Welcome to a sodden Friday. I see the BBC continues to do ALL it can to link the floods to man made climate change. If it rains it is AGW, if it doesn’t, it is AGW. An agenda is pursued at all costs and with scant regard to facts. Here is an Open Thread for the weekend!
FRIDAY OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
I dont know what you think, but is BBC Norfolk backing Ed Balls bias? http://kebabtime.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/bbc-norfolk-back-ed-balls.html
BBC Breakfast going on about removing dads from childbirth today. Was a bit disturbing but not surprising they would bring up this topic as men aren’t needed in the new feminist world
Although after just breaking up with my girlfriend and who was the biggest pyscho I have ever known I honestly can’t see why any bloke would tie themselves down to a woman these days. I think gay men have worked out something that straight men haven’t and I’m not taking the piss either
(off topic rant!!)
So, Question Time last night. I really don’t know why I continually subject myself to this mockery of ‘impartial political programming’ and, as if to reprimand my foolishness, last night’s edition kicked off with one of the most blatant displays of pure CAGW scaremongering yet seen on this p*sspoor excuse for ‘debate’.
The opening question asked if government had failed to take the recent UK flooding seriously in the regions until the home counties themselves became affected.
Lord Robert Winston took the opportunity of his reply to launch into a well-rehearsed, doctrinally-approved harangue on the perils of ‘climate change’; to remind the watching viewers that all of the recent flooding was as the result of ‘man-made’ climate change and that, further, all weather (hot or cold, flood or drought, everywhere, all the time, etc) was as the net result of people using too much of the ‘wrong’ kind of energy.
Lord Winston was permitted to speak uninterrupted by Dimbledore, to deliver his sermon to the true believers and heretical unbelievers in full, despite his not actually answering the original question at any point during his performance, nor did he offer even a scintilla of evidence to back up any of his wild assertions, nor was he asked for any such evidence by the Chairman of the panel.
Lord Winston seems to be firmly of the opinion that by not taking so many showers and doing without a bit more light and heat, getting rid of our cars and basically all returning to the fields (true Pol Pot style) we’ll not only ‘solve’ the problem of flooding, but very probably we’ll manage to stop bad weather happening at all. Thus, we enter the realm of fantasy and magic (where so much of ‘green’ thinking has always lived).
Lord Winston’s factually-challenged propaganda piece was embraced by all of the panel as some kind of (factually challenged) ‘truth’ apart from the UKIP representative, Janice Atkinson, who at least made some effort to respond to his delusional ramblings.
Lord Winston returned again and again to his pro-CAGW theme throughout last night’s edition, and each time he was permitted unopposed to re-state his CAGW zealotry whilst rebuking the watching public for their evil fossil fuel ways.
Lord Winston admitted there was absolutely ‘no proof’ for any of his pro-CAGW claims (describing that absence as ‘a problem’), but he nevertheless still felt rampant climate alarmism, the misappropriation of truly staggering sums of public money and the determined political indoctrination of a nation and its children (especially the children) are all justified in the pursuit of something called ‘sustainability’.
Given the amount of uninterrupted space he was given in which to deliver his tired, discredited mantra (not once, but twice), one was left in no doubt that the BBC wholeheartedly endorsed Lord Winston’s views and were very keen to let him deliver his propaganda piece to the nation.
Your licence fee at work, folks.
Thank goodness I lasted about three minutes of the programme, the stupidity of the comments from the audience was warning enough.
Audience stupidity probably reflects the level of stupidity exhibited by the not-bothering-to vote sheeple in general, (and probably those who do vote, too, come to think of it).
As it is folk like Winston and the other eco-green-pro-AGW cohorts who shout loudest, and who appear, without fail, on any “discussion” (and in any broadcast “debate”) who are exposed to the public, who in turn (in many cases), believe the drivel and vote accordingly in by-elections.
I know Channel 4 isn’t really within the remit of this blog, but as I tend to watch their news, rather than the opinionated rubbish on the BBC (having said that, of course there is little difference between them), and witnessed Jon Snow (splashing about in the water in their new wellies and waders) et al wetting their pants when they rope people in to “agree that climate change is happening, and the cause of all our woes”, from poor hydrologists thrust into the glare of the spotlight, to raving lunatics like Russell Brand, who will say anything to draw attention to himself (why DO they give him so much air time?)
The Former UK is even more stuffed than we could possibly have imagined.
The only time I find the 38yr old adolescent, Russell Brand, funny, is when he’s being serious.
We bought and were watching the second series of 2 and a half men. Much superior to anything the bBC can produce or offer
I actually thought the first question on QT was good, until Winston spoke. The panellists and the audience gave the bBBC a good kicking over their London-bias, sending shed-loads of churnalists to the recent Thames floods but ignoring the Humberside floods in December, which affected far more people.
Some weeks ago Question Time was added to my BBC boycott list.
I have a feeling that – as a matter of strategy – the BBC is deliberately driving away large sections of the viewing audience by pandering to the whims and preferences of other more militantly vocal groups.
I expect he supports the re introduction of the beaver. The type of hard workinhg immigrant this country needs. Also the beaver helps slow down drainage and creates wetlands.
Fine little creatures I know but do we really need them here?
My problem is that whenever I see a photograph of Robert Maurice Lipson Winston, baron Winston I cannot help but think of Julius Henry “Groucho” Marx.
Thanks to you and UKIP Its always reassuring to know that global warming doesnt exist. Quite a change too for the BBC that has attempted to stifle all discussion of the subject up until now. Bit difficult to ignore with the audience turning up in diving gear an all. Now all we need to do is get rid of that environment agency that made it rain in the first place. Having done that all the weather will go back to normal. The added bonus is that since homosexuality is related to rainfall not only will we be a little drier but also the population will be straighter, just like God, our maker, intended. Some days just cant get better! Except for the rain. EA bastards!
I know of no genuine, sceptical and realist scientist, engineer who still believes that CO2 is the primary driver of climate, nor do I know of anyone who claims that climate change does not exist.
As to the science. Taking the last years’s weather and attributing it to “man made climate change” is NOT science
For example, back in 2006 George Monbiot in the Guardian was confidently reporting that Climate Scientists knew that our rivers were going to run dry:
The freshwater boom is over. Our rivers are starting to run dry
We can avert thirst – but it means cutting carbon emissions by 60%. Sounds ridiculous? Consider the alternative… http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/oct/10/comment.water?CMP=twt_gu
We were told that children in the UK would grow up not knowing what snow is. Then after the last three freezing winters, wer were told that increased snow is due to man made climate change. Then when we had hosepipe bans in spring 2012, we were told that spring will come earlier every year and we would have droughts because of man made climate change, now we have had a wet winter, it is because of man-made climate change…
THAT IS NOT SCIENTIFICALLY VALID ANALYSIS!
Let’s apply some actual science to this, y’know for a change. Wouldn’t that be a pretty neat thing to try, just for once?
Well OK… Science 101.
Start with the hypothesis.
“A doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration will lead to between 2 and 6 degrees by the year 2100”
The hypothesis must be falsifiable. That means that if a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration does NOT lead to between 2 and 6 degrees by the year 2100, then the CAGW hypothesis is falsified.
This hypothesis must be testable and those tests must be repeatable and verifiable. Unfortunately we cannot perform double-blind tests inclusive of identical “control” planets to assess what actually happens when CO2 is increased in controlled ways.
Scientists have created many different climate models with which to try, the problem is, they are only models of the hypothesis, and not TESTS of it.
The ONLY thing that models can do, is tell us the prediction of the hypothesis. We can only verify IF CO2 driven climate change is happening by actual measurements, and comparing those with the predictions as demonstrated by the climate models.
As Feynman said, “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
So how well are the model’s prediction’s working out? Clearly they have failed, because in the real world, we have observed and measured warming at a rate which is less than one third of the average of the models predictions. The predictions of the CAGW hypothesis have not happened as the model’s predicted and there is already a large and statistically significant divergence between what the model’s predicted and what we have measured in reality.
That falsifies the CAGW hypothesis.
NONE of the 73 CMIP 5 models used by the UN’s IPCC predicted the “haitus” or “Pause” in warming that has now been on-going for over 17 years. There is NO consensus about why the pause has happened and no consensus on where the “missing heat” is hiding either or why or how it is hiding. There are several weak hypothesis as to why the earth stopped warming up and stayed at the mid-1990s level of warmth until today. There has been no increase in average measured global temperatures at all during the current century. That increasingly falsifies the hypothesis too.
As for it being wetter than “normal” Yes it is. The climate does change, it has always changed and will always change. George Monbiot, writing in the Guardian in 2006, was proudly claiming that the model’s predicted that rivers would dry up and there would be much less rain over the coming years. We were told that Climate change would make it hotter, drier and we would not know what snow was. Up until we had 3 freezing cold winters on the trot, and then it was Climate change means more snow. Now it is Climate change means it will be wetter.
Picking the weather from the last 6 months and blaming whatever it was on man-made climate change is NOT science. There is nothing scientific about that at all.
The fact is, the climate IS changing and there is NO evidence (outside of hypothetical models) whatsoever which proves that CO” is a driver of that change. NONE whatsoever.
SO when any climate alarmists bleat on about denying science. I would love to see the climate scientists actually begin to engage in some science, worthy of the name, for a change. Trying to force incongruent data to fit a hypothesis is not science, denying the data in favour of the output from models is not science, editing, supressing, hiding, amending and fudging the data is not science. Bullying journals and journal editors is NOT science. PAL review is not science. Stealing documentation and falsifing documentation is not science. Making scary videos of children being blown up and Polar bears falling from the sky is not science. Predicting that New York would have been uninhabitable due to sea level rise, by now and not admitting that prediction was wrong is not science. Refusing to admit when a prediction has failed is not science.
ALL the above, NON scientific failures have been practiced by those who are trying to PROVE the hypothesis of CAGW.
In science, you never ever try to prove your hypothesis is true. NEVER, that is NOT science. Real scientists constantly try to DISPROVE and falsify hypothesis and so long as a hypothesis cannot be falsified by observation or experimentation, it remains valid.
CAGW has been falsified by the data. But the anti-scientists of the CAGW alarmism cult try to maintain that the hypothesis is valid and real empirical data is wrong!
Well at last I though someone that knows what they are talking about. Sadly you then reverted to straw man techniques with poor old Monbiot. You will notice firstly that most scientists do not equate local weather abnormalities with global warming. People like Cameron and Millibean are doing this but professional scientists realise it is not possible to infer this. You will also note that confidence limits are carefully placed on each element within the IPCC documentation. You blew it totally on the 17 of no warming years unfortunately. How and from where you start your trending is crucial to how subsequent data appears and this is very much the case for this well worn argument. Taking datapoints relating to la nina or el nino events as a trend start point is deliberately misleading. If you look at the data and graphs actually published by the IPCC (instead of the graphs/data leaked to Fox news and their ilk which were in draft) and carefully look at the IPCC confidence limits you will note that the so-called divergence isnt there and is within confidence intervals. Moreover I would point out that the highest air temperatures on record have been recorded in the last 10 years. Thats despite the fact that most heat and CO2 goes into the sea. The notion that things are getting hotter therefore has empirical backing. Check out the NASA website for more if you want.
If you want to see science in action read the IPCC reports.
BTW I am well aware of the use of the null hypothesis in science and of the work of Feynman. I dare say all of those trying to peice this together at the IPCC are too!
So ‘most heat goes into the sea’ does it?
What evidence do you have for this desperate claim?
Yep, the warmists have inverted physics. In their world heat SINKS! No more hot air balloons for them!
Yes- and all the scientists tell me that CO2 is heavier than air,, but the warmists claim that it is CO2 in the upper atmosphere that is causing global warming
tl;dr
Ah yes I remember him/her/it well.
Read them and what they say backs Ken well unless you can actually point in detail to observations in the real world you are a prat oh and why use the ‘fox ‘ ? straw man if it’s wrong prove it with facts troll!?
Agent Smith says:
‘You will also note that confidence limits are carefully placed on each element within the IPCC documentation.’
Indeed. And there was no better analysis done of this than by Nigel Lawson in his book ‘Appeal to Reason’. Have you read it? He contrasted the wild claims made in the IPCC’s ‘Summary for Policymakers’ (the one thrashed out word by word with politicians and environmental activist groups) with the more cautionary predictions of the main report. Unfortunately for everybody, it’s the hysterical claims of the former which are used by politicians, the media and eco-political activists to brainwash the public and terrify our children.
NB it was after reading this book my scepticism started. Up to that point I had accepted the warming theory, even though it had been turned on its head from ‘CO2 will bring about the next ice age’ scare in the 70s (you are probably too young to remember). Events like Climategate and the censorial behaviour of warmists, not to mention websites such as Watts Up With That and further excellent books such as ‘The Delinquent Teenager’, Agenda21, 28gate and a host of examples of eco-fascistic behaviour have done the rest.
‘You blew it totally on the 17 of no warming years unfortunately. How and from where you start your trending is crucial to how subsequent data appears and this is very much the case for this well worn argument’.
Models predicted decade on decade rises in temperature in line with rising CO2 levels. Whichever way you look at this, it’s not happened.
‘Thats despite the fact that most heat and CO2 goes into the sea.’
a) Where is your proof, given the lack of reliable historical temperature records for the deep oceans (see previous link to Argo project justifications).
b) This is a new theory not at all consistent with a ‘settled’ science.
‘Taking datapoints relating to la nina or el nino events as a trend start point is deliberately misleading.
Funny how these events were ignored by warmists when it suited them.
‘If you look at the data and graphs actually published by the IPCC (instead of the graphs/data leaked to Fox news and their ilk which were in draft)….’
Is this what you mean?
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/10/01/a-new-climategate-un-ipcc-stands-accused-of-misleading-world-leaders-the-public-did-the-ipcc-fix-the-facts-discrepancy-between-climate-models-observations-was-systematically-hidd/
”The full text of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report has been out for less than 24 hours and the tales of malfeasance are flowing already. Steve McIntyre has already blogged about some misleading behaviour by senior scientists involved in the review, but his post this morning is amazing, revealing how the discrepancy between climate models and observations was systematically hidden between the final review of the draft and the report issued to the public.’
That would be the IPCC which uses non-peer reviewed literature (30%) for its report, which is made up not of ‘the world’s top climate scientists’ but mainly post grads and environmental activists and which allows politicians and environmentalists to dictate what its summary report should say and which supported Mann’s notorious ‘hocky stick’ graph (you know, the one which conveniently wiped out the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age in one stroke)throughout many iterations of its report.
No, case not proven, and especially not proven by propping up a failed theory with a wild new theory of ocean warming.
Ken’s excellent summation of the AGW fraud still stands.
And of what ‘ilk’ is the bbc (sic)?
good points Ken and well put.
Just watched ol Winston going off about global warming on question time.
Disgraceful. He just said that no policticians or the EA should be blamed and it was nature. Bloody leftie!
Vine is at it now on R2.
Both a new medical condition and an entirely new usage for a word popular with the left.
The BBC excels itself this morning with a quote from a GP relocated to the village pub after flooding.
‘I don’t want to be “jingoistic” about it…. but it is “Flood Stress”
For goodness sake, does no one at the BBC edit their own reports? Does the the interviewer not gently suggest a rephrasing ‘Doc, you sound like a prat’?
Poor old Robert Winston was the Labour stooge who moaned about some NHS problem-only to rein it all back when Brown and Milburn yanked his collar.
First of Browns Blatherbums who was incapable of giving himself a spine transplant in the face of the fearsome Alan Milburn(arf)
Can only imagine that Labour had uploads on the likes of Winston-who in other ways is a good bloke.
But a here-today gone tomorrow sap in terms of policy, with views of “climate change” straight from Reading Uni Press Releases…which is why we`re in the mess we`re in today.
No E.U?…no E.A?… and no context re the policies of Young and Smith(would that they knew them)…no comment allowed that isn`t filtered through those cyanide panty liners…OK?
In a nutshell
UKIP woman (boo hiss panto villain)
Immigration is brilliant for the UK (everybody agrees except UKIP woman)
Climate change is fact.
Utter lefty shite
Climate change IS fact. Don’t be lured and fooled by their changing their target every few months. Climate change has existed since the planet began. If you say things like there is no climate change you risk being shot down in flames by both sides.
So what you what is to introduce reporter bias so the BBC mirrors your own perceptions ! Interesting. Why dont you get a mirror and save on the licence fee. If you get fed up you can turn the mirror around and get the equivalent of ITV.
You’re babbling again. Why not address the issue of a packed audience and a monocultural panel?
I thought you progressives championed ‘diversity’?
Or is that only when it suits you?
Monocultural panel, incidentally, being the usual QT array and the common complaint here.
Monocultural panel?? Its a politics show so I guess it will attract politicians or people with political views on the panel.
Could possibibly merge it with gardeners question time and get a few gardeners on the panel. Some more plants in the audience too. Personally I take umbridge that all the football teams on saturdays have footballers in them. Does anyone feel that sport shouldn’t be on the news by the way.
I like it when you’re funny , Agent Smith .
Please can you replace the other so called comedians the BBC employs .
Agent Smith. In all seriousness look at the output of the BBC and tell us if you dont see cultural bias and also against that of most people in this country. Not that there should be any bias at all. I would genuinely be content if the bbc was merely indifferent to cultures. At least you would have a close view of the truth.
Ok, who wants to bet agent smithy is our very own ……..Scotty ? I mean they both talk shite.
‘So what you what’
And is you is, or is you ain’t …?
On the topic of ‘you’s’ and ‘we’s’, had to like the BBC’s notion of inclusivity..
BBC World News
Rather than celebrating romance on Valentine’s Day, should we instead blame it for driving up teenage pregnancy rates and creating more single parent households?
Must be a hoot round the watercoolers there today, eh?
At least I can look in a mirror.
Do you mean he has something of the night about him?
Well, he does only post after dark …
‘So what you what is to introduce reporter bias so the BBC mirrors your own perceptions !’
No, just balance. The BBC rarely challenges from a right-wing point of view e.g. to a Labour shadow cabinet opportunist criticising unemployment/wage figures ‘But isn’t this what you should expect when we have mass immigration of cheap labour from Eastern Europe and beyond?’
Let us know when you hear one. Then let us know when it happens regularly.
That wouldnt actually BE a ‘right wing’ viewpoint, it would be a nationalist one. And there is nothing the BBC hates more than nationalism, especially nationalism coming from Brits.
Tend to disagree, Aerfen. I think a nationalist view would be to ban immigration altogether, which I don’t think the majority of of us want. It’s more a simple case of economics and exploring fully the impact of mass immigration. The PC brigade, though, succeeded with the blessing and personal efforts of the Blair government to make it a racist/nationalist issue and thus censor sensible debate.
why were their 2 Labour members of the Question Time panel?
I presume they’ve decided that this balances the UKIP and Tory member, but we don’t get 2 Tories when the Greens come on
“Balance” was NOT provided by the lefty women from the Telegraph.
At least UKIP was given airtime, 35 minutes AFTER the polls closed. (get that little joke?)
Why,oh why do I subject myself to it?
More BBC-NUJ anti-Tory political agenda, presented as ‘sport’.
“Sochi 2014: David Cameron missed opportunity, says Bach”
By David Bond
BBC sports editor in Sochi.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/winter-olympics/26171539
-And, if P.M Cameron had been in Sochi while Britain was subject to floods, what political capital Beeboids would have made of that.
Take a listen to the fragrant Burden on Breakfast this morning discussing the by-election.
Labour’s postal vote scam has had a significant bearing on matters and this has been raised by UKIP.
But let’s not refer to it as “raised” or “complained about” or “expressed concerns about”
Let’s call it “moaning”. They’ve been moaning about it. Moaning, moaning, moaning.
Inherent bias and no mistake.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03t7d5v
02:14:30
Burden is just a very, very thick Nicky.
The pair of them are the biggest twats on the British airwaves – fascinated by themselves, fascinated by eachother.
‘moaning’ is a loaded and biased word in this context but I’ll bet Rachel B. did this automatically, without malice aforethought…. which actually proves the auto reflex and in a sense makes it worse.
The values of ‘The Guardian’, Unilever, (and BBC-NUJ?):-
“The Guardian signs seven-figure deal to build on ‘shared values’ and provide branded content for Unilever”
By Dominic Ponsford.
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/guardian-signs-seven-figure-deal-build-shared-values-provide-branded-content-unilever
Of course, ‘The Guardian’s commercial partnership with another global organisation, other than the BBC, indicates both ‘The Guardian’s financial difficulties (falling sales) and its opportunistic political ‘values’.
A similar phenomenon is taking place in France, where the falling sales and financial losses of the leftist newspaper ‘Libération’ (associated in the past with Jean Paul Sartre), are inducing similar changes to those at ‘The Guardian’:-
‘France 24’ has –
“Iconic French newspaper Libération in crisis as editor-in-chief steps down”
http://www.france24.com/en/20140213-iconic-french-newspaper-liberation-crisis-editor-steps-down/
Pot and kettle at ‘The Guardian’: a politically selective Greenslade piece to avoid Guardianista political blushes:
“Have the staff of Libération forsaken their revolutionary outlook?”
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/feb/13/newspapers-france?
What political line can we expect from, ‘Guardian’ (and chums at BBC-NUJ) on Geert Wilders, given this?:-
“Dutch Unilever Director Wants Wilders Stopped”
(2007).
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2751
2014:-
“Geert Wilders’ PVV remains biggest party in poll of polls”
– See more at: http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/02/geert_wilders_pvv_remains_bigg.php#sthash.FFC8dNlc.dpuf
As the Flokker Forlorn Hope call up all reserves and throw everyone they have got at certain threads, a bit of light relief for a wet Friday in February..
http://order-order.com/2014/02/14/quote-of-the-day-800/
‘Over in Berkshire Prince William approaches journalists from the Guardian and says:
“Why don’t you put your notebook down and give us a hand with the sandbags?”
Had to appreciate the first ‘Anon’ retort. Seems they are stretched thin today.
Find myself listening to some Radio 4 comedy called “Making the Best of it” by one Dave Florez.
I nominate it for the unfunniest, most patronising, racist. ageist piece of PC crap that the BBC has yet to come up with.
I know nobody listens to Friday Radio 4 mid-morning who has a life, but this “Shock Jock” has just had Roy Hudd and Adil Ray in it.
Boy…it stank…PC racist, ageist patronising Khan Scale of at least 95.
How much does such swill cost us-and who commissions it and presumes to think it worth sticking out there when no-one is listening?
And it turns out that there`ll be a series of it…FFS!
Ted Ray and Ted Rodgers dealing out programmes for the rehearsal of the Gosport Gang Show 1962 would be even funnier that this Beeb dangleberry!
Daily Politics has Miliband claim that “The Tories don’t think there is a cost of living crisis” without being asked the evidence for such a statement.
Interview with by-election winner had BBC journalist congratulate him, at the end, with a smile that didn’t seem to disappear.
BBC-NUJ political fixture, Mary Beard, on Radio 4 ‘World at One’ given time, fo no particular reason, to propagandise on behalf of women, this lunchtime.
Would that be this Mary Beard, on 9/11 when three thousand were murdered in one morning.
‘However tactfully you dress it up, the United States had it coming. That is, of course, what many people openly or privately think.”
And who if anyone calls her on Twitter an effin ugly old leftie jihadist-apologist munter dashes onto the Victoria Drearyshire ‘show’ to howl, shriek, and weep.
A ghastly old trout some might say. I’m not necessarily one of them, Mary. Don’t want to upset your feelings, even though you didn’t seem to care much about the 9/11 victims’ feelings.
The trout, ’tis a pretty fish: nicely shaped and finished in pretty colours. Beard is not like that.
It swims in a graceful manner in chalk streams. Beardy looks like she might have hydrophobia.
Trout tastes good, too. I have no first hand knowledge of Beardy in that area.
All in all, It hink you meant she’s “a ghastly old wels.”
Nuts.
“It hink” = ‘I think’.
Perhaps, in fact, we should congratulate the BBC News Channel for their discovery this morning of the character I shall now refer to by the name “Doc Jingo”.
I think he could be ‘right up there’ with the Vicar of Dibley.
In case you missed the snippet; BBC reporters visited a flood-bound community somewhere in the Thames Valley, I believe. The GP in question was holding his surgery in the local pub. Possibly the Beeb thought we might at last be a little weary of the line “it’s the worst I’ve ever seen – and I’m 204 and fought in three world wars you, know”. So instead they honed in on what might be troubling the patients and elicited from the good doctor the surely soon to be classic line “I don’t want to be jingoistic, but…. it is Flood Stress”
Now I could easily bang on about this new concept Flood Stress – or shall we say – “FS” as some imaginary new media-coined syndrome. But that focus would be misplaced. I want to highlight this GP’s innovative use of the word ‘jingoistic’. Now as we know the word used to mean excessively patriotic. As in the sentence : ‘I don’t want to be jingoistic, but… didn’t Maggie Thatcher give the Argies a right kicking when they trespassed on the Falklands!’
Or, if you are, for example, a Norwegian football commentator (I paraphrase – the precise memory fades) you ought really – to be polite – to have said ‘I don’t want to be jingoistic, but… Winston Churchill, Lord Tennison, Robert Llewellen-Bowen, Dame Joan Bakewell… your boys took one helluvver beating’.
That was the old way of the meaning of jingoism. Steer clear of parallels with the phrase ‘I don’t want to be racist but…’ and Doc Jingo could pioneer us to whole new uplands of meaning.
The BBC could really be onto something here. Doc Jingo has provided a wonderful potential resource. Before any pronouncement of dubious veracity, delivery of spurious statistic or introduction of fuzzy new concept, the liberal public sector spokesperson could preface their speech with this new clear declaration of anti-patriotism.
Just imagine, ‘Here is the BBC 10 o’clock News, I don’t want to be jingoistic but…’
Just as familiarity with the Vicar of Dibley regularised through the BBC our acceptance of female CofE clergy, so Doc Jingo’s new definition and usage of the word Jingoism could help the BBC to dispel all remaining unpleasant vestiges of national pride in society.
AsIseeIt. Well considered piece on jingoism. So insiduous that it goes past you and nestles in your subconscious as a fact. But it isn’t. Well caught AsISseeIt.
Were the Tories to call for a clear-out of government advisors who did not share their views, you would expect the article to contain a fair few “but Labour says” contributions.
So when the Greens call for a clear-out of ‘climate change deniers’ you know what to expect from a BBC article, don’t you? That’s right. No quotes from any opponents.
Excellent point. The inference of those example being that, according to the left wing establishment media, it is acceptable to rid the public service of people with a right wing opinion, but not of those holding a left wing opinion. Actual ability be damned. They want a McCarthyite clear out of people who oppose that which has become known as “Cultural Marxism”.
Yes, cultural Marxism as their hegemonic ideology.
Also remember, McCarthyism had at least some basis in fact to support it i.e. the West was in mortal danger of having our way of life and our actual lives destroyed by Communism. Alger Hiss and many others were traitors, not that George Clooney or Hollywood will ever make a film about that.
Indeed, McCarthy may have been unpleasant but in many cases those accused actually were Communist sympathisers of one caste or another.
And some of the women in Salem really were witches.
You miss the point, Hadhood. Communism was a real threat to us, so no similarity whatsoever with Salem. Lenin called westerners who didn’t understand the nature of state communism ‘useful idiots.’
I for one am not surprised that the greenies want to bring back the the Test Acts. After all MMGW is a religion and an intolerant one at that. Actually the Test Acts are back and in effect though without the bother of being formally legislated in Parliament. Unbelievers (except for the rare appearance – usually on a crackly phone-line per Lawson earlier this week – of the odd recusant) are effectively banned from the airwaves. I also suspect that MMGW sceptics find getting on the shortlist for selection (let alone nomination) to stand as MP for any of the 3 major parties an impossible task. As to appointment to any quango, particularly anything connected with energy or eco-affairs – forget it.: for instance, I’d be (pleasantly) amazed if any of this lot allowed a heretical thought about MMGW to sully their minds, let alone their tongues.
BBC-NUJ’s political agenda to censor out words:
-not only does this agenda apply in the case of replacing the words ‘Islamic jihadist’ with the nebulous word and inaccurate ‘militant’; so too, the order is out to replace the word ‘immigrants’ with the inaccurate word such as ‘migrants,’ as applied here to the case of Northern Ireland –
“NI crisis fund for migrants, refugees and asylum seekers to be set up”
By Peter Coulter,
BBC News NI.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-26175391
Unsurprisingly, BBC-NUJ relegates reporting this aspect of Valentine’s Day:-
http://www.jihadwatch.org/?s=valentine
now,i have just about had enough of this one sided biased rubbish on question time on bbc 1,did you watch it last night when they got onto the topic of immigration,what a politacaly correct load of garbage that came from these so called mainstream 3 politacal partys,as usual the ukip spokeswoman who talked commen sense on this topic got ganged up on by these ignorant politcaly correct mainstream politicians and got smeared with the same old accusations of racism and zenophobia by these pratts just because she spoke on behalf of the majority of the people in the uk and not this metropoliton elite who dont listen to us,the message went out loud and clear last night on question that the mainstream 3 politacal partys have no plans to limit immigration but are in fact just going to carry on the same as usual and let any old tom,dick or abdul into this country in another wave of mass immigration into the uk in the coming years.ukip get my vote after watching question time last night. simple as that.
The present government, have no intention
of changing anything, and they are actually worse because they … pretend to be doing just that.
They are so far up their own fundamentally flawed “ideology” they couldn t care less.
“I’ve evicted Jeremy Paxman,
“Free from the BBC licence fee, I no longer fund the Left. I wouldn’t give a hundred pounds a year to the Labour Party, so why hand over hard cash to the broadcasting wing of the Labour Movement?”
By Andrew Gibson.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4720/i_ve_evicted_jeremy_paxman
The missing phrase here is
“I wouldn’t give a hundred pounds a year to the Labour Party [if I had a choice] so why hand over hard cash to the broadcasting wing of the Labour Movement?”
Progressives believe in higher taxes, more regulation, and a bigger State, for the same reason they are against lower taxes, less regulation, and a smaller State. They do not want to give you the option of not paying for their propaganda, because the point of the BBC is to employ and justify the power of the tax payer funded Leftist elite.
I wouldn’t give a hundred pounds a year to the Labour Party [if I had a choice] so why hand over hard cash to the broadcasting wing of the Labour .
That is the Licence Fee issue in a nutshell.
Well put Wild
I can’t see anything on the BBC news page about the video made by British-born Syrian terrorist: Abdul Majeed.
This is timed at 18:24:-
“UK ‘suicide bomber’ Abdul Waheed Majid video posted online”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26187400
‘Jihadwatch’ has this:-
“Jihad/martyrdom suicide bomber in Syria was driver for jihad preacher Omar Bakri in UK”
By Robert Spencer.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/02/jihadmartyrdom-suicide-bomber-in-syria-was-driver-for-jihad-preacher-omar-bakri-in-uk/comment-page-1#comment-1010083
http://order-order.com/2014/02/14/bbc-deny-change-in-crediting-policy-redefine-exclusive/
As the Flokkers gird their loins for a last bulge ‘push’ while their fuel supplies dwindle, I had to love this latest from hive central.
When caught bang to rights with frillies round her ankles by her own measures… Aunty simply ‘redefines’ them and hoists the soiled undergarments back in place.
And thinks no one will notice.
‘A BBC spokesperson (un-named, ironically, though is there any other breed?) insists to MediaGuido.com that there hasn’t been any change in guidance to journalists, incoherently claiming:
“We always aim to provide an online link to the original source on an exclusive story.”
And Mr. Robinson’s #2wrongs snipe about a private market force tabloid vs. a uniquely force-funded state medium that can’t be shaken off… class.
How the bBC is inflaming the flooding situation by presenting a somewhat biased article againt the EA and bt default the government:
UK floods: Chertsey ‘sausage’ angers some residents
An aquadam being installed to protect homes in Chertsey, Surrey, has angered some residents.The sausage-shaped plastic tube will be filled with water to create a flood barrier between the rising Thames and 200 homes on one side of Bridge Road.However, it leaves a number of properties on the other side of the street trapped between the barrier and the river. Their owners claim they are being “sacrificed”.
So the bBC reports that some people living behind the River thames are angry that a flood barrier will be erected behind them and not in front of them so as to keep water out of their homes.
Fact:
Water barriers such as the water filled pillow require a flat surface, the first such flat surface is…..The road.
Fact, Behind the homes which may get flooded is a huge flood plain, next to which is the River Thames. Now while it be all hunky dory when the sun is shining , it isn’t at the moment. Now if I owned one of these £500K homes (and that’s at the bottom end of the ladder) I would have built a huge mound at the bottom of my big garden at least 6 foot tall in which to keep the Thames out of my dining room.
Blaming everybody bar yourself for you own inability to protect your home, is your fault and not anybodies elses.
The reality will be however that keeping back the water will make it even deeper, causing greater damage to those properties on the wrong side of it. I think anyone who owned one of these properties would be understandably hacked off about it !
The reality will be however that keeping back the water will make it even deeper, causing greater damage to those properties on the wrong side of it.
Do a google maps on Bridge Road Chertsey and see what the bBC are leaving out of the equation. Bridge Road is surrounded on two sides by rivers (Thames and the River Abby) on the third side is a brook. Now have a look at how many new builds have sprung up on what is..flood plain. These areas where the river narrows and meanders natural speed up the flow of water and in time of heavy rain fall will…flood. However with a lot of the old flood plain concreted over, the flood water will simply flow elsewhere. Now I was always taught to respect nature, but it seems that the builders of these new builds didn’t. You want to put an end to flooding in the Uk. Start jailing councillors ,builders and the rest who thrown caution to the wind and put up homes and such on flood plains.
Blaming everybody bar yourself for you own inability to protect your home, is your fault and not anybodies elses.
This is the key point. The bBBC keeps peddling socialism, as usual, that no-one takes responsibility for their choices and decisions (such as choosing to live in a flood plain, or choosing to cover gardens with concrete and decking) and everyone can assume that it is the role of the State to use our money to bail them out (or bale them out in this case).
I know why the socialist bBBC takes this line but cannot understand why we keep hearing the same thing from Conservative MPs, and indeed many of the posters on this board.
Agreed, before I bought my home, I bought an OS map and checked out the nearest water route. and how far I lived away from it. Funny enough one house I did look at, was bang on top of the local river. Ironically, the local council have just spent a lot of money building a flood wall next to a block of old people flats (next to the river) yet only a few years back allowed a lot of upscale home building on a flood plain not 60 feet away from the old peoples home. They are currently doing likewise at another part of town where the river used to flood and where now stands a new housing estate.
I don’t think the BBC is alone in this: I get the Times and Telegraph daily and there’s little editorial taking the “personal responsibility” line. As to MPs (Conservative or otherwise): they want to be re-elected. Telling your constituents that their suffering is their own fault – even if true, which is IMHO debateable in most cases – is not the way to get votes. Anyway, the fault which has made a bad situation much worse, lies elsewhere. It lies to a great extent with the greenies and assorted enviro-nutters (both native and in Brussels) who have had a lock on public policy for the last 25 years at least: and don’t forget the responsibility of politicians of all parties who have meekly acquiesced in their lunacy.
For the simple reason that people do not like being told that they were f*****g stupid to buy a house on a flood plain.
Well it would be good if someone did so, because at the moment the official bBBC line seems to be that ‘locals know best’ and they can demand that our money is spent on trying to fix their self-imposed problem.
For the simple reason that people do not like being told that they were f*****g stupid to buy a house on a flood plain.
More dreadful bBBC broadcasting from the Winter Olympics. Britain’s Lizzy Yarnold went on her final run for the skeleton slide, and the bBBC show it live at quarter-screen, with the other three-quarters showing a group of her supporters jumping up and down.
Yet again, as for instance with Mandela’s death and their obsession with Twitter, the bBBC thinks the story is not the event itself, but other people’s reaction to it. They have given up on true journalism.
Yes, Sir Arthur, they have given up on true journalism because they have no longer seem to have any true journalists working there.
Disagree here chaps – patriotic and focusing on the actual event. I think the coverage was pretty good.
Roland Deschain says:
February 14, 2014 at 2:06 pm
……Thanks for this post.
“…..the Greens call for a clear-out of ‘climate change deniers’ …..”
I think even the BBC reporter couldn’t quite believe this. He certainly gave the vowel-mangler enough rope to hang herself, but of course there was no-one around to supply a tree.
I know some Green voters who just think of these people as ‘eco-warriors’ without giving any thought to the rest of their policies, or how Stalinist they actually are.
And in the United States:-
“Climate Change Versus Free Speech”
By Benjamin Weingarten.
[Opening excerpt]:-
“If you dare to challenge the scientific establishment generally, and its global warming adherents specifically, you better have deep pockets and plenty of time on your hands. That is the takeaway of the last 15 months, and soon to be more, of Mark Steyn’s life — one of the recent victims of the Left’s war on speech whose case has arguably been the least-covered but most deserving of your attention.”
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/climate-change-versus-free-speech/
Front of the bbc radio 4 webpage;
In memory of Stuart Hall. A selection of programmes which feature Stuart Hall, a leading cultural theorist and pioneer of multiculturalism.
No agenda from the bbc.
Yes, and Jamaican Stuart Hall was another who propagandised for a ‘black’ Britain, and campaigned about the ‘racism’ of the indigenous white British people.
I cannot remember having heard any serious challenge to the multicultural agenda on the BBC. It is inevitably presented as ‘a good thing’ whereas the potential downsides are obvious – lack of integration (language, values, laws) and physically and culturally distinct ‘communities’ defined by religion and/or nationality.
Aaaarrggh! Tonight on BBC Radio Devon, it has been a Climate Change/Global Warming love fest. We are having a bit of a blow and some rain in the South West tonight, so they have done the right thing and have been offering the public, public service broadcasting by relating the problems with transport. They have also interviewed anyone and anybody caught up the problems and I think that all have said *I haven’t seen anything like it since I’ve been here”…which is how long exactly? Of course that is never mentioned. On top of that, the presenter of the programme interviewed someone who didn’t believe in sandbags but ran a private company that offered proper flood prevention systems, such as chip board. When asked about how his business was doing because of the recent storms, he went off and explained that because of all this Global Warming, his business was doing well. The presenter did not question his comments about Global Warming, narrative shoehorned in once again. Of course, no bias or agenda from the BBC, just the facts. Yeah right.
And did you notice how fing much he was charging for his chipboard?
“Ofcom boss: ‘BBC licence fee should be shared with other broadcasters.’
“Outgoing chair Colette Bowe says making funding ‘contestable’ would promote competition, dynamism and innovation.”
By Maggie Brown.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/feb/14/ofcom-bbc-licence-fee-shared-other-broadcasters?
“BBC prepared to pay ‘in excess of £15m’ to build new EastEnders set.”
By John Plunkett.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/feb/14/bbc-pay-15m-eastenders-set?
“Corporation wants new facilities to drag soap out of 1980s ”
5 mil of that will be for a fully functioning mosque then.
Can we have Islamic patrols on Eastenders?
And hipster university graduates running internet startups, living in half a million pound rented flats owned by Middle Eastern investors.
And postal vote-rigging.
‘Pink News’ has:-
“BBC commissions ‘beautifully written’ gay spy drama and love story”
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/02/14/bbc-commissions-beautifully-written-gay-spy-dramalove-story/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Pinknews+%28Pink+News%29
Will it end with the naked body of one of the protagonists zipped into a suite case I wonder?
I wonder who the baddies will be: white heterosexuals
One can only await this promised treat hitting our screens with eager anticipation.
Have to love the latest ‘it is ‘cos I say it is’ #PRasNews ‘quote’ MandyRiceDavism from a senior Beebette.
Just wondering if she has ever commissioned anything that has not been ‘beautifully written’, especially when it comes to spy stuff. Clancy, Fleming, Greene, Le Carre… look out.
Watching Paxo’s WW1 doco. Second or third episode. Odd mix of interesting facts and utterly wild conjecture.
I know it is done to add human interest, but for the life of me I cannot grasp the ongoing addiction to amateur commentary, reflecting the BBC’s news ‘reporting’ and its use of vox pops.
By what leap can a grand child’s opinion of a long gone relative’s actions or treatment be of objective value, if based on zero actual experience beyond shared DNA?
But enough interesting footage & anecdotes to make it worth sticking with, if with eyebrow cranked.
Interesting media news (for BBC-NUJ to ignore?):-
“Delingpole quits Telegraph ahead of UK launch of Breitbart.com”
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2014/02/delingpole-quites-telegraph-ahead-of-uk-launch-of-brietbart-com/
A UK-related item on the worthy ‘Breitbart’ today:
“OPEN IMMIGRATION SKEPTICS TAKE SECOND PLACE IN UK BY-ELECTION”
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/02/13/Open-immigration-sceptics-take-second-place-in-UK-by-election
Of course, BBC-NUJ is more positively interested in e.g. UK operation of ‘left’-Islamic orientated ‘Huffington Post.’
I look forward to seeing more articles such as this on ‘Beitbart.uk’-
“‘GUARDIAN’ CONTRIBUTOR LAUDS BRITISH SUICIDE BOMBER’S ‘HEROISM'”
By Raheem Kassam.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/02/14/Guardian-contributors-and-their-uneducated-outrage
‘Monbiot goes so far as to claim that had the British suicide bomber who blew himself up last week in an attempt to free hundreds of Islamist cohorts been “fighting for the British army, he might have been awarded a posthumous Victoria Cross.”
The old moral equivalence ploy of the Left – always a winner!
It’s a ‘man’ again. Compare and contrast.
Jordan Horner given Asbo for ‘religious extremism’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-26190817
A man from east London has been given a “landmark” Asbo for spreading extremist religious views, the Met Police said.
Jordan Horner, 20, of Walthamstow, has been linked to extreme religious groups and taken part in vigilante patrols and street protests promoting extreme versions of Islam, police said.
Asbo for ‘religious extremism’: Muslim convert given five year preaching ban
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/asbo-for-religious-extremism-muslim-convert-given-five-year-preaching-ban-9129898.html
A man from east London who took part in vigilante patrols and promoted Islamic extremism has been given a “landmark” Asbo banning him from preaching in public, police said.
Jordan Horner, a Muslim convert, has been consistently linked to extremist groups and has already been jailed for harassing and attacking “non-believers” in east London.
The 20-year-old took part in vigilante patrols aimed at non-Muslims in an attempt to promote a ‘Sharia State’ in the UK. He is also thought to have put up the ‘Sharia controlled zone’ leaflets and posters in Waltham Forest, Scotland Yard said.
I noticed that as well, the bBC has no problem telling you when that man is Jewish,Christian or even sciencetologist ( and that isn’t even a faith) yet when the guilty bastard is a Muslim, he’s anything but.
You missed this then??
‘promoting extreme versions of Islam’
The way the BBC News, just now, is framing what’s going on in the Central African Republic is outrageous, “the poor, embattled muslims”. And “this is a taste of what awaits muslims – a mosque demolished by a Christian mob”. They tell you the non-muslim group is called “anti-balaka” (or “anti machete” to you, guv, the favoured weapon of rampaging muslim savages) but not why they’re called that and what it means.
What about the Christians slaughtered by muslims all over Syria whom you have not said one fu*king word about?
I think we may have a case of BBC bias here. Just a wild guess…bottom line: Muslims who kill Christians – no problem. Christians who fight back against said Muslims – appalling, brutal savages. F*CK YOU BBC. We know which side you’re on.
but the people rampaging while shouting allahu akbar are “islamists” and therefore not muslims at all in the eyes of the BBC…and even if they were they wouldn’t be typical muslims.
Ye Gods they’ve said it enough times, why can’t you understand ?
If a muslim kills he’s an islamist, if a Christian kills he is not a Christianityist but a Christian. The method works the same in areas where muslims fall out with Buddhists, or Hindus, or animists or…….
I think I would quite enjoy seeing the BBC News overrun, live on TV, by bearded muslim terrorists. Cu*ts. That’s the BBC, by the way, not the muslims…
It’s amazing isn’t it? Any story where there is a backlash against thugs,terrorists or rapists who just happen to be be Islamic and the bBC remakes them into the victim. Be it Burma, C.A.R, China or the UK , (hang on there hasn’t been a backlash in the UK , but not according to the bBC ) and poor little innocent Muslims are the real victims.
Well said!
I’ve just complained to the BBC about this (I know).
The BBC are a national disgrace – and infuriatingly most people seem oblivious to their lies!
I hope the response is robust and explains what a twat you are.
“I hope the response is robust”
—
Seems, like QI, the Borg Box has opened this week at the letter ‘H’.
Bear in mind that while you may not agree with a person’s views, that does not make them incorrect or, as far as a publicly-funded entity transparent and accountable is concerned, unworthy of respect and considered response.
Unless one of the Friday night pub show offs (has happened, with hilarious results), ‘robust’ is unlikely. Maybe an unspecified tea lady to the show will be quoted as being asked, who will be comfortable in her belief the BBC can do no wrong, and that will be that.
As to the rest, fellow Flokkers may feel a drive-by debut in one lines resorting immediately to ‘robust’ here will weaken their cases when in full flounce mode?
‘I hope the response is robust and explains what a twat you are. ‘
Ah, the joys of a constructive debate with The Left…..
Can the BBC be prosecuted for ideological bias? Just reading (again) the pre trial case against the BBC (made in 2011) and how the BBC could stand to loose it’s ‘special status’ protection in public broadcasting later in the year.
In the pre-trial case notes (PDF version I have) I was reading how the BBC has changed from Lord Reith’s vision of high public standards (at a time when the BBC had a lot less license fee money to play with) and what we have now – a corporate careless fat cat (with a pronounced left wing agenda bias) and compare that to the original ‘Philosophical’ belief of the BBC founder Lord Reith who stated; ‘…the purpose of public service broadcasting is to foster a reasoning citizenry and to support the development of an inclusive, participatory and enlightened society’.
In 2011 the BBC former DG Mark Thompson gave his version that ‘the BBC is nothing but a ‘common space’ …’neither government nor governed by commercial transactions’, …’free to enter culture, education and debate’. Dennis Potter stated that the BBC belief (in itself) was a belief in the ‘common culture’ philosophy (as defined by the claimant) who was able to state that the BBC expressed Philosophical ideology of Jurgen Habermas and John Deway (both noted Marxist ideologists). This is a position that the BBC does not refute.
The South African employee of seven year standing compared his own belief with that of the BBC and claimed ‘religious discrimination’ (as the BBC has clearly defined it’s own ‘philosophical beliefs’ to staff). The pre-trial court agreed with that description and the BBC now has to answer that charge legally. If anyone wants to read up on this reflection of the BBC ‘Philosophical Marxists’ philosophy, (the legal definition is on record on pre-trial UK Court Case No: 1313142/2010 – (Birmingham Employment tribunal dated 14/2/2011)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/bbc/…/BBC-producers-public-service-views-on-par-with-religion.html
Note: However as the UK High Court will not take place until later in 2014. The UK High Court is not ‘independent’ of the ECHR (and who would rule – in all likelihood – that the BBC has a protected national ‘characteristic’ because of its importance to the public; i.e. well above the Vatican and slightly below Marx on the upper clouds of ethical philosophy, morality and culture (as in notable grace and favors it delivers to the EU) all paid for by the reluctant UK license taxpayer. Praise the Marxists, founders of the BBC Church of philosophy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrYzsWkCDXs…the oxford leftie loonies
BBC and Catholicism… New best friends?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26200157
Why can’t these god botherers stick to their supernatural beliefs, funny dresses and nice old buildings. They should leave the Marxism to the socialist parties and the bbc.
This is the religions new recruiting drive they get the needy addicted and poor and smother them with liberal amounts of free food [shock horror big winner that one free stuff?] then smother them with liberal amounts of liberal indoctrination the new left just like the old left but this time with new added god ! lol
Alex, why shouldn’t they be new best friends? They have shared interests such as, say, harbouring paedophiles.
The Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Famous Moll Flanders…
Seems she’s celebrated St Valentine’s by breaking some more Lefty hearts (can’t see the attraction.. can you?).
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/stephanie-flanders-takes-a-pop-at-her-old-bosses-at-bbc-9128362.html
‘Stephanie Flanders takes a pop at her old bosses at BBC’
‘The love affair between Stephanie Flanders and the BBC really is over. Flanders, who was economics editor of the Beeb, ran away into the arms of investment bank JP Morgan this year. In an article for the new edition of Spear’s magazine she delivers a subtle but clear damnation of her long-term relationship with the BBC.’
There ought to be a joke in there about her being a Balls-breaker.
Funny how these ex-Beeboids go all pro-private sector after they have escaped the Corporation’s clutches. And yet whilst employed by the BBC they bash private enterprise and bum up the state sector like nobody’s business – even though the BBC is apparently “unbiased”. How odd.
Not for BBC-NUJ to report?:-
“‘Your benefits system is crazy. It’s like finding a sackful of cash left on the road’:
How shocking admission by Rudi and his huge Romanian family debunks Eurocrat’s claims that ‘benefit tourism is a myth.’
“Rudi Ion’s huge family could consist of up to 100 children, with 25 cousins.
“His family moved to a 3-bedroomed house in ‘shabby’ Nottingham suburb.
“Laszlo Andor, announced to UK ministers: ‘Benefits tourism is a myth.’”
By SUE REID
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2559776/This-week-Eurocrat-told-Britain-benefit-tourism-myth-read-Rudi-huge-Romanian-family-say-new-home-Your-benefits-crazy-Its-like-finding-sackful-cash-left-road.html#ixzz2tNz0rQsQ
To the bBC this is breaking news for the world world to see:
Two is of course two too many, and one’s sympathies can only go to those affected. But given the topical nature of the storms, extreme consequences can and will be ‘newsworthy’.
However, in a densely populated country like the UK, out of 70M it’s likely to be matched if not exceeded by accidental deaths in the home or car crashes. And a storm is no more easy to predict or counter.
I do wonder if those in other countries ‘weathering’ slightly more excessive natural calamities and greater casualty ratings may feel what we get subjected to, and deal with, may be not too awful.
It’s when projections on such incidents get made away from favoured authority figures and towards those that such as the BBC likes to damage, that one starts to wonder if they have too much time, too much space to fill, too many staff and not enough integrity.
I believe pounce is drawing attention to the fact that a tweet by Ed Miliband is headlined in red as “BREAKING NEWS”
Ah, apologies. In my (poor, along with eyesight) defence, I didn’t even see that, even if the rest of the world did.
David Ogilvy had a thing or two to offer on the clarity of reversed out-type.
As we were. The cookie cutter ‘thoughts and condolences with (to?)….’ utterances of any pol, but especially a non-government source, are indeed hardly ‘news’ and certainly don’t warrant such treatment. The BBC home page is going to be covered in red if every time the Labour labour expresses sympathy for a death in the UK, it gets rushed to the front.
It’s possible the BBC has set up one of those auto-feeds so that if he tweets it goes straight up there. Given his body of ‘work’ on twitter, that may well kill off the BBC’s online ambitions, so maybe no bad thing.
Apologies, so its all forgotten then. Seems you’ll find some kind of point to make in any headline.
Sorry if I chuckled at that one.
Ah, but was it still a valid point?
Compared, say, to many… too many… BBC headlines, tweets, posts, etc that set out to make points that are not driven to inform but by agenda.
And for which they should apologise, but of course can and will not.
In today’s news numbers come a close second to a bigger narrative.
The stats tell us that about 1700 people died on the road in 2012. That’s an average of 4.7 per day. Do we have all road deaths as single stories at the top of the BBC website?
No.
The bBC, its open hatred of the US and half the story:
Cuba suspends US consular services as bank pulls out
“The Cuban government says it has suspended consular services in the United States after an American bank decided to withdraw its facilities. Cuba says it will not be able to renew passports and process visas unless it finds an alternative to the M&T bank. The bank said its decision was taken for business reasons.”
Reading the above do you get the impression that the US is a nasty ,nasty country picking on cute little innocent Cuba. Here is what the bBC doesn’t tell you as reported by Reuters:
Cuba suspends consular services in the U.S. due to banking problem
Cuba suspended nearly all its consular services in the United States on Friday after it was unable to find a bank to handle the accounts of its diplomatic missions in Washington and New York, it said in a statement released to news organizations.The decision by the Cuban Interests Section, Havana’s mission in Washington, stems from its inability to find a replacement for M&T Bank Corp, which had decided to stop offering services to foreign diplomatic missions….Cuba briefly suspended consular services in November after it was informed by M&T that it was ending its banking services. M&T agreed to extend its deadline for deposits until February 14 for deposits, with the account to be closed on March 1.
So actually the Bank, informed all its foreign mission customers in the US, it was closing their business arrangement with them as of Nov, Cuba was given a 4 month extension and yet the bBC doesn’t mention any of the facts behind that story, instead they promote the view that tourists to Cuba will be hit. (no they won’t they will do as everybody else does, visit via a third country and get a entry stamp on a piece of paper if you ask for it) and that the good EU has taken up the mantle of nice person. (I wonder when Cuba is allowed to join the EU)
Not sure if you should trust a Reuters report so much . Is it always more accurate than the BBC?
Having nothing better to do I watched a few old episodes of ‘Death in Paradise’ Despite being set on a Caribbean island all the murderers turn out to be white.
Ah, but if I’m not wrong, murderers and victims have worked out on a 50:50 balance gender wise. Sorted.
Seems only one memo at a time can get processed.
Meanwhile, in a Sherwood Forest or Palace of Versailles near you in times gone by….
I caught the tail end of one of those and the guilty bastard was…..white. Which is strange seeing how the Caribbean region has a very high death rate, with 99% of those caught with blood on their hands of being…Black
Jamaica: 40.9 murders per year per 100,000
U.S. Virgin Islands: 39 murders per 100,000
St. Kitts and Nevis: 38 per 100,000
Guatemala: 38 per 100,000
Colombia: 37 per 100,000
Belize: 30.8 per 100,000
Trinidad and Tobago: 35 per 100,000
Bahamas: 27.4 per 100,000
Puerto Rico (a Commonwealth of the United States): 26 per 100,000
Mexico: 24 per 100,000
Dominican Republic: 25 per 100,000
St. Lucia: 25 per 100,000
St. Vincent and The Grenadines: 22 per 100,000
Panama: 22 per 100,000
Dominica: 22 per 100,000
The murder rate in the United States was 4.7 per 100,000
Supplementary.
“Murder in America”
http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata/#view=all
And, outside the Caribbean, in one of the wealthiest places on the planet:
Murder rate is double the world average
Damn all those white imperialist murderers!
The BBC goes lightly on the NHS care.data scandal/fiasco, so much so that it doesn’t even name it in an overly timid article on their website (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26187980). It repeats the official line about it being an initiative to improve healthcare and describes it mildly as a “… plan to share some data from GP medical records”. Well, sort of. It’s actually a scheme whereby information gathered from medical records will be aggregated, supposedly anonymised and then sold to interested parties. The “interested parties” are usually described as medical researchers but are just as likely to be pharmaceutical companies and possibly insurance companies. The controversy arises because: the data does become part of patient records to assist in primary healthcare; is not anonymous (it includes the NHS patient number); requires patients to opt-out; has been done in a generally secretive manner. Originally the whole scheme was to be carried out without any publicity whatsoever, but sufficient noise was made for the NHS to produce a leaflet about it, which was supposed to be delivered to every household. It is the non-delivery of these leaflets that has attracted the attention of the BBC. So why no information in the article on what this is really about? Incompetence? Lack of funding to prevent proper investigative journalism? Or is it the fact that Britain’s membership of the EU and the Lisbon Treaty commits us to “opening up the health sector to private sources”, something which both the Tories and the BBC’s beloved Labour Party fully support?
Sorry, I meant “does NOT become part of patient records to assist in primary healthcare”. Typo!
Every day throughout the world Christians are massacred by Muslims – but the BBC hardly touches on this, so, you can imagine my (severe) anger when last night I stumbled across this one sided rubbish:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26188135
It really is one of the most biased things I’ve EVER seen.
Biased against who, and how? By reporting the ethnic cleansing in CAR or that a Christain church was giving them refuge?
“The Asians are doing well here” the bBBC informed us from the speed-skating in the Winter Olympics. I looked in vain for any Pakistani or Bangladeshi competitors and conclude they must have meant Chinese and South Koreans.
Not BBC-Asians at all.
No the BBC don’t love the winter Olympics, not only is it set in nationalist, homophobic Putinland, but blacks and browns are barely represented. Oh dear, must be racist too.
There are a few mountains in India, big ones too and Pakistan has one or two as well.
Unfortunately for the Pakistanis the mountains are full of Taleban and it must be very difficult to ski in a burkha.
Unfortunately for the Indians Kashmir is also full of gun toting nuts who would be offended by anyone in Lycra.
So the absence of ‘Asian’ competitors is hardly surprising.
BBC shattered limit on payoffs as 11 executives shared £2.6m
The BBC paid a total of £2.6 million to 11 departing executives in the five months after Lord Hall of Birkenhead took over as the Director-General last year, The Times has learnt.
The former managers received more than the £150,000 cap that Lord Hall has imposed on redundancy payments after the disclosure that dozens of former senior managers had walked off with six-figure sums in recent years prompted allegations of cronyism and misuse of public money.
The latest payoffs, averaging £234,720, were made despite Lord Hall’s promises to crack down on big severance deals, because the departing executives had already been given firm commitments by the previous leadership. The corporation decided that it was obliged to honour the generous deals. The payoffs are in addition to the 150 revealed by the National Audit Office last year. An investigation by the public spending watchdog revealed that the BBC had paid out £25 million to departing senior managers between 2009 and 2012, as it tried to shrink its senior ranks. In many cases, bosses were given more than their contractual entitlements as “sweeteners” to leave.
(£) http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/medianews/article4006249.ece
So the f*ckers are STILL at it. Grrrrr. Just as when they concede [rarely] a point made in a complaint, it makes NO difference.
They just stick two fingers up knowing we are still forced to pay.
BBC attitude to the public;
F*ck You, Pay Me (Goodfellas)
New set for EastEnders could cost licence fee-payers £15m
The BBC wants to spend £15 million on rebuilding the set of EastEnders. The corporation had refused to discuss the cost, saying it was “commercially sensitive”, but a tender document was leaked to Broadcast, an industry magazine.
Rob Wilson, the Conservative MP for Reading East and the parliamentary private secretary to the Chancellor, George Osborne, said: “Why won’t the BBC be straight with licence fee-payers about the cost when they’re making this clear in tender documents? It again looks like the BBC being secretive and evasive when spending large amounts of public money.”
The BBC said: “EastEnders is hugely important to licence fee-payers. This is purely a tender document to give an indication of the scale of the project.”
The leak is embarrassing to the BBC at a time when it is under scrutiny after being criticised over payoffs to managers and a failed digital system, scrapped at a cost of almost £100 million.
(£) http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/medianews/article4006264.ece
The BBC said: “EastEnders is hugely important to licence fee-payers.” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Surely in a time when a house in Hackney will cost you a million pounds and will probably be owned by a Chinese investor, the whole raison d’etre of EastEnders as an everyday story of working class folk has completely disappeared.
Is the BBC in crisis? is a book to be published next month, written by Suzanne Franks, a former BBC news producer who is now a journalism professor at City University London.
She argues that BBC bosses came to believe they were entitled to the high salaries paid in commercial broadcasting while enjoying the job security and goldplated pensions of the public sector. “The anger caused by the scale of the senior-level payoffs became a running sore inside the BBC.”
In a contribution that reveals the extent of the outrage among frontline staff, Nicholas Jones, a veteran former industrial and political correspondent, claims that the BBC came to be dominated from the 1990s by a group of selfish, greedy and incompetent senior managers who lost touch with staff at the coalface and “played fast and loose with licence-fee income”.
(£) http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/medianews/article4006249.ece
It will probably be worth reading this book to extract contributions for biased-BBC’s must-read section In Their Own Words.
This was from last Sept 2013 (Times) shows how little has changed under Lord Hall – even under parliamentary scrutiny they defy anyone to’ pull-the-plug’ out before the next election. (excerpt from end of this Chris Booker page)…
‘Looking at that row of BBC apparatchiks shiftily trying to explain to MPs why some of their colleagues had been given hundreds of thousands of pounds for being sacked, one couldn’t help recalling that last year 1.4 million people faced criminal charges for failing to pay the BBC’s licence fee. These citizens were earning a criminal record for failing to contribute to the mountain of cash which those senior executives and the BBC’s top presenters are carting off to the bank in barrowloads….’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/10308801/Myths-about-our-membership-of-the-EU.html
I recall some beeboid attempting to justify the large salaries by claiming this was the market rate for such ‘talent’ and if the BBC didnt pay it they would go elsewhere. Really ? Where ? He also claimed this was necessary to level the playing field with commercial broadcasters. Apart from the fact that there is no way commercial channels would pay these inflated salaries he forgot to add that there never could be a level playing field as a consequence of the licence fee.
That they consider the ability to read from an auto cue to be a ‘ talent ‘ says it all !
I’ve just seen the BBC piece on the “conflict” in the Central African Republic and I am, honestly, near apoplectic with rage.
Is there any point in complaining? Will complaining just make them think they’re doing something right if they’re upsetting people like me? I really don’t know.
The bias was so subtle but the effect so blatant. I just can’t believe they get public money to put stuff out like as this. Unreal. Unbelievable.
There is always a point to complaining to the BBC . Don’t let them get away with it and follow through your complaint to more senior BBC staff if your complaint is not treated seriously. It is only when good people stay silent that evil will triumph.
Lynette I wish you were right but even those poor foot soldiers offered jobs at the BBC can only complain when they have left the premises. Very few have a good word to say about it’s exploitation of ‘selected’ events. And they will admit that nobody can dent the BBC via ‘complaints’ letters pitched at ‘Points-of-view’ (where we will be matched with those who ‘praise’ the corporation for it’s morality, integrity and value for money – as if). My favourite ex BBC whistleblower(s) are Robin Aitkin (Biased BBC), Peter Sissons and ex BBC News team presenter Dennis Sewell* (now writes for the Spectator), and the latest arrival Susan Stranks (as mentioned above) hope to read her book soon. I think it’s process of ‘detoxification’ when one leaves the BBC that the world would be better off without such media dominance. The BBC compares itself to the NHS as part of the ‘great’ welfare state mentality and rhetoric of politicians ‘to protect’ despite major abuses, huge failures and Leftie political coruption which is so ‘self-evident’ here: http://biasedbbc.tv/quotes-of-shame/
There is another point Philip. The BBC has to spend money dealing with complaints and the more people that take their complaints higher at their outrageous bias the more funds they have to use. They are counting on apathy. Help is available from local MP’s because the BBC is answerable to the public . They are obliged to act to get detailed answers for you.
A wise man said “people should complain.. They should start something even if they know they can’t complete the work” ,
And there we have it. Your complaints are all about time (and money) wasting. And yet you still seem to think they should be taken seriously?
And all your MP does is stick a cover letter on your complaint and send it to the same people to be answered in the same way.
‘Your complaints – you still seem to think they should be taken seriously?’
The point about actual MP value is well taken. Especially as most do love those ‘nationally-treasured, best in the world’ BBC sofas, if they know what’s good for their careers. But in this funny box-ticking world, an MP’s letter does resonate in quarters where mere peon public varieties may not. And MP’s do only take to task if and when they agree.
But, yes, they are treated with equal distain. That said, those aware of the power of elected status (and its withdrawal) may feel such lack of respect by a public service entity not serving the public is something worth addressing. Maybe a few on the ‘Future of the BBC’ committee?
‘And there we have it’
Have to ask (knowing answering in certain places is anathema), but as the QI elves do seem to have opened Pandora’s ‘H’ block, who might this ‘we’ be?
Some may not want Dave, Lynette or anyone else to do it, but for now the right to question still exists.
This afternoon there was an extended item on Woman’s Hour on abortion.
The BBC is definitely pro. It does not take a neutral view. That much was crystal clear from Jenni Murray’s tone over advice centres which did not , in her view , do their job. That these advice centres pointed out the drawbacks to the procedure.
A long segment replayed an undercover reporter taping one of the advice centres.
The adviser pointed out that abortion is an invasive procedure and can have unlooked for outcomes.
This appears to cut no ice with the Woman’s Hour people.
Now 18 months ago I had an invasive procedure in the way of a test. Three days later I was rushed into hospital. I survived. Obviously.
What I learned is that the human body , when invaded unexpectedly, can react in an unforeseen way and almost without us beiing aware.
The adviser was really trying to get this across. But Murray and the rest of them can only think of the woman’s right to choose and that medical science can always overcome reality.
Politics again rather than common sense.
Abortion is one of the liberal’s red lines. Never question it and never point out that it is a major life event for the woman involved.
The adviser pointed out that abortion is an invasive procedure and can have unlooked for outcomes.
———————————————————————
Yes, particularly if you’re the poor little mite expecting mummy to look after you rather than sanction your slaughter.
Injection in the heart and decapitation.
Belt ‘n’ braces.
Women’s right to choose and all that…
Yes, one doesn’t hear much about the rights of the unborn child, from the political lobbies which Beeboids seem to prefer.
And there speaks three men all who are unaffected themselves, but like the Catholicism which drives the anti abortion lobby, they have no investment in the process at all.
You know what they say – don’t make the rules if you don’t play the game !
Your comment is off the beam and is a typical liberal reponse to any breach of your red lines. . You have no idea whether any of us have been affected by abortion. Do not presume.
One further point. In any healthy society the next generation is the concern of all. Men and women equally. It has been so since the beginning of time,.
Well if any of you has had an abortion I’m sure we’d all like to know!
Seeing as the physical effect on a womans body is the thrust of the OP then my point still stands.
Really. And what exactly is your point. In clear and precise language. My original post was on the effects of invasive techniques on the human body. Male or female
The abortion lobby does not wish to discuss this. In actual fact the medical establishment is generally reluctant to discuss this as well. In all sorts of procedures not just abortion.
In reality the gulf between those who oppose abortion and those who accept it is total. There can be no meeting of minds nor should there be.
I noted that the undercover reports took ages-most unlike the soundbite money shots that Jenni likes-so we get more time to hear HER opinions…as if we couldn`t guess.
Reckon this souffle that won`t rise was just reflex payback for the self-certifying, pre written consent forms at Brook, Stopes, BPAS…that the Telegraph did their sting on last year.
Lefties don`t like any spotlight on the magic…and take a year to summon up reprisals usually.
Just like that!
How a warmist goes from denying a lack of warming to accepting it and then finding an explanation as to where the warming has gone – in the space of 12 months!
My, how fast this climate science works.
‘As some sceptics have observed, this new paper’s lead author, Matthew England, accused them of lying about the hiatus as recently as 2012. In the space of less than a year, England changed his mind about the stall in global warming, made it the object of a study, and found a way to explain it. It seems that climate scientists like England lack the cool, rational, and value-free approach necessary to investigate the material world’.
http://www.spiked-online.com/global-warming-pause.html#.Uv_FgHniv3j
Must warrant scrutiny in one of the BBC’s ‘science’ programmes, eh? Or even a special report from that Harrabin chappie – he’s an expert, no?
But then again….
zzzzzz…………………
With Matthew England, I think it is a case of total ignorance about deep oceanic thermal inertia. Probably because any papers on this would have been destroyed in about 2007, because that was when these papers where used to explain the 800 year lag in carbon dioxide increase after a warming period found in ice core data. This type of ignorance has been hugely beneficial for many Climate scientists, the most famous case was with Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick.
Tell you what Richard, all the latest data has now been put into a simple online calculator you can play around with. A genius like you must be able to find a sign of this famous 16 year stalling of temperatures…
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
No need for calculator its that bit right on the end of that 100 year graph you posted yourself
WOW.
Fame at last.
Hi Piers C(o***n)
Pretending to be Piers Corbyn.
I think Piers would agree, that you should look up the work of David Archibald as a starter, as to what data would come next, as well as an explanation for the past data.
As a short summary, this is from the Space special interest group of Mensa.
The speed of the centre of the Sun relative to the centre of mass or barycentre of the Solar System determines the length of the solar cycle, this in turn is caused by the orbits and masses of the Planets. Short Solar Cycles have higher Solar Magnetic activity due to the increase in the speed of plasma within the Sun, and therefore a larger number of Sun spots. Long Solar Cycles have lower Solar Magnetic activity and therefore a smaller number of Sun spots.
Between 1913 and 1996, only one of eight Solar Cycles was longer than the mean Solar Cycle length of 11.04 years, the last of these was the shortest Solar Cycle for more than 200 years, the strength of the Suns magnetic field more than doubled, the cosmic ray flux fell by 11 percent and there was a 8.6 percent reduction in clouds.