A whole new week of BBC bias awaits your forensic examination. Something bugging you about BBC coverage? Detail it here!
MONDAY OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Docmarooned April 29, 2024 at 9:48 pm on Start the Week 29th April 2024Not just the English Sluff. They hate us non woke indigenous Scots too. Funny how everyone disagreeing with the vile...
- tomo April 29, 2024 at 9:04 pm on Start the Week 29th April 2024https://twitter.com/MarcherMedia1/status/1784917057307386046
- Thoughtful April 29, 2024 at 8:40 pm on Start the Week 29th April 2024When you believe your own supporters are 'bigotted' then almost everyone is going to appear a far right extremist !...
- Eddy Booth April 29, 2024 at 8:07 pm on Start the Week 29th April 2024I'm glad he left. Just used to put endless links and videos up, without his own opinion. Like this is...
- BRISSLES April 29, 2024 at 7:52 pm on Start the Week 29th April 2024Sorry, not the Beeb, which I rarely watch now - but I do recommend Dopesick currently on. No, what is...
- tomo April 29, 2024 at 7:25 pm on Start the Week 29th April 2024crying all the way to the bank.... https://twitter.com/MikeSouthWestUK/status/1784949976604266627
- Lunchtime Loather April 29, 2024 at 7:23 pm on Start the Week 29th April 2024Born Guessing? Yes please!
- Terminal Moraine April 29, 2024 at 7:23 pm on Start the Week 29th April 2024"Dr. Emily Zobel Marshall’s research is informed by Postcolonial theory and spans a broad range of concerns, including examinations of...
- tomo April 29, 2024 at 7:17 pm on Start the Week 29th April 2024Chistine Anderson gets her mic cut.... Remainers would have you believe something quite different from EU reality. [img]https://i.ib...
- Scroblene April 29, 2024 at 6:43 pm on Start the Week 29th April 2024Beeboid website still in mourning... 'Ha ha bloody haaaaaa' as far as I'm concerned, but I'm sure that the 'kidults...
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
The longer the BBC stay silent on this story the more they look like the broadcast wing of the Labour Party
Nicky Campbell is a useful weather vane of BBC management opinion. Remember he told us that as far as they were concerned Jimmy Savlie was just a ‘sexless eccentric’
So this is worth noting as the closest we will get to an official update…
Steevie @halfbob Feb 21
@bbc5live @NickyAACampbell So now Roy Greenslades Guardian Blog thinks Harman/Dromey/Hewitt have questions to answer will the Beeb cover?
Nicky Campbell @NickyAACampbell Feb 21
@halfbob as soon as the lawyer says. They are v cautious for obv reasons. There is no conspiracy.
Those ‘obvious reasons’ presumably being the BBC McAlpine scandal. However, I can’t see the parallel.
Surely they can report the fact that the Mail has said this? With the denials of the parties involved as appropriate? Perhaps A Lawyer can confirm.
By the time the lawyers decide the chances are the story will be on the back burner again, and I’m confident that is the reasoning here.
The suspicion is that if this was a a Tory or UKIP story there would have been two morning phone-ins on this topic already and would lead the agenda for days.
Five Live have a long standing tendency to tackle head-on stories that are inconvenient to certain parties and not others. That is because their entire daytime output is resolutely left of centre.
It should have its licence to broadcast suspended pending an independent inquiry.
Finally it has just had an airing on R4 but only after they have no doubt had plenty of time to consult. Millipede is apparently giving them his full backing.
Yep. Got two minutes on the BBC six too, twenty minutes in. All about the defence to the allegations, little about the allegations themselves.
Nothing more than a labour party press release full of lies.
Same sort of thing on 5 Live. “Were they forced by the media to issue a statement”, asked one Beeboid of another. Yes they were, Beeboids, but of course that media doesn’t include you. There was no discussion of the validity of Harman and Dromey’s denials.
The piece on the Six sounded far more like news management than actual news.
Clearly when Campbell says “no conspiracy”, what he means is “conspiracy”. Pointing to the lawyers is just an excuse – why would BBC lawyers have such a different view to Mail or Guardian lawyers? As Milverton says, this will just be a delaying tactic to sit on the story until it’s dead.
‘just be a delaying tactic to sit on the story until it’s dead’
Starting to look that way, and they are not for blinking on the ‘legal says no’ excuse still. Really? ‘We love to but we’ve been told to stand down’ is the best way to stay credible?
Can’t for the life of me figure out what they think they gain by so clearly going nowhere near even admitting something newsworthy exists, especially as the Graun and Mirror are taking note and even ‘analysing’, erring on asking awkward questions. It clearly is ‘in’ the news, no matter what the merits or otherwise.
Frankly it’s making the BBC look even less objective than usual. No mean feat.
What is clear is that this is an attempt by the BBC to bury a story which is embarrassing to Labour.
Firstly, the BBC thinks obviously that its control of the news agenda of the country, is sufficient to ensure that the story will die unless the corporation gives it air time. Secondly, the BBC is going out of its way to protect its Labour chums and prevent them having to answer difficult and damaging questions. Surely there can never have been a clearer example of the leftist bias of the BBC.
For a democracy to be healthy there has to be a plurality of views and debate. The BBC is demonstrating why our democracy can no longer afford to have a broadcaster in such a dominant position as the BBC, which is able to manipulate the news to suit its own world view. Leaving aside the toxic issue of its funding , the size of the BBC should be massively reduced just on ‘monopoly grounds’ alone. What was right for Murdoch is surely just as right for the BBC !
Spot on Doublethinker, on every count.
Indeed. The story has been running for over a week, there have now been stories in several other papers saying that the Labour panjandrums need to comment.
What the BBC is scared of is that this concerns not just some obscure backbencher. With Deputy-Leader Harman in the firing line, it goes to the heart of all the woolly Labour thinking over past years.
I will not be surprised if the next step for the Mail is to ask their friend Ed Miliband why his Deputy is refusing to deal with the allegations properly. There is now ample documentary evidence – which I don’t think was so clear before – that she and the others helped defend the PIE. A resigning matter, surely ?
If a story has been running for days and there has not been a hint those accused would sue, and that in addition that story was first published in 2010 and no legal redress has been sought, the BBCs claim that there are legal issues simply does not hold water.
For whatever reason the BBC have moved from requiring no evidence at all – McAlpine – to needing almost a conviction by jury to even mention it.
Of course, the fact it would be damaging to Labour, and that God forfend, the foremost player in this debacle might well be Deputy PM in eighteen months will have nothing to do with it. Oh no.
It is an indication of just how low journalistic principles have sunk at the BBC that such stories are sacrificed on the altar of political correctness, and more worrying still, political expedience while hiding behind legal advice which no other media outlet would likely countenance.
As far as I was aware the story was much older than that! I remember a Telegraph article from 2006 and there was an earlier one than that preceding it.
Thoughful, I do believe you are right I remember this story some time ago as well.
It has been going around the internet for longer than that.
It has been extensively documented. The allegations are entirely true. IF not, the senior labour figures involved should sue the Daily Mail.
They won’t, of course, because they are true. However the BBC have just dedicated a whole 2 minutes to this story, which was in effect, nothing more than a labour party press release full of lies.
‘It is an indication of just how low journalistic principles have sunk at the BBC that such stories are sacrificed on the altar of political correctness’
Along with the innocence and lives of those affected
Beeboids’ obvious political strategy, in stages:
1.) censor out all ‘Daily Mail’ criticism of Labour Party;
2.) increase support daily for Labour Party from now until the General Election in 2015;
3.) get a Labour government to re-new BBC Charter in 2017.
In a nutshell.
4.) Make sure Labour then stay in power – forever.
We know Campbell ‘there’s three million listeners oo’ there’ has form for lying through his back teeth – and this ‘oor lawyers are watching’ line stinks of rotting fish.
The truth is complete defence against an accusation of libel and there is enough of this story that is easily verifiable as it is a matter of public record. These three were in NCCL; PIE was affiliated to NCCL; BBC yerve got 4,000 effing journalists, gerronwithit.
Nikki, mate, do you take us for idiots. I know we take you for an idiot, but *that’s* a matter of public record.
NCCL also lobbied in support of PIE to change the law to legalise sex with kids as young as 10 and to legalise incest. This was more than mere, innocent, nieve affiliation. It was overt support at the time.
The BBC six o’clock news finally covered the labour paedophile scandal. It took them days to do so, then when they do, it is nothing more than a few minutes which amounts to nothing more than a labour party press release full of lies. These “allegations” are extensively documented and are very widely known. The actual written words and known actions of these senior labour figures all condemn them as guilty. These senior labour figures have never sought legal action against anyone who has written or repeated these allegations, because they are all absolutely true.
The BBC have clearly been exposed as profoundly baised in favour of labour for repeating, unchecked, labour press release. Had these allegations been against senior tories, or any one even closely affiliated with UKIP, then these allegations would have been trawled over with a fine tooth comb and been heading the news for over a week.
Look how the BBC enabled Savile and Stuart Hall and now defend the labour lobbyists for paedophiles. BBC
BBC = Broadcasters Buggering Children.
The key here is ‘proof’ – the DM has been very cautious about only stating what is proven, and published the documents to back every statement up.
The BBC, post – Saville – is looking very much like the BBC pre – Saville.
Why is it that BBC journalists and cameramen in Ukraine find the rare spots where someone is flying an EU flag, to set up their piece?
They probably give them the flag to fly themselves.
CGI’d in in post-production – like the Chinese fireworks at the Olympics
I’m not seeing or hearing anything at all on BBC channels about the mooted Clegg vs Farage debate – something one might imagine would be causing the BBC twitterati to be frothing over-excitedly about. How odd.
Can anyone think of any reason why the BBC might not be too keen to give this prospect any publicity..? I’m baffled.
The Labour party intention is to take voters away from the Fib Dems, if Clegg is his usual and Farage wins as might be expected, that would not benefit Labour, but it in the unlikely event Clegg wins, that would be even worse!
It’s a lose lose situation for the BBC and their political masters
Maybe the BBC will host the debate – let’s see. Bimbledum in the chair, with the usual handpicked Question Time audience, some wearing burkas, some obviously Eastern European, and representing the youth, a hand picked collection of striking students from the University of Sussex – all given ample time to ask lengthy questions concerning UKIPs xenophobia.
It’s not that difficult to understand. The debate itself will only be accessible to a small number of viewers in London, and it’s not in the BBC’s interests to encourage people to actually watch it and make up their own minds.
The way news-management works is that we’ll all wake up the following morning to hear the BBC (and all the other mainstream media) tell us that “most commentators agreed” that Clegg had been “the clear victor” and that Farage was “well-meaning but lacked a grasp of the real issues”, conclusions which will be reinforced using selected edited highlights from the debate.
The fact that Clegg suggested the debate in the first place is a clear indication that he knows he’s holding all the aces, regardless of what happends in the debate itself.
This might explain why the BBC are never going to declare Clegg ‘the clear victor’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2561696/Revealed-Labours-plot-unseat-Clegg-Party-drawn-plans-decapitate-Lib-Dems-forcing-deputy-PM-General-Election.html
LBC will host the debate. The BBC have been snubbed.
Funny how the Ukraine uprising riots all kicked off during the Winter Olympics, as if it was planned beforehand by outsiders to give Putin a showing up, coincidence ? Hmm..
Yeah– those shape-shifting lizards, they’ll getcha every time! Just when we thought it was safe to watch all the little princesses and poofters ice-skating, without there needing to be stories about Putin’s repression of gays in his own country, too!
And the people who were behind this uprising would have got away with it, too, if not for those pesky kids and their dog– oh, wait…
Realguyfaux ” Those shape shifting lizards.”
And you call me a nutjob ? Jesus….
If the tinfoil cap fits…
You do like the number 4, don’t you ? are you Rain man ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqbXPfaN_VM
There’s a way of suggesting something that is NOT outside the realm of possibility (i.e., that there are those in the West, especially in the EU, who would like nothing better than to see Putin get a comeuppance, and have been in touch with the Maidan protestors), and the timing may have seemed to be a bit more than a mere fortuity, coming as it does during Vlad’s little knees-up in Sochi. And your original post– sarc-tag absent– was not it. Either you believe it, in which case the tone is wrong, or you are ridiculing it, in which case you were better served by indicating sarcasm.
You will admit, the tone of your post DOES have the aroma of “conspiracy theory”: “Funny how…” — “…planned…by outsiders…” — “…[C]oincidence[,] [h]mmm[?]”, and it rightfully deserved a bit of the taking of the mickey.
”There are those in the West, especially in the EU, who would like nothing better than to see Putin get a comeuppance, and have been in touch with the Maidan protestors.”
That’s what I was suggesting, DUH ! pity it went over your head
Somewhere between your brain and the keyboard, that thought turned into what you WROTE, which is not exactly the same thing. And obviously it did not sail over my head, as I suggested you clarify it sans the tone.
How often a true word said in jest is dismissed, simply in virtue of its needlessly having been said in jest.
So it continues. After Nicky telling listeners about the value of oil revenues to the Thatcher government, Professor Tony McKay of Aberdeen Business School tells Shelagh Fogarty of oil and gas revenues ‘spent by the Thatcher government’.
Some think there were ( and still are) oil and gas revenues post 1990. 5 Live knows different. Mrs Thatcher spent the lot, leaving nothing for her successors.
Has there been much mention of the Venezuelan riots these last 3 weeks on the Beeb? By contrast Ukraine was wall to wall. I ask because I only listen to BBC radio and I didn’t hear any mentions, but then I tend to limit my exposure to the British Broadcasting Corporation for the Propagation of the Faith.
Could there be some kind of ideological reason why the BBC would not want to draw attention to the troubles of a far left socialist government, do you think? One recently publicly supported by left wing MPs, like Diane Abbot, and favoured left wing commentators, like Owen Jones.
Anyone have any ideas?
The Beeb have under reported, but the more radical left, which includes, Left Unity, whose creator is the BBC darling, Ken Loach, have censored out any comment from their web site. For these guys are singlemindedly committed to Venuzuelan socialism. And this is important, as the transition to totalitarianism in this paradise has to be the final proof of that socialism is over.
The Harman/Hewitt/Dromey story has now appeared in the Mail, the Telegraph, The Guardian, The Times and The Mirror (that I know of).
Still nothing from the BBC.
So I’m watching the bBC news at lunch time and we have:
Norman Smith promoting the view that the reason Cameron is in Scotland is so as to continue pressing with their ‘Project Fear’ campaign regards Scotland leaving.
Salmon is continued to be promoted as the new Messiah
I’m told about how great it is a 35 year old man who plays with balls has decided to come out in the US.
How great it is that the Ukraine is going to join the EU
(Just what the Northern European Taxpayer needs, another basket case to support until the next one)
And how DLT is a victim by having to go to court again.
Yup no fucking agenda what so ever.
And earlier on the hijab wearing badly speaking stuttering reporter from Eygpt gave a very anti-government spiel , meanwhile on Al Jaz a head covering free reporter in perfect English explained with facts (And not emotion) what is happening in the country and that is (And as is being reported by every other news-agency) .
“the mass resignation paves the way for the country’s powerful military commander, Field Marshal Abdel Fatah al-Sissi, who is also the country’s defense minister and first deputy prime minister, to run for president.
But not the bBC.
Al Jazeera does really set the tone for honest reporting in the middle east. Go on freeview, watch a news bulletin in the same hour on AJ and on BBC, the quality is chalk and cheese.
North WEst were running a story about the Ukrainian community in Manchester celebrating looks like there were barely enough attending to make double figures never mind send the cameras anyway. Plus another Ukrainian, well I think she was, in the Breakfast studio. I’m unsure she was so dull I drifted back to sleep.
Seems like Ukraine needs $4B now and another $4B this year – and while most Ukrainians are poor some of the world’s richest are Ukrainian.
Meanwhile (unelected) Baroness Ashton has apparently gone to Kiev to support the protesters/coup, the UK is offering financial support and the US has recognised the new government, while the EU, UK and UK all warn Russia not to interfere.
Realistically Ukraine should be split, but that’s not going to be allowed to happen.
Scotland, Scotland, and more Scotland on the Celtic Broadcasting Corporation…
I know what you’re all thinking – “but this is an issue of major importance for the whole UK, not just Scotland!”, which is fine, until an Englishman dares to open his mouth on the issue and is then shouted down by hordes of angry cybernats and left-wing newspaper columnists demanding that you “stay out of our/Scotland’s business Sassenach/Englishman!”
Yes, enough of an issue to have it rammed down out throats ad nauseam, but not important enough to voice an opinion on it, at least if you’re English.
May I ask, when do the people of England get to have a voice on England’s future…
Brace yourselves, Englishmen, you are sure to be betrayed again. The British Elites will keep kicking us until they are kicked back, they take advantage that we are slow to anger, but we must prepare to do so. We must start by saying we refuse to be considered as ‘the rest of the UK’ we demand to be called England.
When did any member of Cameron’s party or government speak up for England, the whole of England?
When did Cameron and his fellow travellers ever mention England? It’s time they did.
But they are Unionists, they will never put England first. It’s always England last with them.
They must be removed. The time has come to get the British and the Unionists off our English backs.
When did Cameron and his fellow travellers ever mention England?
I think he did once, with the snarky little aside “I don’t want to be Prime Minister of England”.
For once I agree with Cameron – I don’t want him to be Prime Minister of England either.
Englishman. We’ll get that when we get a vote on the death penalty/ leaving the EU or any other issue affecting the English. And that will be as long as they can get away with not letting us.
When they learn that voting for the amalgous political party called Lib/Lab/Con benefits everyone……… except the English.
Piers Moron CNN show has been axed, there is a God after all.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2566348/CNN-axes-Piers-Morgan-Live-final-air-month.html
He’s discovered it’s preferable not to depend on audience ratings for your job , and that it’s always preferable to mock America from a safe distance. The BBC is his natural home.
I hope this doesn’t mean he will reappear shortly on the Beeb. CNN can keep him as far as I’m concerned..
The CBC seems keen to put the Ukrainian protests in the historical context of the Cold War, contrasting the pro-EU protestors (the good guys) with the pro-Russia protestors (the baddies) in a struggle for the soul of a nation.
To understand this we need to look at what the EU and Soviet Union represent. One, a conglomerate of different nations and ethnicities, bound together by treaty, united by a common currency but little else, ruled over by a mob of unelected bureaucrats and party apparatchicks with the backing of a pliant media – and the other is the USSR…
I wonder if the irony of their attempts to paint an old unelected centralised dictatorship in a bad light in comparison to a modern unelected dictatorship has escaped the EU flag wavers at broadcasting house?
“…To understand this we need to look at what the EU and Soviet Union represent. One, a conglomerate of different nations and ethnicities, bound together by treaty, united by a common currency but little else, ruled over by a mob of unelected bureaucrats and party apparatchicks with the backing of a pliant media – and the other is the USSR…”
I could see where you were going with this, but still LOL’d. But it isn’t really funny because it’s dangerously true.
Can you imagine the howling if we, the English, vote to leave.
It will never happen as the elite will literallly do anything to prevent a free vote here.
Without us the whole project is doomed. This is what they do not want us to know.
Cameron is there to keep us quiet. Clegg is there to keep us quit. Milleband is there to keep us quiet.
A decisive vote in May for UKIP changes everything. Just do it.
If it destroys the Tory party so what?
If it lets Milleband in at the GE so what?
I hope to be up and watching the EU election night. It should be interesting.
Sneering Jeremy Paxman slags off Huw Edwards.
”Like an evangelical preacher on a wet Sunday in Merthyr Tydfil.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2566614/Like-evangelical-preacher-wet-Sunday-Merthyr-Tydfil-Jeremy-Paxmans-extraordinary-attack-fellow-BBC-journalist-Huw-Edwards.html
Somehow I don’t think Paxman would have said it if Huw was black.
Yes, this doesn’t have the same ring to it for Beeboids :-
”Like the dawah of an imam on a wet Friday in Tower Hamlets.”
‘Views his own’, no doubt? Can’t wait for a BBC anonogob to appear to ‘explain’ what all parties meant and felt to make the nasty smell go away.
I noted this too:
‘Newsnight’s unofficial slogan used to be ‘If it’s news, it’s news to us’
If consistent, I could live with them coming late to the party. But the ongoing selective coyness over the Labour trio rather smacks of agenda.
I had thought their unofficial slogan was ‘Who cares if it’s true when we can make stuff up’.
Which may explain the ongoing reputation for trust and transparency.
However, given their last post on FaceBook was last Wednesday, Jezza may have a point.
By not reporting it at all, they can plead it is an old story and perhaps get away from the accusation of bias that way… However, they have just covered in on the six o’clock news. And this time they comprehensively showed their bias in all its red flagged glory.
Instead of even spending a moment actually investigating if these “allegations” have any merit (they do) the BBC shamefully and with overt pro-labour bias, spent all of 2 minutes regurgitating a labour party press release full of lies, without ANY questioning, investigation or mention of the actual validity of the allegations, or any word from those who have investigated them.
If nothing else totally proves overt and blatant pro labour bias at the BBC, it is this story. Yet with no evidence whatsoever, they went after McAlpine.
Hugh says, “Is it ‘cos I is Welsh?”
15 years ago the Macpherson Report was delivered to a stunned nation. Stephen Lawrence’s mother Doreen – now Baroness Lawrence – spoke to Sarah Montague on Today. Doreen moaned that blacks are still unjustifiably targeted by the police because of their skin colour and went off on an (unchallenged) riff of doctorate level victimology. I didn’t hear the later interview with Craig Mackey, deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan Police but I suspect that it comprised the usual cringe-full of right-on apologetics.
IMHO an “impartial” broadcaster would have taken the 15-year anniversary as an opportunity to have had a discussion between representatives of those (like Doreen and probably Craig) who view the Macpherson Report as a long-overdue response to out-of-control police racism and those who consider the review – and its consequences – as politically correct junk. Unfortunately, this is the BBC. God forbid that a real discussion concerning, among other things, the hijacking of law enforcement by the bien pensant left should sully the airwaves. If a discussion on those lines was allowed, the listening and viewing audience might expect a mention – even a debate – about how senior Labour stars supported (and, in the case of Lady Hodge when in charge in Islington, effectively enabled) paedophilia.
And in one of those ‘what goes around…’ twists of fate, ISTR it was the Left’s determination to nail someone for the Lawrence murder that resulted in the disgusting removal of the double jeopardy law that had served us so well over many hundreds of years… The very same law that would have prevented Dave Lee Travis from facing however many retrials the DPP decides is necessary.
Although removal of the double jeopardy defence was both stupid and dangerous, AFAIAA DLT is only being retried in those cases where the jury disagreed. He is not being retried where he was acquitted. Certainly, the DPP is a vindictive and publicity-seeking apparatchik but she is not doing anything unusual in re-prosecuting this case.
For Beeboids:-
” Who’d trust the phoneys of the Left to protect us?”
By PETER MCKAY.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2566373/PETER-MCKAY-Whod-trust-phoneys-Left-protect-us.html#ixzz2uFTYffy5
“LABOUR’S PAEDO PROBLEMS: NO REASON TO GLOAT”
By Tim Black.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/labours-paedo-problems-no-reason-to-gloat/14700#.UwtTk-N_u9Y
The irony, the bBC and it’s leftwing ilk went to a lot of trouble in which to try and point the finger of kiddy fidderling at the Tories and boy did they get sued.
And yet when the cards are on the table we find not Tories, but bBC presenters, Labour MPs and liberal so called do-gooders with their fingers in the PIE.
BBC = Broadcasters Bugggering Children
WRONG we should gloat over this as long as possible ,bring it up at every opportunity relish it ,enjoy it ,revel in it ,never let them forget it.
We must keep it the public eye , gnaw on it like a dog with a bone , it’s an open goal that must NOT be missed !
Re: Harman/Hewitt/Dromey affair.
I wish some enterprising Tory backbencher could raise this issue at Prime Minster’s Questions.
But perhaps, as has been mentioned, this may be more wide-ranging than we think and/or no-one wants to upset the BBC.
Meanwhile, Miliband, assuming that people do not know of ‘Daily Mail’ reports:-
“Miliband hails Harman’s ‘decency'”
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/national/news/11032559._/?
” A silence that grows ever more deafening”
By DAILY MAIL COMMENT.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2566338/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-A-silence-grows-deafening.html#ixzz2uG3LkRnK
The BBC just spent all of 2 minutes reporting what was nothing more than a labour party press release full of lies.
They have taken the side of the promoters of Paedophilia. Again.
“Miliband hails Harman’s ‘decency’”
Hopefully that one will return to bite him on the arse.
Is that the bit of Miliband he normally talks out of?
Whilst it only appears that PIE had Labour protagonists, maybe possibly we’re being a little naive in thinking that others across the political spectrum haven’t harbored the same idea’s in the past, hence the deafening silence, a possible can of worms…… Also don’t forget the Tory’s are in coalition right now.
Bacon earlier on his show felt the need to mock Climate Change conspiracy with some scientist he had on because as we all know the science is settled. Earlier he also blurted out “who cares about rich people going into space fro 5 minutes” emphasis on the ‘rich people’. they were discussing how getting into space could well become much cheaper. Those are just two examples of how bloody annoying that moron ( he drives me to be abusive) is, there were more.
How ironic he is called ‘bacon’ which must offend those to whom he grovels.
Bacon in enough to drive ANYONE to be abusive … join the club
Astounding that a teen wannabe simpleton,
makes such a big shake about science,
to which he is totally ignorant, and tries to make it up by speed reading a few pages before his guests appear.
Which is more annoying? his arrogance or ignorance? … tough call!
Now this … always a pleasure 😀
Delingpole “How I frazzled (Richard) Bacon”
Bacon so completely out of his depth. its cringeworthy.
rich people what like people that work for the BBC
‘Rich people’. By many people’s standards, that would include him.
For Beeboids:-
Newspaper front-page headlines for today:-
http://www.thepaperboy.com/uk/front-pages.cfm
‘Conservative Home’
(scroll down page):-
“Will senior Labour figures explain themselves over paedophile pressure group claims?”
“‘Pressure is mounting on three Labour grandees to explain their links with a vile group that tried to legalise sex with children. MPs, commentators and even Labour-supporting newspapers lined up yesterday to attack the silence of the party’s deputy leader Harriet Harman, her MP husband and former minister Patricia Hewitt.’ – Daily Mail.
“They weren’t so coy over the Savile scandal – Daily Mail Leader.
“Savile’s victims were ignored by police – Daily Telegraph.
“Backbencher attacks Miliband’s ‘one dimensional’ front bench’ – The Sun (£).
http://www.conservativehome.com/
And to think Harriet wanted to ban Page3. Would have upset her uncle Lord Longford. He did have a thing about porno’. You know, it makes you think !
I didn’t know Harriet Harman was related to the halfwit Lord Longford . but then I shouldn’t be so ignorant and realise the Labour Party is Nepotism For Progress S**d the Proles .
Didnt Harmans Uncle Lord Longford actively campaign for the release of wicked paedophile child killer Myra Hyndley ?
Yes
Now we have it: Harman speaks, so Beeboids speak.
Last sentence of Beeboid piece:-
“Ms Hewitt has yet to comment on the story.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26320942
Corollary: Harman in denial, Beeboids in denial.
‘There is no evidence to suggest that Ms Harman, Mr Dromey or Ms Hewitt personally supported the views of PIE’
That’s a very bold statement from the BBC – I presume they have evidence to back it up?
If I’d been one of them, I’d have resigned immediately PIE’s affiilation was accepted.
“DAILY MAIL NOW LINKS LABOUR-RUN COUNCIL TO 1000-STRONG PAEDOPHILE GROUP”
By Nick Hallett.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/02/24/How-Labour-Run-Council-Enabled-Child-Abuse
At last the BBC breaks ranks (of a sort) to mention the Harman scandal.
Oh silly me. It’s just a BBC droid who’s in Harman’s pocket voicing her view.
Yet more from this BBC droid defending the indefensible
Par for the course for Labour/BBC.
The rebuttal in full.
Harriet Harman condemns paper’s ‘smear campaign’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26320942
Well what on earth do you expect from the paedophile shielding, shirt lifting BBC.
Nu Lab always used offence as the best form of defence. And with Harman it’s so easy to offend.
I am now a bit intrigued as to what has changed vis a vis the BBC’s previous, long-claimed ‘legal reasons’ for staying mute until now. Must have been one looooong meeting to strategise this one in camera, off the record, FoI-exempted and Chatham-ruled…. transparently, of course.
All I can see is that those being asked questions are still not answering them, but now after a long delay are hoping loud partisan rallying calls against those asking them will muddy the waters enough to see this all blow over. One awaits Ed resurrecting Dad soon.
That the BBC’s staff, now apparently unleashed from previous mystery legal restraints, are mainly shunting out PR claims as ‘reporting’ (as AsISeeIt rightly questions above – the ‘none so blind’ investigative approach is getting a bit tired when the BBC runs it) is unsurprising but hardly high in professional integrity or impartiality.
Looking at the responses to Mr. Mason’s tweets in the capture, few outside and even a couple within the bubble are buying it, either. And the over-parapet DOTI’s sound desperate.
The tactic is one we’ve seen and remarked on, time and time again. The BBC stays silent on a story that inconveniences its fellow travellers in the Labour party until it can run the denial as a headline.
In any case, Harman’s response is beyond ridicule: how can the Mail’s story be a ‘smear campaign’ if it is true? And if it isn’t, why isn’t she suing?
For the BBC to delay publication until the arrival of this tepid riposte (and then to bury it among the ‘also rans’ on its front page) proves, once again, that it is an utterly corrupt, worthless excuse for a news organisation and should be closed down.
I’m guessing that they were going to try their usual tactic of “Not Newsworthy” until Greenslade in the Guardian started to push it. Even “Labour Uncut” are now asking questions about the ménage à trois of Mr & Mrs Harman and Hewitt.
Lets not forget about Margaret Hodge and her unedifying tenure as leader of Islington Council when rampant paedophilia was allowed unchecked in Islington care homes and how Hodge used the BBC to smear one of the victims.
‘how can the Mail’s story be a ‘smear campaign’ if it is true?’
The reasoning seems to be that if it’s contra-narrative, it doesn’t count and should not be mentioned.
The BBC seems very keen on which ‘quotes’ end up as headlines to cover that tarnished reputation for trusted balance in a thin veneered degree of separation.
Again, if this does not go away and the facts are borne out or built upon, hitching their cover-up wagon to yet another fellow-traveller knackered horse team headed over a cliff seems to be getting to be a habit.
What is really interesting (to me at least) is that the BBC finished their report by saying that Harman/ Dromey had no intention of suing. They will just put their case to the court of public opinion.
Well, I look forward to that. Not suing says something.
Having seen the documentation presented in the MOS yesterday, it is hard to imagine on what basis they could sue.
And don’t forget – like so many of the crooks in ZaNuLabour this lot are lawyers. They would know if they had a case.
The Court of Public Opinion has judged on Harmans case in regard of Fred the Shred…who she sent there for trial and sentence…she indeed used that very quote as I recall.
How apt then that the biggest hypocrite in Labour history is now due there…black gimp mask if not a cap, but should be a good case this one.
Does she float?
i still cant work out why these 3 former senior figures and ministers in the labour party patricia hewitt,jack dromey and his wife harriet harman party have gone into hiding and are making no comment about there links to this disgusting vile organisation called the paedophile information exchange called(p.i.e) for short who advocated sex with children as young as 6 years old.why are jack dromey and his wife harriet harman gone into hiding and are making no comment about there links to p.i.e.you would think they would come out in the media and clear there names and say that they have never been involved with this paedophile group called p.i.e.the silence from dromey and harman should worry us all who have children because if the labour party get elected as the next goverment you can be sure that harriet harman and her husband jack dromey will be ministers in this labour goverment,that should terrify all of us,the more dromey and harman stay silent on there links to p.i,e. there more people will become suspicious of there links to this peadophile oganistation,this is serious stuff indeed.
Dromey has previous for gay porn stuff
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2511016/Harriet-Harmans-MP-husband-Jack-Dromey-adds-gay-porn-Tweet-favourites.html
Zeez – the mind boggles at what this shower of metropolitan Islington lib-left elite get up to behind drawn curtains.
Because I have to live with the mental image of Harriet wearing a strap-on doing her husband from behind I thought it better to share my pain.
Make sure it’s a black one.
Probably our best customers. We put in an extra storage tank based on their business.
Got any CAPS on your pc ?
I notice that the BBC has led on the denial, not the underlying story: the signature BBC treatment where waters require muddying. The BBC has also “failed to learn” that Margaret Hodge’s late husband was an NCCL luminary at the time and that later on Hodge was running Islington when a paedophile ring was running rampant.
Given they’ve had a week to concoct a response, the BBC and Labour have come up with nothing that couldn’t have been said on the first day the Mail’s story broke. So why didn’t they deny the Mail’s innuendo on day one? I suspect the initial thinking on how to play this one was that the story would die a natural death if the BBC refused to cover it: a not unnatural thought since the BBC accounts for up to 80% of news received by the British audience. When the Mail perservered – and other papers (including the Mirror and Guardian no less) joined in – silence was no longer an option. Hence this rather weak response (ie the denial not the meat of the story is featured). In a similar vein the BBC still fails to report the mayhem in Venezuela in any depth or width: a treatment which consigns much of the listening and viewing British public to virtual ignorance of the behaviour of a BBC-approved regime.
When did this site start moderating comments?
When Brims crossed the line.
Are you the famous black gay porn actor, Bum Rims?
You seem to know about him, that’s you and Dromy. Wank fantasy ?
hopefully.this paedophile scandal involving these senior socalist labour politicians will be the deathnail of the labour ever getting elected in 2016,now that cant be a bad thing can it
The recent flooding in Ambridge was caused, not by blocked drains, but…….wait for it…….Global Warming.
It’s all right – I hear they’re flattening Ambridge to make way for Hinkley Point D.
Sorry – should have read
‘the controversial Hinkley point D’.
My bad.
Somebody should flatten Ambridge….it’s become a kind of Eastenders radio shout/scream fest.
It seems, from an article in Wikipedia, that Mary Whitehouse had a hand in undermining the activities of PIE and pointed out that public funds were being used to subsidise ‘paedophile groups’. She was of course demonised and ridiculed by the BBC at the time for her moral stance against them, and we now know full well why. This was the time of Saville and “it was different back then”? They were all at it!
Well, I remember back then and even as a much younger man I absolutely agreed with her. Mary Whitehouse was undoubtedly “old school” and perhaps that, along with her religious stance, did not go down well with the cool youth of the day, but she was right. To me there is no doubt that the BBC has done its very best to undermine the morals of this country, to push the boundaries was the aim if not the written remit. It did it in every programme it could and particularly children’s and it has succeeded beyond its wildest dreams.
So having destroyed the morals of the country what was next for the BBC? Was it to demonise and get rid of anyone who was against overrunning the country with third world immigrants? I think what happened to Enoch Powell answers that question.
So what’s the plan now? Undermine a thousand years of British law by supporting Sharia and it’s medieval ballistic followers? Support the breakup of the UK and let a minority of folks who happen to live in the northern part of the UK get all the benefits of North sea oil? It certainly seems like it, though for the life of me I cannot see why. Is it because they see it as progressive, or liberal or believe in a new sort of new social order? Or are they just trying to outdo each other in the BBC bubble of being bloody daft with our cash.
The worst part is we must still pay for Britain’s Beastly Cabal or get thrown into the dungeon. Progress? Not in my book.
There are only two possible answers.
It is a long planned conspiracy to destroy this country and hand it over to an unelected cabal of power mad thugs.
Or that it is a result of allowing ourselves to tolerate a situation where we indulge our desires at the expense of our duty to the future of the nation and a denial of reality itself.
I favour the latter as everything the liberal so called progressives stand for is ultimately entirely selfish and life denying.
We have the society we deserve. Some of us know that we have made a terrible mistake and have betrayed our grandchildren and our ancestors There must be real change. A counter revolution. The liberal is still trying to create the society that gives full rein to his desires and irrational beliefs.
There is a real cultural divide now. It is going to grow and we all must choose. The BBC is a key battleground. At the moment it is not on my side.
‘In a letter to the Home Office in April 1978, it argued fiercely that child pornography should not be banned as “indecent” unless it could be shown that the child depicted had been harmed. The NCCL official who wrote this letter was its legal officer, Harriet Harman.’ – from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10653944/The-right-to-sleep-with-children-was-one-civil-liberty-that-NCCL-supported.html
Funny how the BBC omit this minor detail in their article (and let Mr and Mrs Harperson put forward their side of the story at length: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26320942).
Jeff
Guido has had a couple of stories of how Jack Dromey had inadvertently saved to his Twitter faves a couple of sites that featured dusky men without their pants on and with *cough* appendages well to the north of ‘Mull of Kintyre’..
Well Jackie boy avers it was ‘inadvertent’ at any rate.
BBC have not had it yet as the lead story on News At Ten.
Still time.
I’m not a lawyer but if this stuff is true surely this goes beyond a resigning issue for Harman and co. and moves far into criminal behaviour?
Downboy
All Harperson did was argue for a change to the law, which is in no way illegal. However, it should be a resigning issue, and if Ms Harperson were a Tory MP (even a minor one), the BBC would have been all over this story like a rash…
Jeff
Yes, allegedly call a copper a ‘pleb’ and you have to fall on your sword almost immediately.
Strange priorities we have now in our wonderful country.
The NCCL, affiliated to the PIE has since evolved into Liberty and jettisoned their support for paedophiles. And who is the spokeswoman for Liberty – none other than one of the BBC’s perennial favourites: Shami Chakrabarti.
Let me make it quite clear, I’m not making any insinuations that Ms Chakrabarti has anything whatsoever to do with PIE. But, still, hardly casts her organisation in a good light, does it? Complete nightmare for the BBC.
Miss Chakrabati was six in 1975, so more likely to be a victim of Harman’s bizarre beliefs than a co-enabler.
Miss Chakrabati what ever her failings is still a good sort and I feel she should be given support as at least she gave an apology for a past she had no hand !so in unlike these fiddler 3
She politically supported e.g.
– Binyam Mohamed;
-UAF against EDL;
-Gaddafis at LSE.
I did say “what ever her failings” nothing is perfect and no one is either but at least she stood up and said sorry for one thing ! the BBC/ labour has said sorry for f$%^ all !!
Funny but the one thing I love about this place is no one agree’s all the time with everyone else ! so unlike the hive we all came here to fight against or in the case of the few true faithful ‘to save’ !
Well put, Mat.
Had the misfortune to catch thirty seconds of that Belgian soap the BBC shows – Ostenders.
I see they’ve got a Downs Syndrome kid as one of the actors. I would have hired the kid out of common decency – the droids hire the kid so they can tick a box, impress their superiors and whore after promotion, and walk around all day feeling all libby wibby and smug.
AND DO THEY HAVE TO EFFIN SHOUT ALL THE EFFIN TIME?
Worth remembering this tweet if John Sweeney ever covers the US gun debate for the BBC:
#impartialityguidelines
so tonight under presuure from the labour party spin machne and ed millband the slimey and greasy harriet harman and her husband jack dromey have broken there silence after 6 days of complete silence.well not really because there have refused tp give any media outlets a face to face interview on sky news etc but have just issued a completely baffling statement in there defense ,what does that say i wonder,well it seems to me that they have spent 6 days thinking about how they can distance themsleves from these serious allegations after being in deep conference with the labour party spin doctors in how they can spin this story so they can portray themsleves as victims of some great injustice by the daily.if that is so.why are you hariet harman and your husband not sueing the daily mail for libel,it should be interesting tonight at 10.30 pm on the sky press review with the editor of the daily mail andrew pierce and kevin maquire the daily mirrors labour party supporting editor how this story will be handled.
Michael Savage devoted his whole programme to Ukraine, he suspects George Soros, Council on Foreign Relations etc etc are shit stirring to get Ukraine out of Putins sphere of influence and into the EUSSR , open the borders, flood it with Third World immigration, to bugger it up, as in Western Europe, and have a gateway into Russia itself.
Starts at 6.40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LX9b-S63-rI&list=HL1393274106
Cue a supercilious comment from shape shifting lizard believer Realguyfaux
Savage’s whole show in 7 parts
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGbRS0PZcl96C6Q3tU7xP3pe4HzQYh-3p
Unless they have wiped them, in their archive the BBC will find tapes of interviews that they did with PIE activists at the time Harman and co were up to their necks in this.
Probably one of the reasons that the BBC have reacted in the way they have.
Unfotunately the BBC have some of the pieces of this jig saw…and I don’t trust them one inch.
“SAVILE WAS MEMBER OF PAEDOPHILE INFORMATION EXCHANGE – BBC KNEW?”
(Oct 2012).
http://beforeitsnews.com/scandals/2012/10/savile-was-member-of-paedophile-information-exchange-bbc-knew-2430192.html
It gets worse,
” JIMMY SAVILE beat and raped a 12-year-old girl during a secret satanic ritual in a hospital.The perverted star wore a hooded robe and mask as he abused the terrified victim in a candle-lit basement.
He also chanted “Hail Satan” in Latin as other paedophile devil worshippers joined in and assaulted the girl at Stoke Mandeville Hospital .”
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/370439/Jimmy-Savile-was-part-of-satanic-ring
I don’t think this’ll be the topic on smart ass Nicki Campbell’s phone in show.
I would be the last to defend Savile or any of his vile kind, however, I would like to remind readers of the ‘satanic abuse’ hysteria back in the 1980s, which was only finally put to rest by the Butler Sloss report of 1988.
‘Pyschotherapy’ (whatever affiliations and accreditations a ‘therapist’ may have to impressive sounding institutes) does not always have particularly good reputation with regard to false memory syndrome, though, naturally, I’m sure in this case, there is no possible reason to doubt the veracity of the claims.
Hattie Harman hates smears does she? So how does she explain the smearing of an entire gender, for which many of her feminist fellow-travellers were responsible?
“All men are rapists” ring a bell with you Ms Harman? Or are those types of smears OK?
Hattie breaks her silence, but only within the safe and comfortable confines of the BBC where she knows that things are not going to get too hot or the interrogation too rigorous.
She didn’t have the guts to face up to the Daily Mail did she?
Laura Kuenssberg made a good effort to pin the old witch down but was obviously constrained by the BBC editorial line, which much be toed at all times.
I must say well done to Laura. Her final was something along the lines of “this is not the end of the matter”.
Hear hear!
“Mail:
“Harman ‘fails to answer charges'”
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-02-24/mail-harman-fails-to-answer-charges/?
Blimey, even the Beeb has thrown Harriet Harman under a bus. She did not look too good on the Newsnight interview. Harman refused to answer questions and apologise.
After Savile I suppose there is nothing they can do.
Apologies are such devalued currency now, they are only of use when negotiating a market rate with a BBC exec.
However in the real world, not answering pertinent questions, or trying and failing to steer off in irrelevant directions by playing a tribal card that gets sensibly shunned, can still prove awkward under the glare of live studio lights.
Hope they know how to tweak the edit for the ‘news’ summaries that follow.
“…failed to answer the main charges… and has instead denied allegations it has not made”
—-
Promising career as a BBC CECUTT spokesdrone ahead then.
I’d like to understand and would be interested to see comments from a Labour supporter. The moderate-right try as hard as possible to distance themselves from far-right people and organisations, whilst the lefties refuse to dissociate themselves from the far-left.
Is this a matter of principle that all the loonies stick together, no matter what? Or because most of them have been Marxists or weird libertarians (including supporters of paedophilia) in the past?
Harman on Newsnight. Oh dear. Awful denial.
‘Daily Mail’ latest-
“But they still won’t say sorry: Labour’s Harman and Dromey finally break their silence over links to paedophile group.
“Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman finally broke silence.
“Mounting pressure to explain link to Paedophile Information Exchange.
“Came while holding key roles in the National Council for Civil Liberties.
“Miss Harman said revelations were ‘politically-motivated smear campaign.’
By MICHAEL SEAMARK and GUY ADAMS.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2567054/But-wont-say-sorry-Labours-Harman-Dromey-finally-break-silence-links-paedophile-group.html#ixzz2uHcRDQN0
NCCL, now ‘re-branded’ as ‘LIBERTY’.
I see that Harman is Labour’s shadow Culture Minister as well as Deputy Leader. So she would have a strong say in Labour policy on the BBC licence fee, which is approaching review-time.
The Mail is not going to let go of this, there will be other journalists (like Laura K) who will portray the Harman/Dromey statement as insufficient. The BBC on radio 4 is running the story as item 2 – and is now reporting that the Mail points out that there is nil apology in what has been said so far. Several of the allegations have been sidestepped so they will be pushed harder by the Mail and others. Plus nothing so far from Patricia Hewitt or Margaret Hodge.
This whole story will run on. And the mud will stick. Because the BBC has failed to report the story up to now, the public is at best bemused by the “denials”. A lot of people will think “there’s no smoke without fire”. And Harman is an unattractive and unpopular figure anyway. All this will be to the serious disadvantage of Labour.
Meanwhile the BBC’s behaviour in all of this has been a disgrace – adding to the mounting criticisms of the whole organisation.
I can’t see Labour throwing Harman (and consequentially Dromey) to the wolves. They are sitting tight and hoping it will all blow over. Knowing the Daily Mail, it probably will, as the DM tends to lose interest in perusing stories where the target is pretty much untouchable (as Harman is – Labour royalty). The DM will bark and yap for a while but they are powerless. Unless the BBC takes this on, it will vanish once more into the mists of time.
*persuing stories
It is notable that in this clip a Sky reporter directly asked Ed Miliband about this issue in a press meet on College Green when Miliband was introducing the Labour byelection winner from Wythenshawe. Note that in this story the Harman/Dromey defence is given – but is immediately followed by a full rebuttal from the Mail saying the denials are “full of pedantry and obfuscation”.
http://news.sky.com/story/1216634/harman-furious-over-paedophile-rights-smear
Miliband knew he could not keep ducking the issue – and another Sky story suggests that it was Miliband that prompted Harman to go public. The story also points out that Harman and Dromey are not taking legal action against the Mail – which any real “smear” would allow ?
http://news.sky.com/story/1216706/did-ed-urge-harriet-to-break-her-silence
This will all run and run. Don’t forget that Harman has been a vociferous critic of the Murdoch empire – we have seen little or nothing so far from the Murdoch press on all this. Keeping their powder dry ?
I foresee a distinct chance that in the end Harman will have to resign. Wishful thinking, maybe – but it is what she deserves.
According to Norman Smith on the BBC website, Miliband has unfinished business with the Mail…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26333558
Oh, noes!
The Capo di tutto capo has muttered a troublesome priest incantation and BFF Norm’s dashed out to tell the playground Dacre better watch out as Ed’s bullies are ‘arder than his.
Mail employees also best prepare for a rash of horses @rses appearing left, left and left of centre on the left side of the bed as, Lord knows, Ed’s shock troops have a whole lot in stock to get rid of.
Breitbart London carries the Laura K interview from Harman. It is a corker – Harman comes across really badly, I think, as others have already said.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/02/25/VIDEO-Harman-responds-to-Mail-Claims
Funny, whilst Kuinssberg gave her an unusually rigorous grilling by the standards the BBC normally reserves for Labour politicians, she didn’t ask her about the document that had her name on it – the one suggesting a change to the law to allow sex with ‘consenting’ 10-14 year-olds.
Why has the BBC started calling the incomparable Baroness Ashton ‘Catherine Ashton’? Has she renounced her peerage?
CASHTON
Remember this bit of “equality As part of a proposed Equality Bill, Harman announced a consultation on changing the existing discrimination laws, including options for reverse discrimination in employment. Under the proposals, employers would be legally allowed to discriminate in favour of a job candidate on the basis of their race or gender where the candidates were otherwise equally qualified. Employers would not be required to use these powers, but would be able to do so without the threat of legal action for discriminatory practices. There are so many quotes I could put here from this “woman”
Harmangate damage control exercise now on BBc breakfast right now. Clip from numbnight shows here commenting on the Mail showing pictures of young girls. Perhaps a Daily Mail reader could confirm if this is a fair comment. Of course Bill & Susanna don’t go big on details.
“Harmangate damage control exercise now on BBc breakfast right now. Clip from numbnight shows her commenting on the Mail showing pictures of young girls.”
—-
Ah, a familiar furrow being ploughed, then. A bit of a wobbly live and late, but all sorted in post for the top of the hour summaries. Not one the highlights I would have chosen from the interview, were I An. Editor free of management interference. Guessing the HIGNFY scripts are being honed in complement?
The DM is a hypocritical tabloid rag, but so far on this its facts have stood up to scrutiny and the silliest of attempted appeals to tribal fealty in counter.
Playing the paper on this basis is a desperate act as, crass they may be, showing pictures of moppets in bikinis is a) not the same as penning policy justifications to facilitate sex with minors and, b) unlike that being advocated, legal.
This distinction seems to be passing some commentators, and edit suite controllers by, oddly.
It’s okay, folks, apparently Comrade Deputy Leader Harperson has ‘expressed regret’ at the NCCL’s involvement with PIE.
This came into the Toady Programme via a hastily phoned-in report from a comrade no doubt camped outside the Deputy Leader’s dacha. Comrade Davis was ever-so-grateful.
So that’s alright, then!
I wonder whether she has the girl’s permission to show those pictures?
Normally (as I know from experience of being in an education environment) you have to get permission from a parent or guardian before pictures of a minorcan be published. So the girl’s parents may have given permission for the Daily Mail to use the pictutes – but that permission does not extend to anyone else.
Good news everyone! According to the Toady Program, Harriet Harperson was only ‘working’ for the NCCL – you know, kind of like the janitor – not one of the senior staffers who helped set policy.
Also, the NCCL was only ‘affiliated’ with PIE – so not actively coordinating their campaigns together to achieve common objectives then?
For Beeboids:-
“THE FACTS SHOW THE LABOUR PARTY HAS A BIGGER PROBLEM WITH WOMEN THAN THE TORIES”
By Alex Wickham.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/02/24/Labour-s-women-problem
It’s a little disingenuous George! Labour party policies appear to appeal more to women than men as per the UKpolling site, whereas young men do not seem to be attracted by Liebour at all, presumably because Liebour sees them as the enemy!
From the above article:-
“There may be no actual hard evidence of a Tory women problem, though there is hard evidence of Labour using women as political props to attack their opponents. By using all-women shortlists the party is rigging its own gender balance not on merit but on numbers alone, then using the women it elected via a fix to criticise the Conservatives.
“It is telling that Labour allowed Jack Dromey, the husband of its deputy leader and chief equality campaigner Harriet Harman, to be selected in a seat originally intended for an all-women shortlist, despite him apparently being a man.
“Just how seriously does the party take gender equality if it is willing to suspend its own gender equality rules to parachute in a male candidate with close links to the leadership?”