for perceived racism. Yet when the guilty bastard is a Muslim, he can (according to the bBC) be a victim.
“Anelka gesture comic”? Oy. Hey, BBC, maybe if you put “anti-Semitic” and “quenelle” in the headlines often enough everyone would know what it was and what it meant and you wouldn’t feel like you had to refer to Anelka as if he’s the only thing people know about it.
The BBC’s Hugh Sykes is clearly relishing his employer’s relentless attacks on Michael Gove:
I wonder how HS would react if Tory supporters started tweeting Wack-Hugh_Sykes. I pretty sure he’ll be complaining.
The Beeb has been if full attack mode since yesterday.
After they featured it on the main 8.10 news slot, the Today prog James Naughtie said; ‘This one is going to run and run, as we all know’.
Yes, it will run and run… led by the BBC, The Guardian and Labour – the predictable trio of anti-tory attack dogs, and ignored by all others.
2hr 20.50 in.
Yes; Beeboid political chums seem to include many, many unelected Labour Party quango-types whom Beeboids assist in dominating the quango-sphere; just as Beeboids expect the BBC to be their own permanent and publicly financed world.
How does the bBBC decide which ‘stories’ to keep pushing ad nauseam? The only plausible reason that I can fathom is that Gove is amongst the most effective of all the government ministers, so they’d like an excuse to keep attacking him. Apart from Mandela, I think we last had it with Marxist Miliband where even the Grauniad didn’t have the stomach for the week-long fabricated ‘news’ that the bBBC managed.
Do they have editorial meetings to decide which Labour lines to pursue?
‘How does the bBBC decide which ‘stories’ to keep pushing ad nauseam? ‘
Well, whatever it is, it’s another of their little secrets. FoI exempted.
‘How does the bBBC decide which ‘stories’ to keep pushing’
Who knows, but whatever story gets the full 8.10am treatment on the R4 Today prog sets the tone for the rest of the days coverage.
The Today prog has been called ‘The establishments notice board’ – it sets the agenda for the day ahead [often in cahoots with the Guardian it seems], and is why jobs there are so highly sought after.
‘BBC correspondent and presenter since 1974.
Views my own not anyone else’s.’
See, he can say or write or quote whatever he likes, as they are his own views, and nothing to do with the entity he has been correspondent and presenter for since 1974. The one mentioned first in line.
In my organisation, we always take action against people who bring the company into disrepute, even if they attempt a ‘views my own not anyone else’s’ disclaimer. If they identify themselves as an employee we are entitled, within our ‘Standards of Behaviour’ policies, to take an interest in what they are publishing. Most employers will have exactly the same staff obligations written into their terms and conditions.
The fact that ‘in his own tweet’ he has referenced and promoted his employers output makes it worse, in my view. This is a BBC employee tweeting on BBC matters – it is not a private tweet.
The BBC though may take the view that his tweet does not bring them into disrepute, rather he is upholding their warped and twisted values.
He’ll probably get promoted.
Have lodged a complaint about this DB.
Will let you know what transpires.
‘Will let you know what transpires.’
You should get a reply, assuming they haven’t added ‘harshing their mellow’ to the growing internal secret list of reasons the BBC doesn’t need to respond to concerns about its activities.
Wild guess, after a few default ‘no problem I can see’ cookie cutters from the duty drone pushing the auto dismiss button, if you push it a director will be wheeled out to wave a hand and mock any who cannot appreciate the subtle whimsy of urbane sophisticates like wot our Hugh is.
May get a little testy, erring on plug pulling, if he’s tasked to show how often such mockery has broken down over the decades between political parties he has favoured vs. those he and his colleagues can barely bare to speak the name of.
May also be worthing keeping an eye out (and page capture) in case it ‘vanishes’ soon.
That can happen when the grown ups find out what the kids (of several decades) have been doing with the knobs and stuff.
With whom have you lodged the complaint? The Police? After all he is encouraging people to ‘whack’ Gove. Now ‘whack’ can mean anything on a sliding scale from ‘hit’ to ‘kill’.
At the very least Sykes is advocating violence against a government minister. Par for the course for lefties really but not something I would tolerate from one of my staff using my company’s name.
Surely advocating violence is worse than calling someone name?
Gove frightens liberals. He is effective and not on their side.
This is a very important battle of ideas.
If the liberals win then it is more sliding into the education abyss.
To his credit I think Gove knows what is at stake. So do the liberals. The battle is on.
Of course if a leading Tory came out in favour of the return of grammar schools nationwide this phony war could really erupt into a major war.
Because we have to bring them back. There is no choice.
Just look at the East Asians. They will take us apart unless we do.
Third world status in a generation.
Sykes has now tweeted a sigh, that it was a joke. Yes, Hugh, we know that. The question is, from which direction? The “Now” seemed to indicate just a little hint of “Check it out you guys, lol”, rather than “Come see the unfair treatment Gove is receiving.”
Once again, a BBC journalist getting called out for expressing personal political opinions on Twitter has no idea what the problem is and only ends up holding the complainers in contempt.
On the lunchtime news, Norman Smith compared him to Billy Whizz and on ‘PM’ Mair likened him to the head that keeps popping up in the whack-a-mole arcade game – ‘No matter how many times you hit it, it keeps on popping up again’.
Then we have Sykes joining in.
Doing Labour’s job for them? Damn right they are. Yet more irrefutable examples of BBC bias, with not a single refute from albadez anywhere in sight.
Funny how these memes seem to spread naturally throughout the spectrum of broadcasting. Groupthink? What groupthink?
BBC-NUJ’s leading report on Africa (online) is about its Mandela.
But the following report on Islamic jihad massacre of Christians in Nigeria is censored out by BBC-NUJ:-
“Nigeria: 53 murdered as armed Muslims enter church during service, lock doors, slit throats of those trying to escape”
Awful bit of bias on BBC 24, tonight, with an interview with that pointless egghead of a lefty philosopher, Alain de Botton. He was being ‘interviewed’ about what is ‘news’ and who chooses what and why, and whether it is significant. He then spouts out a load of old crap like bias is not necessarily a bad thing unless it’s to the extent of Fox News and, wait for it…. yep, you guessed it: the Daily Mail. Pure left-wing propaganda. Funny de Bottom didn’t mention the BBC’s left-wing bias over immigration, Muslims, global warming and multiculturalism.
I heard this too.
Bottom was a tubby rollover wasn`t he?
Basically the bBC need to give us more global warming, and good bias…and the Mail and Fox can get banned.
Worrasuckup…even Huws widows peak arched at the fawning.
Like a Welsh Hugh Scully-even more of a toady if that is possible.
How vey commonly purposeful of him.
How the bBC just can’t can’t accept the factswhich show the UK in a good light even when they are from the …EU:
Corruption across EU ‘breathtaking’ – EU Commission
The bBC reports on an EU report which states that corruption is rife in the EU to the tune of £99bn annually.
(Isn’t that what the tory party party has been saying all along?)
Any way the bBC reports that:
In the UK only five people out of 1,115 – less than 1% – said they had been expected to pay a bribe. It was “the best result in all Europe”,
Wow, what good news, but hang on, this is the bBC, so they follow the above fact, with a supposition:
“But 64% of British respondents said they believed corruption to be widespread in the UK, while the EU average was 74% on that question.”
Yup the bBC, just can’t have anybody say good about the UK, so they pull out the above in which to say..Rotten Britain. The thing is I looked up the report (320 pages) and I found the chart the bBC refer to. (Page 22) The thing is there are 28 countries in that survey and the UK comes in at number 21. The next two are Holland and Germany at 61 and 59%. The next two are Sweden and Lux at 44 and 42% with the final 2 being Finland and Denmark at 29 and 20%. So while the BBC is more than happy to parrot the line that the UK is corrupt, actually it isn’t and comes out very near the top in honesty . Which kind of explains this closing snippet:
The proportion of respondents mentioning political representatives as people they would most trust to deal with a corruption complaint is highest in Denmark and the UK (both 9%)
Funny how the bBC is totally at odds with the facts.
According to that EU report less than 1% of the British people have experienced Corruption in the Uk. Here is the chart the bBC use, according to which the UK has a corruption problem of between 10-19%.
It’s not just Europe which has corruption, the UK has it in spades too.
Not the kind of corruption which sees money in brown envelopes changing hands for favours, but a much more insidious low level kind which sees the government and local politicians make more favourable rules for themselves.
So for instance Royal Mail has crown immunity, and cannot be sued as every other private company can.
So far as I know there is no public sector equivalent for corporate manslaughter, making the incompetent untouchable.
Smoking which was banned in every public place was allowed for the politicians in their own bars in the House of Commons.
And when premium rate numbers are to be banned guess who exempted themselves ? Even though the government says the public sector shouldn’t use them, we find the environment agency charging 46 pence per minute on it’s premium rate number !
There’s a whole list of examples where the government favours itself over every one else and every one of us is touched every day by that corruption, it’s just that it’s hidden and people don’t notice it.
If the BBC think that France is less corrupt than the UK then they must be insane. Anyone who has had the misfortune of requiring permission for anything from a French local council knows that if you want it today it costs considerably more than if you want it in three months time.
The question asked is ‘personally affected’ which in truth very few are, but it’s the petty everyday bureaucracy that is so dispiriting, the few pounds extra in tax that wipes out a small pay increase . and worst of all the constant increase in council tax to pay for the lavish pensions of municipal Kleptocrats
The BBC would have to declare an ‘interest’ in any EU corruption charges. Money from the EU for ‘easement’ of the news bias is considered ‘normal’ BBC ‘ethics’ (a BBC bias on demand subscription service) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10423013/BBC-faces-new-bias-row-over-charity-given-millions-by-EU.html
Today programme had a bit of glee when they said that British EUrosceptics were out of kilter with European EUrosceptics .
Interviewing the German AFD party gave the impression that they were about as EUrosceptic as the Tories , with the wording that Tories would use .
Maybe so BBC , we never thought that all Europeans think as one . A Eurosceptic in Germany will be EUrosceptic for different reasons to a EUrosceptic of Greece .
So if we are thinking in a British way rather than a European way there is even more reason to be out the EU .
‘Inside Out’ (BBC1 Leeds) tonight included a very one-sided item about the Spare Room Subsidy. Without using a stopwatch I’d say the time given to those against was at least ten times that given to those for.
Woody Allen allegations spur debate over legacy and celebrity culture – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-25992713
This article asks ‘Does Woody Allen deserve the benefit of the doubt?’
What a stupid question! Of course he does! The fact that an allegation of sexual abuse is made against someone doesn’t make them guilty or even probably guilty, whatever the politically correct BBC might like to think!
Innocent until proven guilty!
The fact that an allegation of sexual abuse is made against someone doesn’t make them guilty or even probably guilty, whatever the politically correct BBC might like to think!
Unless you are Jimmy Savile.
Anybody who has followed the DMI debacle till now will be familiar with what the various individual involved have claimed in order to shirk responsibility for this colossal waste of money and mismanagement.
Like this statement from Thompson in an article from last June:
However, in February 2011, Mr Thompson told the committee that DMI was already “out in the business” and that some programmes had already gone out on air using the technology.
He said at the time: “Is it on course now to deliver over the course of the year for BBC North and Salford? Yes it is. Are there going to be any significant further delays in benefit from the way we are delivering? No there won’t.”
As Judge Judy often points out, ‘if you’re going to lie you need a good memory to keep your story together’. Clearly Thompson’s sucks, all he does he state whatever he thinks will absolve him from criticism at the time. For this incompetence and lack of ethics he took over £800,000 a year from the licence fee.
I hope these MPs are going to challenge him and Patten about what was also reported back in June last year instead of going round in circles:
Earlier this week it was revealed that BBC chairman Lord Patten was warned a year ago about problems by former senior BBC manager, Bill Garrett, who was head of technology in the corporation’s programme-making department until 2010.
He wrote to Lord Patten in May last year to warn him about ‘serious concerns’ over the cost of the DMI and that there was a risk that the National Audit Office – the government’s spending watchdog – may have been misled about the project.
But further details of Mr Garrett’s correspondence with Lord Patten reveal he raised his concerns about the project to BBC management back in 2010.
Ex-BBC Boss Defends Role Over £100m Waste
Even the Beeboids’ political chums at ‘The Guardian’ can see this much:-
“BBC ‘half-truths’ over digital debacle condemned as Thompson faces MPs.
“Margaret Hodge’s accounts committee blames waste of £100m on byzantine bureaucracy almost beyond parody.”
By John Plunkett.
Wow. Thompson claims he wasn’t lying when he told MPs three years ago that the project was already up and running, and his excuse for ignorance is that he was too busy during that time wasting a huge amount of the license fee on the move to Salford and moving and redeveloping the remaining facilities in London (or slightly less honest words to that effect). And Zarin Patel is essentially claiming that she and other BBC mandarins were lied to. No wonder Linwood is taking legal action. He’s this year’s Meirion Jones and Peter Rippon, where the BBC apparatchiks are dripping poison about him.
Reforming the management structure won’t prevent scum from rising to the top and doing this, or from getting away with it. Only a real purge and the equivalent of bariatric surgery will begin to fix the real problem.
“BBC licence fee ‘doomed’”
Yes there is the ‘public persona’ and then there is the seedy ‘private life’ of celebs. Many so called ‘celebs’ are not worthy of anything but ridicule and disgust. I would be really saddened to find old ‘Woody’ guilty – (if it went that far) but if he is, he should remorse somehow for that. This is his step-daughter, after all, why would she make that up?, unless she is still really upset and it has ruined her child life. How many of our celebrities have been found child closet perverts. I hope Woody is not one of them. I really do.
It must be a year now since John Sweeney used a student visa and his wifes credentials in order to film an appalling piece of crap on North Korea…putting students at risk from the LSE for nothing more than his personal vanity.
We learned nothing we`d not seen in all his archive footage-where people had taken great risks to film, as opposed to Sweeeney embedding himself with his wifes students.
But tonight-Chris Rogers managed an excellent programme on North Korean education-and his commentary and sly asides made it all too clear what he saw the truth to be.
Panorama it was-unbelievable!
If only the BBC could stick to this kind of programme, and stopped trying to be DRNK(or whatever)s equivalent here as a State mouthpiece for the old regime…it would be far better.
Former BBC executive given £680,000 pay off says ‘I did a big job’ –
Ah. That takes me back. My little ‘un used to say that too. For much the same reason.
I know it’s not bbc but I’ve just watched ‘The Benefits Row’ on channel 5. What an absolute f******* disgrace of a show. Loaded leftie audience and panel. I’m fuming.
yeah nearly as bad as bBC output, but not quite.
I’m fuming, too. It was worse than Question Time, if that’s even possible. The most depressing aspect is that this should have been the perfect platform for a proper grown-up debate about the benefits system; instead, it was the same old, same old. They kept harping on about pensioners as though they are as bad as the scroungers on Benefits Street; I was just waiting for someone to remind the idiots that pensioners have already paid for their pensions. Then they have on the panel that Girl called Jack character, who needs to be reminded that it’s the workers who have been paying her benefits so that she can pretend she only has £10 a week left on which to feed herself and her fatherless (obviously unsupported) child. As she has been blogging for years, she would have had more money to spend on food if she had given up her internet connection. She sure showed her lack of class being the only person to swear – I wonder what Sainsbury’s will make of that? There was no mention at all of the scroungers that complain about lack of money yet can afford to have child after child, smoke and maintain mobile phones. I just wish one person had asked the audience where they thought the benefit money was actually coming from, or do they seriously think it grows on trees? Channel 5 should be well and truly ashamed to have allowed itself be hijacked in this politically-correct way.
It was the last episode of *The Unbelievable Truth* on Radio 4 tonight and the producers of this programme had kept their sheet clean right up until this last episode, they couldn’t help themselves could they? President Bush, Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld were all grouped together and got a kicking. The BBC really are a nasty piece of work. And the very last *quip* from the host was, would you believe it, promoting *Climate Change*. The BBC is like a dog out of control and we all know what happens to rabid animals that are out of control. Yup, they are put down. It can’t come soon enough.
Isn’t our Global Warming/Climate change broadcaster surprisingly quiet on the winter havoc about to hit the North East of the USA? And what about the 4 days of Ice Storms and severe winter weather hitting places like Slovenia? Oh and by the way, it snowed on Dartmoor tonight and the Met Office hadn’t forecast that. What they had forecast was heavy rain showers and severe gale force winds. Guess what? Snow and dead calm. Useless or what?
They only do warming…
It doesn’t seem to matter what the actual weather is – cold, hot, icy, mild, stormy or calm. All are irrefutable signs of man-made climate change. Now, get with the programme you Nazi deniers!!
Heads up everyone. There is an arctic plunge hitting the North East of the USA for quite a few days, about 7 to be exact. This very dense and very cold air ain’t going nowhere. The very cold air from Russia which has blocked any migration of the relatively warm air of the Atlantic ain’t going anywhere either. The trouble is, it means that the jet stream will be pushed slightly further south than now and with it, any weather systems developing in the gulf of Mexico will also be forced further south when joining the Jetstream and as a result will pick up even more moisture from a warm Atlantic ocean. It now looks like a weather system currently developing to the east of the Gulf of Mexico will find us next Tuesday. If you think it has been wet so far this year, wait till next Tuesday. You might think somewhat different if the storm development follows its intended path. This isn’t going to be pretty and keep an eye and ear for the forecasts and not necessarily from the BBC.
Your ‘not necessarily from the BBC’ is interesting. I live in a fairly exposed area and despair of the regional BBC forecasts, which are regarded as the last remaining examples of BBC comedy shows by local farmers. Can you suggest a more reliable alternative, please?
‘examples of bbc comedy shows’ – so not funny, then.
Try netweather – Their coastal forecasts are usually very good.
I shall, thanks.
One thing all the media seems to be keeping very quiet about is the number of houses on the Somerset levels which are actually flooded.
I have heard this from the environment minister and I was quite surprised given all the hoo hah so I’ll see if anyone else here knows or can find out before I say what figure I’ve heard.
Imagine if Tower Hamlets had flooded instead
Well, the Bangladeshis would be used to it, and the rest would be splashing about playing silly burqas…
Just to give the answer to the question.
I heard that just 40 houses had actually been flooded. Plenty have been cut off by flood waters and only accessible by specialist vehicles, but they are not flooded out.
Should we be spending loads of money for preventing inconvenience and is it really as bad as the media is painting it?
Judging by the coverage one would expect that several villages are inundated but I guess the true number of flooded houses is fewer than fifty.
When Chris Smith was interviewed as head of the Enviroment Agency, and facing criticism of the lack of action re the Somerset floods, there was no mention of his Labour credentials at this Quango, yet Labour credentials seem very important when it comes to Ofstead. Why?
I usually don’t listen to Radio 4 plays for any length of time, but sometimes while driving I catch a few minutes of them coming up to the news.
I have noticed more and more the use of swearwords in these plays in the afternoon. Words like tits, cock, balls, bollocks, dick, seem to be used on a regular basis.
So what do the BBC think they’re contributing to society with these? Do they really believe that any children listening to this will benefit, perhaps believing that it is an acceptable way of talking in general company.
As if our society doesn’t have enough problems already.
I’m no prude, and I’m not offended by the use of swear words, I do believe that our media has a responsibility to consider who may be listening and ensure that the content of programmes is suitable for all the potential audience at a given time.
The BBC reflect their general total disregard for upholding society values.
I’m glad to see Peter Hitchens has picked up on it too, and he shows the hypocrisy of the BBC, because when somebody wrote a complaint to them about the swearing in one of the plays, and used exactly the same words that had been used in the play in his complaint, the BBC refused to accept the complaint because of his language.
Just one more reason to close it down.
PETER HITCHENS: The BBC just loves swearing – until it gets a dose of its own @!X*! medicine
With respect, I’d suggest there is a great deal more to worry about in R4 plays than the language being used.
R4 has become even more the fount of Marxist garbage in the past five or six years and nowhere has this been more obvious than in the stream of agitprop that passes for ‘drama’ on the station.
I record R4 plays and listen to them later. The subject matter has become so political (with a small ‘p’) and so geared towards what the BBC’s drama department imagines is appealing to a female audience that I doubt if I can find one play worth recording every six or seven weeks.
Middle England is being relentlessly bombarded with cultural Marxism by R4 – a bit of swearing is really neither here nor there.
I don’t doubt for a moment that you’re right knowing the BBC as I do. But whereas people can be unaware of a particular bias, and most are, black and white issues like foul language is something that’s not subjective. The very fact that the BBC could refuse a complaint because the author had used the same words that he’s heard on the BBC before the watershed, shows they are aware, and pure hypocritical foul arseholes.
Just think how bad it would have been had they gone through with the plan to have Will Self as R4’s intellectual leader.
It’s like how we’re reminded over and over again that the BBC really does make an effort to be balanced and to keep staff from expressing political opinions all the time. Just think how bad the bias would be if there weren’t editors and line managers working so hard to keep them in line.
“…R4 has become even more the fount of Marxist garbage in the past five or six years and nowhere has this been more obvious than in the stream of agitprop that passes for ‘drama’ on the station.”
Too true. The seepage is constant and unremitting. Tune into just about any BBC R4 drama and it won’t be long before you’re reminded what the ‘real’ agenda is all about. It seems nothing is beyond Politburo contamination; all drama must – even on a very subliminal level – carry ‘the message’ in some form, some expression.
Worse still, if you can possibly bear it, is to sample R4’s output in the wee small hours – unleashed and apparently uncontrolled, this is where the station really lets rip with its true political agenda, untroubled by the fear of critics (who’s listening in the UK at 3am, anyway?)…I dare any of our regular contributors here to take the test, but be warned: you’ll be in for a world of pain and insufferable leftwing propaganda on everything from the wonders of communism, Islam and the innocence of the Palestinians to the ‘settled science’ of the climate ‘consensus’.
Sick bags and a good supply of whisky (to dull the pain) are advised. On the bright side, you might even find such utter drivel sends you happily of to sleep…
“to sample R4′s output in the wee small hours – unleashed and apparently uncontrolled”
Radio 4 goes off air at 1am when it switches over to the World Service.
It comes back on air at 5.20 with the shipping forecast, a news briefing, prayer for the day, farming today and then a bird call.
During the night it is the BBC world service. or as they now announce, “The World’s Radio Station”.
God help those in foreign parts who think that this represents the British way of life.
You are quite right. I’m often up at that time of night/morning and the political slant of the World Service’s output is appalling.
One aspect of the BBC’s overseas activity that concerns me (and it’s very apparent on the World Service) is the deliberate use of local reporters. I’ve no doubt there is some sort of ‘inclusivity’ directive behind this but the result is that the station loses the benefit of an outsider’s impartiality and objectivity. Clearly, the reporters the Corporation is using frequently have agendas the full nature of which which a listener can only guess at.
Scrap the TV licence or public support for the BBC will ‘fall off a cliff’, warns ex-Crimewatch host Nick Ross
-Licence fee ‘should be replaced with pay-per-view or subscription’
-Warns people who support the BBC now could change their minds
-But BBC insists fewer people would pay much more under subscription
The BBC licence fee should be scrapped and replaced with a voluntary subscription service, TV presenter Nick Ross has claimed.
The former host of Crimewatch warned support for the BBC would ‘fall off a cliff’ if the mandatory charge for all owners of a television set is not axed.
But the Corporation hit back saying the change would mean fewer people paying much more each year to maintain a quality service.
Top rated comment…
elisdee, London, United Kingdom :
Maintain what quality bbc? The amount of repeats and crap they show certainly isn’t worth the £150 odd a year we pay, oh yes I forgot they need the tv licence money to pay extortionate wages and bonuses to directors that the rest of us could only dream of or throw expensive Xmas parties and holidays away, Why should we fund that, scrap it, and let them pay their own wage bonuses and holidays! Like the rest of us have to !
Their ‘either/or’ scenario seems to have hit a road bump, where most have discerned that yet another BBC unique to many already ignobly in place, is that Delivering Quality Farces also seems to require even more funding.
‘…oh yes I forgot they need the tv licence money to pay extortionate wages and bonuses…’
…or to pay for the champagne, on order, to celebrate Labour’s return to power in 2015
Here’s a story that the BBC are doing their very best to avoid examining in any detail….. Nentioned en passant on the Today programme but the leak of Labours’ report into the falkirk cesspit (whose behaviour nearly closed down the Grangemouth refinery) gets the full ‘move along, nothing to see here treatment from the 4bn news machine that is the BBC…..
“There can be no doubt that members were recruited in an attempt to manipulate party processes…..”
“There is evidence that signatures were forged….”
“There is evidence that members were recruited without their knowledge…”
“Deliberate attempts were made to frustrate these interviews….”
Meanwhile – Horror of horrors one of thousands of Labour quangocrats doesn’t have her contract renewed by Gove.
Blanket coverage. It’s almost as if the BBC has some sort of party political bias…….
BBC Breakfast political correspondent Chris Mason on the leak of the internal Labour Party report on Falkirk : his line was ‘Why should I care?”
Well let’s see how our Licence Fee funded political journo Chris attempted to answer his own question.
Did Chris refer to the proberty, independence and effectiveness of Ed Miliband’s leadership of his Party?
No of course not. ‘Internal workings of the Labour Party’, ‘What happened in this one constituency’.
Yawn, yawn, yawn.
Very subdued reporting.
Still the BBC have a reputation for measured thoughtful responsible reporting – no?
Meanwhile, at the top of the BBC headlines…
‘A tidal wave of cancer!!!’
Listen to the small print and this is due to us living longer and our population increase – which I would have thought was good news. Plus this ‘tidal wave’ will be most noticable ‘in the developing world’. But don’t think you are off the hook, that this won’t touch your life…. WHO recommend ‘higher prices for alcohol and sugars’
If only the BBC would just go away when I switch off.
Interesting, I only caught the Five Live 9 o’clock news this morning and it wasn’t mentioned (there might have been voters listening).
Compare that attempt to subvert a democratic process (the very cornerstone of our democratic values) in a party that the public should have trust and confidence in, with the almost rabid, frothing pursuit of Michael Gove over the past three days.
The BBC were loosing it big time over Gove, nothing at all over this.
I’ve been away for a week so not sure if this has already been reported:
BBC Breakfast news on Monday: A brief item mentioning how gov are planning to modify trespass laws to allow fracking to extend under peoples homes (no kention that this fracking consists of a 6″ bore and some cracks 1km below the surface and could result in a halving of UK gas prices as it has in the US). This piece was immediately followed (by pure coincidence of course) by an amusing piece on a 20ft diameter sink hole that opened up by someone’s house and swallowed their car (needless to say, sink holes have nothing to do with fracking and are instead caused by soil washing away into natural caverns or coal mines much larger and much nearer to the surface than any tiny frack bore). And the same two items were repeatedly reported together, again and again (by complete coincidence of course – absolutely no subtle anti-fracking brainwashing going on whatsoever).
The fracking story the BBC were gleefully shouting about turns out to be yet another Greenpeace-sourced agitprop ‘story’ helpfully provided to their friends at The Corporation, masquerading as ‘news’. Standards continue to plummet at the BBC, I’m afraid.
The sinkhole business was nothing more than an excitable (and barely disguised) primer by the BBC to pimp yesterday evening’s ‘Horizon’, which, by happy coincidence, happened to be all about sinkholes. In Florida.
Funnily enough there was an Horizon on last night on Sink Holes. For Horizon it was actually quite factual and they even managed to avoid blaming Climate Change for it all.
Afterwards SWMBO commented that a sink hole had appeared on someone’s drive and wondered whether they had planned the Horizon to match the News. Unlikely I thought but maybe it was planned for a different news story and synchronicity kick in?
But that nice Doctor Stewart (Stuart?) still thought it was all our fault…
When he started talking about CO2 turning rain into acid and reacting with the limestone I thought he was going to make the obvious miss-step. He didn’t.
All he really said was that if you build on soil over large holes sooner or later your building will disappear into the ground. Fair comment, I thought.
Incidentally, I thought the solution being sold to the householders, more weight in the guise of a concrete mat was likely to exacerbate the problem. Unless they can guarantee that the mat will cover a hole completely all they are doing is adding to the weight …
“…When he started talking about CO2 turning rain into acid and reacting with the limestone I thought he was going to make the obvious miss-step. He didn’t.”
Yep, me too. He sounded like he was getting ready to jump the shark but, amazingly, he stepped away from the brink at the last moment, leaving me to appreciate a fairly good edition of Horizon untroubled by the usual (mandatory) CAGW proselytizing.
…but he did say it was our fault…
Keeping the cubicle dwellers employed today were some scientists saying that rats ‘could’ evolve into the size of sheep.
I have to wonder if there is a limit to their phobia to dead air such they would broadcast anything simply to keep the pay check coming in.
Maybe JK could issue another press release on the love lives of fictional characters?
Ah, but will they be Super Saucy Cannibal Sheep-Rats ? Good luck to anyone trying to shear one of the buggers anyway.
BBC Breakfast Business Geordie Steph McGovern has problems this morning ‘with her graphics’.
Left with nothing but her script her wits and her ‘strong northern accent’ she is clearly a little rattled.
A little desperately our Steph quips :
“Some one will get the sack”
I doubt it, pet! Wae’aye man, pet. Dinnie fret lass. Not at the BBC, you’ll be alreet agyen!
People on the left used to mock the “Received pronunciation” used in broadcasts but there was a reason for using a neutral accent and that was to enable viewers, from all regions, to understand what was being said!
I’m not suggesting a return to “RP” but perhaps a modern neutral accent could be adopted by presenters?
After all they are there to present information to the viewers.
Just a thought.
It’s called Estuary English and the BBC use it already!
The accent doesn’t really matter to me. What rankles is the BBC lefty groupthink which is uniform across all accents as far as I can tell.
BBC-NUJ again, within days, pushes non-story of Labour Party toying with idea of loosening financial power of trade unions over Labour Party.
Is cos of lobster in Barbados ?-
” Barbados Bob, great train robber who uses industrial brute force to make rail passengers stand and deliver”
By RICHARD LITTLEJOHN.
BBC-NUJ ❤ Labour Party Quangos.
” How quangos are still in Labour’s iron grip”
By DAILY MAIL COMMENT.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2551336/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-How-quangos-Labours-iron-grip.html#ixzz2sLQNqSvA
“How Labour STILL rules the quangos: Party stuffed public bodies with its supporters while in power to establish ‘government in exile’ which holds sway even today.
“For their 13 years in power, more than half of appointees supported Labour.
“The balance has yet to be restored under David Cameron.”
By JAMES SLACK.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2551264/How-Labour-STILL-rules-quangos-Party-stuffed-public-bodies-supporters-power-establish-government-exile-holds-sway-today.html#ixzz2sLVQneWq
There is a well-established theory that when you increase tax rates you reach a point or “hump” where the resulting tax take actually declines, because the tax rate is so high it acts as a disincentive to work – or to observe the tax law. Some US experience suggests that this “Laffer curve” has the inflection level at about 33% – way below the 50% tax level Labour now wants, and indeed well below the 45% applied by the Tories.
More to the point – it is below the 40% rate which millions and millions of Brits now pay (not including all the social security contributions). Beeboids approve big government and big tax rates – I seldom hear any arguments for low flat rates of tax being given airtime on the BBC.
Most BBC staff see high taxes on the wealthy as social justice. The reality you’re talking about isn’t important to them, because their goal is different.
The only people at the BBC who don’t necessarily feel that way are the top earners with tax-dodging schemes.
Looks like Radio 4 has found their new God in James Booker with a 30 minute program devoted to James Booker described on Wikipedia as:
“the best black, gay, one-eyed junkie piano genius New Orleans has ever produced.”
So Black – Gay – Druggie – Disabled What more could they ask for ?
“So Black – Gay – Druggie – Disabled What more could they ask for ? ”
Female (or, better still, transsexual) and Muslim for the Full House. Bingo!
That ticks more boxes than Mishal Hussein!
Yes perhaps they’ve given up on finding the Gay Disabled Jihadist though.
Not likely to happen unless Abu Hamza makes a surprise announcement about his sexuality.
A joyous day for all at the BBC. No, not a bus load of school children to fondle but…
Former UKIP spokesman was kidnapping gang ‘boss’
A story of such magnitude that it required two reporters – Mike Deri Smith & Jim Reed. The political importance of this criminal’s political affiliation is such that UKIP are mentioned 21 times within the text even though the crime was nothing to do with his political activities. They included a large picture of Nigel Farage halfway down the page. They even dig up a commentator to add some deep insight into the UKIPs membership vetting (or lack of) and to link UKIP with “the radical right”
Contrast this, if you will with this story: Denis MacShane jailed for MP expenses fraud
This story is so unimportant that it doesn’t have a byline at all. The political connections of the criminal are so irrelevant that they aren’t mentioned in the title or in the short form summary of the BBC’s search engine – even though the crime was directly related to his political position. The word “Labour” is used 3 times within the body of the text. No picture of Ed Miliband. No comment from Matthew Goodwin about labour needing to sort out the selection process for their parliamentary representatives.
To me, the scandalous part of the “UKIP spokesman” story is that he was granted asylum here after being convicted of kidnapping and threatening to behead the victim in Pakistan. His fellow criminals were, as I understand it, sentenced to death in Pakistan for their crimes… he was granted asylum here presumably to escape the death sentence.
I don’t care what political party he represents. Convicted criminals should not be allowed here ion the first place.
(I explained to my husband last night that we can expect to see an increase of UKIP-bashing by the BBC in the run up to the European elections. I think he’s starting to see my point – he didn’t demur, in any case.)
“…I explained to my husband last night that we can expect to see an increase of UKIP-bashing by the BBC in the run up to the European elections.”
Spot-on. And it’s going to get a lot worse, cheerled and fuelled all the way to Election Day by the common purpose trolls at the BBC. They are running scared of what UKIP represents to their cosy, self-congratulatory ‘progressive’ vision of a ‘multi-culti’ Britain (you know, the same vision that has been failing so completely for the past twenty-five years), so I guess we can all expect the BBC to play very fast and very loose with the facts, with ‘impartiality’ and with any chance of ‘truth in reporting’ when it comes to UKIP.
Like any self-respecting socialist totalitarian organisation, the BBC intends to belittle, humiliate and publicly embarrass its enemy with sneering insults and innuendo and a sustained campaign of public smears as often as it can.
Sadly, the BBC will be aided in its campaign to smear UKIP by the Mail and the Telegraph.
There is no part of our self-appointed establishment that wants to be disturbed by popular opinions.
Most commenters on the “tory” newspapers will foregive UKIP almost anything, now. Quite right too – they are on a roll.
“Self-respecting socialist totalitarian organisation,”
Very well expressed Phill Ford
If UKIP is such a racist party as the BBC like to make out what is it doing having Pakistani members never mind spokesmen?
Could the BBC be lying to us. Again. Surely not.
Why is the BBC’s research so poor?
Still, two hate targets with one report – a result for the BBC
Linked to this in the comments is this:
At about 6′ 30″ in, a senior Labour gob trots out a series of claimed figures that Mr. Neil very politely takes apart.
I do respect such knowledge and integrity in an interviewer when deployed.
It will be interesting how many other BBC shows she was/is/will be actually held to account calmly, factually and in so devastating a fashion.
Or on how many more mainstream BBC news breaks this performance is subsequently cited and analysed.
One is sure the archive team on standby will oblige?
I agree that the ONLY time the BBC ever does the job its supposed to do is when Andrew Neil is the interviewer. He seems quite unbiased and gives interviewees on any stripe a hard time in searching for the truth. Almost with out exception other BBC interviewers allow Labour to make any claims they like and never hold them to account or ask even a few searching questions. In contrast Tories get given a hard time with all sorts of spurious assertions being made about their policies or the state of the country.
BBC bias is outrageous for a state funded broadcaster. If the BBC were a subscription channel for leftists it would be fine, but it isn’t and its funding should be cut off as soon as possible.
The BBC News – Yellow journalism at its very best (or worst).
The bottom line for the BBC is that Ukip are amateurish and should have vetted this man. If you’re going to make him some sort of spokesman, that’s fair enough. But if the people who already knew everything about him, the British state, had followed the judge’s recommendation and deported him, he could not have become an issue for Ukip or anyone else. Of course, the BBC will focus entirely on the failure of Ukip rather than the failure of the state.
But speaking of vetting, I would ask the BBC if the following are fit and and proper people to appear on the BBC:
Dr Sahib Bleher
Nicky Campbell’s mate Mo Ansar
Lib Dem Mohammed Shafiq
That Newsnight is front and centre for not noticing something present after their recent troubles popping things in that had been made up, is rather par for the course in BBC selective outrage.
Given political party vetting is a bit dodgy all round, in the spirit of #2wrongs I did like this comment:
Mornington Crescent says:
February 4, 2014 at 12:41 pm
…and, of course, the BBC always vets its staff and roots out the dodgy ones, doesn’t it…?
Ah, but… BBC vetting is likely unique, and also without doubt #foiexempted, so they could have rapist & molesters on the roll call and no one would know.
“There’s no business like show business”, Ethel Merman once said. How true and, if you disqualify all of the child molesters, rapists, murderers and drug abusers from working at the BBC, all of their shows would have to acted out and presented by the engineering staff.
And how much vetting could UKIP have done? I doubt the home office would have fessed up about the bloke’s record – and you can’t just ring MI6 and say “What’s the form on this bloke from Pakistan?”.
It does seem that certain vested interests can often ‘push’ an angle that on not very much scrutiny can have not much going for it.
Much picking of cherry and very little professional integrity in covering the full story. Either through ineptitude or venality.
Or, in other words, ‘BBC News’.
One might wonder if certain parties are going easy on the BBC as their soiled laundry continues to blow across the flooded heaths of Britain, so long as the BBC keeps up its relentless assault on any upstart challenges to the establishment order that may actually resonate with the public.
As with other entities without honour, and who see concession as weakness, such a pact may prove ill-considered in the longer run.
So the fellow was allowed in under Labours watch , had to leave UKIP when his criminality was discovered , and has joined the Conservatives .
Isn’t the real scandal that criminals are waltzing into the UK , not that one bamboozles a new party finding its way .
Sikh Temple in India – furore on BBC 5Live
as advice was given to Indian Gov? … in 1984??
that they didn t take??? months before any action????.
doesn t stop an absurd, elongated “we demand to know”,
table thumper getting lots of airtime though.
You know … and why not? every community now wants a slice of the appalled/offence industry pie, and all the fringe benefits, that come with it.
A certain ideology we could mention, has set a precedent
and cowardice to it, will be a real “can of worms” in the future.
If you listen to the bbc the SAS were totally responsible, in fact if they hadn’t been involved it would have all ended peacefully with handshakes.
How the bbc hate the UK military..
Given that this happened in 1984, how long will it be before the BBC trot out the old “it was all Thatcha’s fault” line…?
And the inevitable call for a ‘Public Enquiry’
The political world which BBC-NUJ inhabits and advocates:-
“Revealed – the truth on Labour’s Falkirk vote-rig scandal: Report suggests activists were ‘pressured into completing direct debit forms’ by union officials.
“Leaked report claims there is evidence members of the Unite union members were signed up as Labour members without their knowledge.
“Report is related to accusations that Unite tried to fix the parliamentary selection process for the preferred candidate, Karie Murphy.”
By JAMES CHAPMAN
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2551233/Revealed-truth-Labours-vote-rig-scandal-Report-suggests-activists-pressured-completing-direct-debit-forms-union-officials.html#ixzz2sMoQLrvu
Islam Not BBC (INBBC) uncritically speaks up for the Islamic jihad enemy, the Taliban, ludicrously linking the murderous Islamic outfit with the word ‘peace’:-
“Pakistan: Taliban criticise peace talks delay”
INBBC’s M.* (*Mohammad?) Ilyas Khan in Islamabad, who in my book, does not represent British interests, continues the falsehood of describing the murderous Taliban as mere ‘militants,’ not the Islamic jihad mass murderers they are.
INBBC’s propaganda in this, follows on from that of Lyse ‘the humanity of the Taliban’ Doucet.
Yes but what they don’t say is that the Talibans version of peace is leaving them untroubled while they plan Jihad around the world and killing as many as they can while leaving as many of them safe in their caves.
They’ve got form on this!
So, just in case you were wondering, the Guardian explains what the BBC is up to in casting a black Musketeer….
And the explantion rather gives the lie to the argument that this might simply be a bit of BBC colour-blind casting by merit.
‘Rather, the casting of Porthos works as a homage to the parentage and race of Alexandre Dumas père….’
Also, I note that the episode broadcast last Sunday had a sub-plot around ‘slavery’. So the casting was no accident and we the viewers are not supposed to turn a colour-blind eye to the BBC Porthos.
But is this a problem for the viewer?
The Guardian obviously thinks not…
‘But should Porthos be mixed-race? In one sense, sure, why not? If a black actor such as David Harewood, say, can play the (probably white) English nobleman Sir Harry Hotspur in the National Theatre production of Shakespeare’s King Henry IV without critics whining about the historical accuracy (trickier in fact for a white actor to play Othello since the colour of the Moor’s skin is inscribed deep in Shakespeare’s verse), surely a mixed-race musketeer isn’t a stretch.’
Realistically I don’t think that one example of black casting can be taken as justifying the next. That is no argument at all.
Perhaps the Licence Payer should indeed worry about the motivations at play here. The Guardian is clear that it is keen to see ‘noses rubbed in diversity’….
‘I once wrote about claims that George III’s consort Charlotte had African ancestry. We’d had theories – shattering to white supremacists, intriguing to the rest of us – that Beethoven was black, so why not a black queen of England? What was most striking to me in all this was that the US city named after her (Charlotte, North Carolina) had used these claims to help improve race relations. Perhaps Queen Charlotte’s story could, I argued then, do the same over here. It hasn’t, as you’ll have noticed. That, I suspect, is why it’s worth casting a mixed-race actor as Porthos – to shake some Europeans out of their racist delusions.’
So there is a leftist multiculti agenda at work as far the Guardian is concerned. Did British Licence Payers ask for this campaigning? Were we asked if we wanted it? Is anyone who questions appropriate casting in BBC dramas to be labelled ‘racist’?
Sadly unlike – say – Channel 5’s Celebrity Big Brother when it comes to BBC drama ‘we’ don’t ‘decide’
The writers did make a tiny attempt to redeem the obvious self-righteous preening they wrote by having the slave trader utter what most probably ignored as a throw-away line at the end. After all the high-school level dialogue about “stolen lives” had ended, he said something along the lines of human life having no value in Africa, just barely implying that neither he nor the British nor the Spanish nor any other white European invented the slave trade. That’s something so rarely admitted by anyone on the BBC airwaves that it came as a shock.
I’m quite forgiving as it is not a bad evening untaxing romporama at all in iPlayer.
Certainly stacks up a lot better than ‘Atlantis’, which seemed to be merely a way to blow some budget in nicer weather… for the crew at least.
Oddly, it is not doing too well in the ratings, with a downhill trend from the debut.
Makes me wonder when watching the Three Musty Queers why the Autumn family viewing ‘Atlantis’ turned out so poor.
Perhaps because most of the actors have no charisma ?
I rather like The Musketeers. I take it as fun nonsense with lots of swashbuckling, wit, Peter Capaldi, and the lovely Alexandra Dowling.
It’s fun. As I hope it’s intended to be. If it’s BBC liberal propaganda, it ought to be more serious.
I couldn’t care less if Porthos is played by a black actor as long as the man in question can act. In the era in which it is set France had a small black population and it is possible, though unlikely, that a Musketeer could be black. I say unlikely as the Musketeers were an elite unit and part of the King’s Guard. They were, for the most part, the lesser sons of the Aristocracy. Competition for entry was keen and careful regulated. A foreign prince from a might gain entry but not an common man.
I’d be more exercised by this if they tried to portray the King as black, or D’Artagnan even, as he is at least supposed to be of a type – a Gascon.
However to deliberately put in a black actor for PC reasons is just pathetic and puts the lie to the BBCs claims not to be racist. They obviously believe black people are too stupid to watch a programme with only white people in in.
What seriously pisses me off about piss poor productions like this is their need to change the story. The introduction of D’Artagnan to M’lady, de Rochefort and the individual Musketeers is iconic. All that crap about war with Spain when the original story is about averting a war with England by thwarting Richleau’s plot against Buckingham. Why change it? It is part of what makes Dumas’ story so successful and why, over a century later, the story is still being told.
And don’t get me started on the uniforms …
FFS, what next? Robinson Crusoe gets lost in Vienna and decides to kill off Hitler’s ancestors? Fuckwits!
‘Why change it?
There are several floors between the revolving entrance doors and the top, all packed with folk who need to impose their stamp on things.
This seemed a worthy homage in complement:
Some interesting ‘because he says so’ stats & claims by Mr. Purnell there.
Certainly the one about keeping all licence fee money within the BBC to ensure most effective use is made of it may not to many be borne out in reality.
There could be some who think such funding may better go to impartial professional programming, as opposed to propping up pensions, trying to launch white elephants, paying FoI exemption lawyers, senior managers’ gardening leave and stepping back-in pay rises, compo to abuse victims, etc.
According to the BBC’s editors, this is a sports story:
Sochi 2014: Gay snowboarder Belle Brockhoff will limit protest
I think that it belongs in the politics section myself, at least until there is an “LGBT News” section. Can’t be long now.
More lies from the bBC. In the report it says that Britain helped plan the attack. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26027631 But in Parliament it was said that because of the Iranian embassy affair, the Indians asked for advice from us three months before the attack. Also our advice was not to attack unless essential. Also the suggested attack was not the type suggested by us. Just like Labour in Parliament trying to give a totally distorted view.
Correction: Also the Indian attack was not the type suggested by us.
This is from MSNBC’s White House correspondent:
Just as I’ve always said it will. Mark Mardell will have to call him a racist now. Is the CBO now controlled by the Koch Bros. and the crypto-racist Tea Party, BBC? Will you even dare report this?