Here you go, what better way to start the week than by detailing the BIAS that oozes out of the BBC?
MONDAY OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Yasser Dasmibehbi Dec 22, 03:46
Weekend 21st December 2024
I found this interesting. https://youtu.be/tA8zz7niOy0?si=YwrTyvtMxLn2vVvH - StewGreen Dec 22, 00:14
Weekend 21st December 2024
Youtube just pushed a video at me that invading North Korean troops had been smashed cos they were using 19th… - StewGreen Dec 22, 00:09
Weekend 21st December 2024
“Jawdropping” propaganda from woke-Supremacist BBC and police https://youtu.be/IMuafLX0xhQ - Greencoat Dec 21, 23:22
Weekend 21st December 2024
Mantel was a deeply unpleasant, dishonest person. And her books? Next to unreadable. - tomo Dec 21, 23:12
Weekend 21st December 2024
Trump shooter…….. https://x.com/TonySeruga/status/1870474697676325217 - Lazy Cat Dec 21, 22:39
Weekend 21st December 2024
And that ‘Let’s get ready to rumble’ announcer is still going. He was doing the Tyson fights back in the… - Lazy Cat Dec 21, 22:35
Weekend 21st December 2024
Right going to watch the Fury fight now. The build up has been about 5 hours long. I think 4… - Lazy Cat Dec 21, 22:28
Weekend 21st December 2024
Indeed. I’ve seen few NK documentaries down the years. In a few of them, I’ve seen clips and interviews with…
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
‘And the news where you are…’
According to the BBC this morning if you live in London the headline item in TV news is the time and place of the funeral of Bob Crow.
‘Hundreds are expected to pay their last respects’
BBC : the news before it happens – where it fits a Leftist agenda
Just got a text from the RMT asking for a minutes silence at 13.30.
As a not very proud member of said union, I shall be making as much noise as I can at that hour and ask that other sane and well-adjusted members of society do the same to remind the lefty scum that we won’t put up with their lies and fabrications any more.
I,m an equally embarrassed member of the other union and I got messaged the same on my works Blackberry. By the company!
Unfortunately I’m on late shift otherwise I would have drained the main res.
The company announced a “no uniform” day…..Plenty of swinging d*cks in the RMT
I hear Bob Crow lay in state overnight on a picket line outside Leytonstone Tube Station. It’s what he would have wanted.
They always say that. How do they know where I am? :-/
So that they can ensure a good turnout of the brothers! Reporting news before it happens seems to be a feature of the BBC these days. Certain types of pre-reporting seem more common. For example celebrity “non-news” and certain politically angled stories to allow bigger attendance by those who have not and do not work. This helps the BBC to stick to the agenda when they report the story later on.
Plus it gives us 3 bites of the cherry when it comes to pushing a left wing Labour line…. “Ed Miliband will later today announce…”, In a speech today Ed Miliband said…” and then finally, days or a full week afterwards, “Earlier this week Ed Miliband said…”. If we can tell a lie often enough…
The two most oft-heard words on the BBC news: ‘Labour’ and ‘says’. Usually together.
Yes I’m fascinated by the way that comments on a speech are reported when, apparently, neither the speech nor the comments have yet been spoken – ‘journalism’ by press release.
I think the term NEWS should be replaced by Speculation, Hype and Irritating Trivia. I leave it to others to abbreviate that!
Press release to alert sympathetic journalist of cut and paste news opportunity
Did anybody watch the news last night where the bBC invited 50 children to their Scottish studio in which to discuss the breakaway of Scotland .
They had a speaker from the SNP ( yes vote) and one from Labour ( no) and then set the ball rolling. Had to laugh at the crap the SNP man was allowed to sprout , but what didn’t was how when very pertinent questions were raised about funding , the bBC man moved onto the next question.
I just love the bBC article about the black girl whose friend threw acid over her and she berates the…..the police. Yup after seeing her former friend jailed for 12 years Ori said she had never felt such pain as when the police accused her of splashing herself with a little H2SO4.
The bBC headlines that banners are lining the route the body of Bob Crow will take. Wouldn’t it be funny if the grave digger s went on strike as a sign of respect for the fat twat
One of the last things that Crow and Benn did was sign a letter posted in the Guardian, along with Ken Livingstone, Tariq Ali and assorted leftoids, supporting the totalitarian regime in Venuzuela.
Just like they supported Russia, the Taliban,Iran and of course hate …Israel
“Tony Benn: a class act.
“Tony Benn’s was only ever half serious about politics. The other half was showmanship. For example, how to solve poverty? Simple: nationalise industry and the banks, join CND, cut defence and spend the money on the poor. Ta da!”
By Vincent Cooper.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4832/tony_benn_a_class_act
As pounce notes, Naomi Oni – the victim of her friend’s acid attack – was interviewed by Mishal Husain on Today. I agree with pounce’s implication that the main reason for this item was to highlight the insensitivity of the police investigating the attack. However, there was no respectable journalistic motive to bring on the victim here and reduce her to tears. On the contrary it’s an example of irresponsible “yellow” journalism which indulged the BBC’s contempt for and belief in the prurience of its audience. Moreover, by exploiting the understandable emotions of the victime, the item bypassed any disinterested consideration of Naomi’s accusations.
I’m sure it comes as little surprise to anyone that the police can be – and apparently were on this occasion – insensitive in the way they pursued their investigations. However, the possibility that the acid attack was self-inflicted was one that any decent investigator would have considered (and swiftly dismissed). However, what shouldn’t be forgotten is that the then alleged perp was dressed in the costume of the Met’s favourite minority. I can quite believe that given the police team’s choice of explaining the acid attack as being either self-inflicted or perpetrated by a person of no appearance, the pressure would be on the investigators to opt for the former: the hassle of explaining away another apparently anti-kuffar crime would be too much to bear.
Unsurprisingly, Mishal studiously avoided pursuing that line of explanation for the police’s initial scepticism concerning Naomi’s allegations. Rather, the implication that disbelieving Naomi was a subspecies of the effect of the police’s institutional racialism fits in far better with Mishal’s world-view and that of the BBC.
Totally agree with your assessment. The police almost certainly went after the self-inflicted angle, as there is no way they wanted to go after a ‘smirker-in-a-burker’.
I thought as I listened to this interview this morning, that she should have praised the police for being able to identify and obtain the conviction of the perpetrator.
I also thought, “when are they going to call time on this protracted interview.” I am sure many Government Ministers listening to this who have their explanation of a particular policy prematurely terminated with the phrase “We are out of time and will have to stop you there” must be justifiably frustrated.
Miss Oni was attacked on the 30th of December 12, by late Feb, her attacker had been arrested and charged. Seeing as she went out of her way in which to disguise who she was , I have to admit the police did a good job of getting her. Yet according to the victim and the bBC, the police are incompetent.
All this article does is further disfranchise the Black community) from society in the UK.
Victim culture: it’s in their DNA, and reinforced by lazy reporters at the bBBC.
The choice of interviewer, Mishal Husain, was in itself interesting and worthy of consideration.
I didn’t hear the interview myself, but could imagine that she may come across with a degree of (how should I say) sensitivity that a Humphreys or a Naughtie may not have, but equally it is hard to imagine that she would be totally impartial.
This is seen quite a lot in local news reporting, where a reporter perceived to be close to the ethnicity or sex of the subject matter is deployed.
I’m not suggesting this is right or wrong, biased or otherwise, just observing.
You could have been forgiven for thinking you were listening to Victoria Drearyshire doing one of her ‘victim’ interviews. I was peed off as I had tuned in to R4 to escape R5. There is no escape!
http://order-order.com/2013/07/17/no-nipples-please-were-her-majestys-telegraph/
Great Hooters though!
Umbongo, can you provide evidence for your belief that the Police were ‘insensitive’ in the way they investigated this matter ? I do not wish to be critical of the victim because she has suffered terribly due to the actions of her former friend but the mere fact that the Police investigated a number of possible scenarios does not in itself make them insensitive. The Police have a difficult job to do and doing it propely will involve them looking at the possibility from time to time, that parents are responsible for the death of a child, that women claiming rape are lying or that vicims injuries are sometimes self inflicted. They do this not because they are insensitive but because these scenarios are sometimes true.
I have no evidence for police insensitivity in this investigation beyond Naomi’s obvious distress. However, as I wrote, I don’t consider that her allegations of police insensitivity are in and of themselves not credible. I agree that the police had a difficult job in her circumstances and, in the possible scenarios you cite: they are often on a hiding to nothing. OTOH, anecdotally of course, in my limited experience of police investigations of sensitive and personal matters, some policemen are very good indeed, others are appalling.
You have no evidence yet you make the critical comments anyway ???
Islamic-law-is-adopted-by-British-legal-chiefs
anyone catch … a “twilight zone” style discussion on this on VD BBC5 Live, sadly I only caught a snippet, the premise appeared to be a slight dismay over how shia muslims would see it, compared to say sunni muslims? and dotting the i s and crossing the t s in Islamic courts, and ensuring it was made most compliant to .patriarchal families .. all very weird – and warrants a detailed listen.
Followed by a frantic breakneck BBC interview pandering to “the London rep for the Muslim Brotherhood” ?
yep! BBC is all ears and concerned …. on the news that its terrorist leader Moh Morsi is sentenced to death?
priority BBC news?
oh and …
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10716844/Islamic-law-is-adopted-by-British-legal-chiefs.html
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/03/islamic-law-is-adopted-by-british-legal-chiefs
Trojan Horse? … remember BBC … “I wouldn t believe it”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2587304/Birmingham-state-school-probed-amid-claims-70-000-spent-playground-speakers-call-pupils-Islamic-prayers.html
“Britain continues to gallop towards its ruin. Park View School is not a religious school. There is, therefore, no justification for spending even a penny on playground speakers for the Islamic call to prayer”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/03/uk-state-school-investigated-for-spending-115000-on-speakers-for-islamic-call-to-prayer
I see the bBC is making a lot if noise over 528 Muslim brotherhood followers receiving the death sentence. Expect a load of human rights idiots being brought on board in which to berate the Egyptians. , myself I’m just waiting for the next 700 MB lot to get their necks strung.
Tomorrow sees the vote on decriminalising the licence fee non payment, and it appears that Liebour are supporting it too, so a foregone conclusion then?
The bBC are aghast and believe that the non payment rate might double if it is allowed and quote a loss of £200 million plus, but that doesn’t add up right at all.
Last year 180 000 people were dragged before the courts for not having paid. Obviously there is a cost in running the licence fee evasion squad, and the courts etc etc. If as the bBC is imagining the figures will double then the loss just from evasion will total over £260 million, plus the costs of enforcement, bringing it closer to £300 million.
However with a pot approaching £4 billion it’s still not going to put too much of a dent in their huge salary & pension pot.
Ooops !
Too many zeros here!
180 000 not paying a licence fee of £145.50 = £26 million, so for the bBC to lose £200 million more than they currently are doing there would have to be an increase of around 10 times more people not paying, or an extra 1.4 million people not paying, on top of the 200K currently prosecuted.
How realistic is it that 1.6 million people will stop paying the licence fee (and how would the courts cope?) or is it a case of the bBC lying again to try to change opinion?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26714328
‘A BBC spokeswoman said: “The BBC is content that this proposal balances a timely examination of this issue with a proper review of the options, while not taking any decisions prior to charter review.”‘
Having had named market rates like Mr. Purnell screaming recently like stuck pigs on the issue, beyond reverting to a spokesweasel (female), to have ‘the BBC’ ooze contentment on this now has every sense I possess alerted that devious moves are now afoot.
I trust the BBC as much as the BBC Trust.
Guessing this will be the concession to see Labour assure them that, so long as coverage remains ‘unique’, so will funding and accountability once the BBc gets them back in.
Basically, the costs of a still bent BBC will be quietly moved to a situation where they get their money no matter what, in perpetuity, and no one can opt out.
Yes, GH, spot-on. The BBC is in full stealth mode regarding the upcoming Charter renewal. Never before has the wretched Corporation faced such public hostility nor such an uncertain political atmosphere.
Well aware of its immediate existential threat, the Corporation will pull out all the stops (at our expense, of course) to ‘nudge’ all those it needs to (including hapless viewers) towards what it considers a satisfactory ‘outcome’ – including the kind of slippery negotiations you hint at.
The next year or so will see the BBC fighting for its life as a publicly funded broadcaster – we can only hope that everyone opposed to the license fee can marshall all the necessary arguments in a timely, concise and informed manner.
The vultures are already circling the victim – the BBC, finally sensing its own mortality, is now running for its life…
Only an immmediate decriminalisation is acceptable. This won’t happen so the liberals win again. Clever move.
Never trust a government. Or a beeboid.
The Beeboids know that the game is up on taxing with menaces but are not about to give up all that lovely money.
Nothing is going to change.
bBC headline:
Families told missing plane lost
Without being coldhearted, you have to admit this is a no brainer, yet to the bBC it is breaking news.
Pathetic.
Sorry but this is a perfectly reasonable new report!
The reason for it being so is that today Malaysian airlines has text messaged all the passengers families with the message that the plane is lost.
This is official confirmation of what everyone had been suspecting for a long time.
Maybe years of seeing through BBC lies and bias has made me cynical. But on reading the headline saying the plane had crashed in the ocean I immediately concluded that it had landed in Pakistan,hidden by those who shielded Bin Laden.
BBC-NUJ censors reporting of Labour Party dynasties.
BBC-NUJ refuses to put ‘son of Kinnocks’ in political context-
“Neil Kinnock’s son Stephen selected to fight Aberavon seat”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-26700333
Here is the political context of Labour Party dynasties which BBC-NUJ censors:-
“Never mind Dave’s Etonians. Labour’s ruling dynasties are just as privileged”
By DOMINIC LAWSON.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2587606/Never-mind-Daves-Etonians-Labours-ruling-dynasties-just-privileged.html#ixzz2wtCesJjh
“Gallery Guido: Labour is Becoming a Byzantine Family Dynasty:
The Red princes.”
http://order-order.com/2014/03/24/gallery-guido-labour-is-becoming-a-byzantine-family-dynasty/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+guidofawkes+%28Guy+Fawkes%27+blog+of+parliamentary+plots%2C+rumours+and+conspiracy%29
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9boynf0qxm28bq0/2014-03-24%2016.55.54.jpg
Will ( no pun intended ) Will straw have the franchise he held when at Uni’. Don’t think the police charged him.
Something else the BBC and Labour have in common
That is far too harsh on the Byzantine empire
Gives up trying to post an image and slinks away defeated.
Yes but I followed the link and saw the photos I think you wanted me to see.
Thank you.
I think the BBC want us to be alarmed. No attempt has been made to present or examine Le Pen’s policies or her call for alternatives to the EU. But it is far right and very wrong from the BBC standpoint.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26715061
They reported their victory (the ‘far’ right, by the way – is there any other sort?) in the town with the observation that it was previously a stronghold of the Left.
Only an organisation stuffed with ‘the world’s best investigative journalists’ could remain incurious as to why it should have happened. The thing is, we know they know why, but it’s an inconvenient truth for which they haven’t yet found a narrative.
Yeah ,good news from France , part 2 next sunday , then I wonder how the evil bbc will spin it ?
I think the BBC want us to be alarmed. No attempt has been made to present or examine Le Pen’s policies or her call for alternatives to the EU. But it is far right and very wrong from the BBC standpoint.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26715061
Yes, it’s Beeboids who ‘trigger alarm’ at Le Pen vote in France.
The Beeboid article (see above for link) is misleadingly entitled:
“France election: National Front gains trigger alarm”
-yet nowhere in the report is there a discussion of ‘alarm’!
Beeboids: I suggest you re-title report above, to:
‘France election: National Front gains trigger alarm among Beeboids.’
Yet the question which isn’t been asked is why are people turning to the right not only in France, but throughout Europe?
The only view the left (including the bBC) will give you is that you can only be a racist for asking that question.
‘yet nowhere in the report is there a discussion of ‘alarm’!
Appreciating the effort involved being hardly worth it as they are unaccountable, it seems odd that there was not even a slight attempt to create some degree of separation, even if it’s just getting a Le Graun hack or tame vox popeuse to say the necessary so it becomes ‘quotable’.
Clearly loss of seats will be discomfitting to any established party, but the headline does suggest the BBC is the one most disturbed by the who, what, why of it all on a more ideological level.
The BBC’s Hugh’s ‘analysis’ tries to mix alarm with airy dismissal, putting one in mind of the Flokker masochist addicts who frequent here.
A shame that more of this in-depth insight promised did not go beyond what may have inspired this result, as ‘representing discontent’ actually says F-all.
Clearly l’éléphant dans la pièce still being avoided at all costs.
Well, a few hour after its first report, Beeboids in France now seem to think that Le Pen’s Party does not ‘trigger alarm’ after all!:-
“Polishing the image of France’s National Front”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26546153
This site is a laughing stock amongst those whom it needs to persuade. We are simply talking to ourselves, like grumpy old men in the snug, ignored and derided by those in the lounge. Concerted action is needed. ‘Outreach’ should be the buzzword. Organised campaigns designed to bring BBC bias to the attention of the general public and to politicians will achieve far more than talking amongst ourselves.
We should spread the word by all possible means. For individuals acting alone one simple way is to influence people we meet. Subtlety will have more effect than the sledgehammer. All it needs is the planting of a seed of doubt. “Ah yes, but you can’t always believe the BBC you know. They are very biased.” Then change the subject and leave them thinking.
If we are ever to achieve anything the site needs to become more focussed. It has lost its way, with many contributions that are hopelessly wide of the mark. ‘The mark’, for the many contributors that seem to have forgotten, is the sole issue of BBC Bias. I can just hear people in the BBC reading out some of the nonsense that is posted here and scoffing at it, and then dismissing the whole site out of hand. Contributors should ask themselves whether their posting actually gives evidence of BBC bias or whether it is really about something else. Large volumes of blather might relieve the poster’s feelings but they damage the cause. I’m asking for some intellectual and emotional discipline here; less groundless ranting and more solid fact. Even perfectly valid complaints of bias are devalued if they are accompanied by irrelevant ranting.
Posters should not voice their opinions on the TV licence fee, immigration, Muslims, and politics generally. It’s fine to involve these issues when they arise within an example of BBC bias, but not otherwise. Gratuitous whining about immigration merely allows our enemies to accuse us of racism, and in fact there have been postings that actually have been blatantly racist. These sentiments are tremendously damaging to the site as a whole. Generalised attacks on the Labour Party allow our enemies to discount what we say about the BBC on grounds of our bias. We also need to be very careful about issues of gender, sexual politics, and sexual orientation. Fine if the matter is relevant; damaging if it isn’t. So let’s have no more posts about the evils of Islam; about the damage it is doing to British society. No matter how enraged you are, this is not the place. This is not a talking shop for right wing patriots; it is a site devoted to exposing BBC bias, nothing more and nothing less. If you want to discuss the Muslim problem there are plenty of other places where it is more appropriate.
Allegations of BBC bias should be properly researched. All too often assertions made on this site can be disproved by a quick look at the BBC News website, or by watching a BBC programme on iPlayer. Unjustified or irrelevant complaints kill the credibility of the whole site.
Can we have some discipline please?
‘Telling it often enough’ has been known to work.
And cut and pasting is a great way to achieve volume if low on staff or time.
However, doing so in the same place within days can lead to the reverse of what is possibly being hoped to achieve.
So, that all said… awesome job!
If you’re complaining because I posted this twice, it’s because it disappeared (well I couldn’t find it and I looked hard) and the boss here said that funny things like that do happen sometimes.
No complaints at all.
In fact I have said it is an awesome job.
Given the persuasive effect of sticking with spamming, over and over, please…. keep up the good work.
Thanks for that.
This site is a laughing stock amongst those whom it needs to persuade. We are simply talking to ourselves, like grumpy old men in the snug, ignored and derided by those in the lounge. Concerted action is needed. ‘Outreach’ should be the buzzword. Organised campaigns designed to bring BBC bias to the attention of the general public and to politicians will achieve far more than talking amongst ourselves.
We should spread the word by all possible means. For individuals acting alone one simple way is to influence people we meet. Subtlety will have more effect than the sledgehammer. All it needs is the planting of a seed of doubt. “Ah yes, but you can’t always believe the BBC you know. They are very biased.” Then change the subject and leave them thinking.
If we are ever to achieve anything the site needs to become more focussed. It has lost its way, with many contributions that are hopelessly wide of the mark. ‘The mark’, for the many contributors that seem to have forgotten, is the sole issue of BBC Bias. I can just hear people in the BBC reading out some of the nonsense that is posted here and scoffing at it, and then dismissing the whole site out of hand. Contributors should ask themselves whether their posting actually gives evidence of BBC bias or whether it is really about something else. Large volumes of blather might relieve the poster’s feelings but they damage the cause. I’m asking for some intellectual and emotional discipline here; less groundless ranting and more solid fact. Even perfectly valid complaints of bias are devalued if they are accompanied by irrelevant ranting.
Posters should not voice their opinions on the TV licence fee, immigration, Muslims, and politics generally. It’s fine to involve these issues when they arise within an example of BBC bias, but not otherwise. Gratuitous whining about immigration merely allows our enemies to accuse us of racism, and in fact there have been postings that actually have been blatantly racist. These sentiments are tremendously damaging to the site as a whole. Generalised attacks on the Labour Party allow our enemies to discount what we say about the BBC on grounds of our bias. We also need to be very careful about issues of gender, sexual politics, and sexual orientation. Fine if the matter is relevant; damaging if it isn’t. So let’s have no more posts about the evils of Islam; about the damage it is doing to British society. No matter how enraged you are, this is not the place. This is not a talking shop for right wing patriots; it is a site devoted to exposing BBC bias, nothing more and nothing less. If you want to discuss the Muslim problem there are plenty of other places where it is more appropriate.
Allegations of BBC bias should be properly researched. All too often assertions made on this site can be disproved by a quick look at the BBC News website, or by watching a BBC programme on iPlayer. Unjustified or irrelevant complaints kill the credibility of the whole site.
Can we have some discipline please?
Or, in other words…
The BBC is a laughing stock amongst those whom it needs to persuade. We Beeboids are simply talking to themselves, like bolshie young men in the snug, ignored and derided by those in the lounge. Concerted action is needed. ‘Outreach’ should be the buzzword. Organised campaigns designed to bring BBC approved views to the attention of the general public and to politicians will achieve far more than talking amongst ourselves.
The BBC spreads the word by all possible means. One simple way is to influence people in every aspect of BBC output. Subtlety will have more effect than the sledgehammer. All it needs is the planting of a seed of doubt in children’s programming, entertainment and drama. “Ah yes, and you can always believe the BBC, you know. They are very truthful.” Then change the subject and leave them thinking.
If we are ever to achieve anything the BBC needs to become more focussed. We will lose all complaints in its complaints systems. All criticism is to be treated as hopelessly wide of the mark. ‘The mark’, for the many that seem to have forgotten, is the sole issue of BBC Bias. I can just hear people at home watching some of our nonsense that is broadcast and scoffing at it, and then dismissing the whole BBC out of hand. The BBC should ask ourselves whether our output actually gives evidence of BBC bias or whether we can get away with it or really hide it in something else. Large volumes of blather might relieve the viewer’s feelings but they damage the cause. I’m asking for some intellectual and emotional discipline here; less groundless ratings fodder and more solid Marxism. Even perfectly valid complaints of bias can be devalued by our irrelevant BBC ranting.
The BBC should not allow people to voice negative opinions on the TV licence fee, immigration, Muslims, and Leftist politics generally. It’s fine to involve these issues when they absolutely have to arise, but not otherwise. Gratuitous whining about immigration merely allows our enemies to have a voice. We must accuse them of racism, and in fact they are actually blatantly racist. If allowed these sentiments are tremendously damaging to the BBC as a whole. Generalised attacks on the Labour Party allow our enemies to discount what we say. We also need to be very careful about issues of gender, sexual politics, and sexual orientation. Fine if the matter is relevant; damaging if it isn’t. So let’s have no more opinions voiced about the evils of Islam; about the damage it is doing to British society. No matter how enraged you are, the BBC is never the place. This is a talking shop for Leftwing anti-patriots; nothing more and nothing less. If you want to discuss the Muslim problem there are plenty of other places where it is more appropriate.
Allegations of BBC bias will never be properly researched by the BBC. All too often assertions made about BBC balance can be disproved by a quick look at the BBC News website, or by watching a BBC programme on iPlayer. Any justified or relevant complaints kill the credibility of the whole BBC.
Can we have some discipline please?
That’s better
Concern Troll Is Concerned
When I read or hear the word” outreach’ I reach for my deletye button or my off switch.
That word says it all.
The word ‘outreach’ is a good one, and I used it correctly. No other word would have done the job as well. Just because certain others might have debased it, that’s no reason why I shouldn’t have used it honourably. Now read what I said and see if you can come up with a constructive comment.
Sorry but ‘ outreach’ is poor style. . What does it really mean?
This site is what you would probably call right wing. I like it just the way it is. The BBC is an integral part of the liberal establishment. To me and others it’s liberal bias is ingrained and really hardly needs to be highlighted. It pervades everything said or shown. No doubt there are the rare execeptions but so what? The mood of England is changing and the culture battle for the future of my country is slowly moving over to a counter offensive directed at the liberal establishment. I do not really care about BBC bias I want the BBC gone and my country properly governed and reality restored so that my grandchildren do not have to face a nightmare future.
I will comment on anything I like and to hell with the BBC and all those who are it’s apologists.
“Sorry but ‘ outreach’ is poor style. What does it really mean?”
Outreach is the activity of providing services to those who might not otherwise have access to them. Do you have a better word for that? What do you mean ‘poor style’? Who are you to judge?
I am perfectly entitled to make any judgement I like. So are you. That is the way it is in this world. Outreach is an ugly jargon word that debases the English language. That is my opinion and I am not going to change my mind.
Bill, do you work in the public sector? The sector adores such wishy-washy terms….one that bugs me and it has infiltrated private firms is ‘Human resources ‘……sounds like an Aliens term for it’s captive human slaves. Outreach…..say that to me in person and i’ll reach out for your neck.
‘Informed decisions’.
‘Tough decisions’.
‘Living in poverty’.
‘Victims of society’.
‘Community’.
”Multi-agency’.
‘Multicultural’.
‘Vibrant.’
‘Celebrate’.
‘Traumatised’.
‘Vulnerable’.
‘Outreach’.
Leftist neuro-linguistic programming aka life as we came to know it post-1997.
Yes Bill the term ‘outreach’ is a good one
Its conjures up an image of a lovecraftian monster, stretching its tentacles ‘beyond its authority’, into all aspects of public life and individual conscience
Quite frankly those who can only respond to my post by complaining about one word must not care very much about the points I was trying to make, and that means they don’t really care much about the BBC’s bias. Of course it’s always easier to snipe than to make a creative contribution. Could we now please have a sensible discussion about the points I’ve raised, or would you all rather bury your heads in the sand and continue with the incestuous and utterly pointless dialogue that comprises much of this site?
I wouldn’t expect very much. Much easier to pick on one word than address the substance of the debate.
If you think this site is about recording the bias of the BBC you are wrong.
The aim of this site is to be a place where poorly-educated, angry, old, white men come to moan. The world has changed and they are unable to cope with, or comprehend, that change. Society has left them behind. They are bewildered and befuddled and it makes them angry.
The BBC provides them with a vehicle around which they can moan. Time and again they have to force the BBC into their diatribes, but they are not interested in change, they are interested in moaning.
Your post is correct and they know it. But to address it would mean facing reality, and these relics can’t face reality as it would destroy them.
And do you have anything to offer save abuse.
Sorry to disillusion you, and puncture your own prejudice, but those that frequent this site and are concerned with BBC bias are not poorly educated, old and white. But as you have previously posted a similar bigoted view we should expect no more of you.
Ever contributed anything more than abuse?
As for those scared of change right now it seems to be the BBC and their cheerleaders – like you.
“not poorly educated, old and white.” Oh but they are. I read the comments, I see what people say. Someone was even claiming that educated people are always wrong. That made me laugh.
I am not scared because I know that The All Merciful and The All-Beneficient will always protect me.
But you, I fear you are lost without him. I see the terrible lies that you say about my brothers. Be warned: The Hearer of All knows what you say.
Thanks. That has provided me with the best laugh in ages.
PS: I think you need David Icke’s website.
Why don’t you shut up Bill and slink away you arrogant, humourless, bitter man, your fey ‘superiority’ is not impressive and frankly laughable.
‘Outreach’ is what Nyogtha does to the unwary in the deep dark pits of their liberal minds …
Dagon is calling and I must away …
The crawling chaos indeed
When I hear the word “outreach” it makes me want to upstand and outwalk.
is there an echo in here?
Deja Vu? Is that you?
No, it’s Deja Lu.
Given the source, this may be viewed as grist to the ‘balance’ mill, but I maintain my CSI:BBC freezer/oven analogy that if the BBC is evidently skewed too far in any direction, even equally, while the average may appear sound, the reality is that it is simply rotten through and through.
http://medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2014/759-scotlandshire-bbc-scotland-coverage-of-the-independence-referendum.html
Justin Webb did say on the Today show in the run up to the 7a.m news that the next hour would ask “whether Paul Wolfowitz accepts that he is a hypocrite”…and , who knows give us an answer that is not what we`d expect the BBC to say,
I didn`t hear anything about it though.
Did I miss it?….and in the light of so many questions, this one of Webbs was rather low on the radar in any case?
I don`t suppose we`ll ever get the question about whether Clintons, Gores, Jacksons, Sharptons, Carreys or Springsteens, Blairs, Browns, Webbs or Montagues are hypocrites…but why Wolfowitz?…and who set this one up and why?
Yet again we see a Guardian-letter signer getting a free ride to promote a more Red version of Ed Miliband via one of those many think dumps and charities that exist solely to give Labour its steer!
The bloke was allowed to hold forth with no opponent all the way up to the 8a.m news on Today thos morning….free advice and advocacy, uncontested mooching and musing for the Labour landslide on recycled champagne bottles.
And we PAY for Labour to get its advice and jackdaws onto the Today show….pray tell me what possible news value is this to anybody but a Labour Pox Doctor…who already get enough from the taxpayer without Today paying and puffing them.
Don`t suppose we`ll get any corresponding reflections on how best the Tories could put Saviles millstone around the neck of Balls, Hodge or Harman and confine them to the BBC3 Heritage Museum sometime soon.
Why not?
Oh-and I remember that she said her Labour goon from Compass could be regarded as one of “the Labour Family”!
Who wrote THAT for her-or is this her own cosy view of a sinister bunch of misfits who have systematically made every effort to destroy the point, purpose and nature of a REAL family?
Language is all-and Mishal Huseins version of a familyis a tribal parody of one…unless she thinks of a Lawrence of Arabia version that might suit her religion.
The occasional (?) slip of the BBC tongue is a wonder to behold and very, very revealing. The thing is, they don’t even know they’re doing it.
Would make a good feature in Private Eye if it were not for the fact Hislop is now too far up the BBC’s collective arses.
Oh the bBC really are worried about the decriminalisation of the licence fee!
PM with Eddie Mair & James Purnell BBC head of strategy this evening. It turns out that the bBC have indeed lied about the £200 million loss and Purnell even denied it had ever been a figure used by the bBC. There were lots of slurs / suggestions from Mair that this was a ‘Trojan Horse designed to stymie the bBC’ and that he had ulterior motives.
Purnell was pathetic in his reaction that they couldn’t prevent people watching the bBC when they patently could if they wanted. He talked about ‘making it easy to pay’ but there was precious little sympathy for people being criminalised simply because they didn’t have enough money to pay the damn thing.
There were weasel solutions offered of some kind of new offence half way between criminal & civil, but should the bBC have a completely new strand of law opened solely for it?
There was even a suggestion that people without a licence might listen to radio in a way which implied that Purnell believed a licence was necessary !
They are clearly incredibly rattled by this and don’t know how to react in a proportionate manner. They are also scared that this will lead to the loss of the licence fee altogether. Any kind of admission that they could encrypt the service would immediately lead to calls for the scrapping of the licence fee and a subscription replacement, so they will avoid that like the plague.
As has been said before, this is likely to spur them on to elect a Labour government which they see as more favourable to them, as the vote tomorrow will only start an evaluation which will last for a year. In other words after the general election.
Cue lots of hand wringing on the BBC if Labour’s poll ratings slip. That is what BBC political balance amounts to in most of its “Current Affairs” programmes; ensuring that BBC journalists are giving equal time to promoting Labour and the attacking the Tories. Newsnight gets more like a (poor imitation) of the Guardian every day. Let me edit it for a week and I will soon get its ratings up.
Wonder if these two Beeboids between them threatened the kids with the removal of cBBC or cBeebies-which has been a current hostage to those who want us to keep paying MacAlpines Estate for THEIR evil intentions.
I think we need an enquiry-an independent one-into what exactly happened to Patch and Petra whilst employed at the BBC as Blue Peter Dogs (Basic Salary £250,000 plus undisclosed fringe benefits and self-employed efficient tax vehicle status undisclosable for “commercial sensitivity” and “client confidentiality” reasons).
Did Simon Groome or John Noakes ever muse aloud on the efficacy or regressive nature of the telly poll tax?…and did the pets get bumped off early to “the BBC Garden” lest others give cause for concern.
We never did see the bodies did we?
Autopsies NOW…or will Saviles sarcophagus be used to hush up what actually DID happen?
Norman Scott screams for revenge!…let`s hope the BBC announce that enquiry.
Purnell’s and the BBC’s main argument (Norman Smith was spouting it on the lunchtime news) is that it would cost them something like £500 million to roll out a – quote -‘set top box’ system which would allow them to deny access to non-payers, the inference being £500 million is prohibitive and it would never happen.
Cost of new London HQ – £1 billion.
Cost of BBC Media City, Salford: £1 billion.
Not to mention the cost of ‘relocating’ staff to Salford, replacing recently-laid carpets at the new Broadcasting House and a casually extravagant attitude generally to spending their guaranteed £4 billion a year.
I think the message has to be: just effing get on with it.
Watch as Andrew Neil stands back and lets Bez from Happy Mondays make an uninterrupted speech on the evils of fracking: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26697322
To be fair to Neil, if you want to give Bez a hard time, you just have to give him enough rope and he’ll do your job for you.
There was an extended piece of anti-fracking propaganda on “Beyond Belief” this afternoon on Radio 4. The only possible conclusion for the listener was that Christians should see fracking as the work of the Devil.
You’ll change your mind when you’ve seen the way he shakes his maracas.
A very interesting article about bBBC radio in today’s Times (£) by bBBC contributor Libby Purves.
She points out that In most minds the £145.50 a year is a TV licence. Since 1971 radio is “free”. But it should really be called a BBC Licence, as it funds ten radio networks plus local and regional services and from next month the whole World Service. Radio uses only 17 per cent of BBC income, the biggest chunk Radio 4 because journalism, drama, documentary and crafted radio are expensive. Second most costly is 5 Live, followed by music channels (Radio 3, interestingly, cheaper than Radio 2).
…
There is nothing like BBC radio anywhere. If BBC TV ceased to exist it would be sad, but news, documentary, game shows and drama do exist on other channels. Nobody else offers crafted radio.
…
So whatever happens to BBC funding, someone had better put a ring-fence up around high-quality radio. Because TV bosses will never love it enough, and it will never be the sort of operation that flourishes in a scramble for money and quick fame. If its skills vanish, it will take another century to rebuild them.
But I think she is missing the point that much of the radio is at least as biased as the bBBC TV, but, as she says, in many parts of the country there is no alternative radio. There is just the monopoly bBBC.
‘..someone had better put a ring-fence up around high-quality radio.’
Really?
Another from the relentless meme that it is only the form the new funding takes that is at issue. Not the content that has brought the BBC so low.
Ring-fencing based on ‘quality’ as defined by who, Libs? You?
Richard Bacon’s comic tips a shoo-in?
Jezza’s oddly polarised vox-pops?
Jon & Evan’s Jeckyl & Hyde interviewing stances, depending on who is in the seat opposite, or what they represent?
Sorry, love, this is just another ‘it is because I say it is’ effort, but it’s from another time. One that doesn’t work any more.
the biggest chunk Radio 4 because journalism, drama, documentary and crafted radio are expensive. Second most costly is 5 Live, followed by music channels (Radio 3, interestingly, cheaper than Radio 2).
—————————————————————-
Well yes, it’s not really a surprise that when money is free, and cost controls are for the little people, how things always seem to manage to become ‘expensive’.
Hardly a reason to carry on giving the droids even more free money is it.
Richard Bacon – BBC 5live News – big issue
Noah movie seeks VATICAN approval? Vatican! ???
strange? … why needed?
http://www.onislam.net/english/news/americas/470101-noah-ban-calls-expand-across-arab-world.html
Noah producers to meet POPE???
??? … a non issue surely?
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/movies/egyptian-islamic-body-says-russell-crowes-noah-should-be-banned/story-e6frfmvr-1226847535938
BBC Kermode Blogs Film seeks POPE? blessing
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/posts/Noah-Big-Deal
hmmm … something amiss here?
http://www.onislam.net/english/news/africa/469973-egyptian-scholars-urge-noah-ban.html
give me strength eh! … those bloody Je … oops I mean Catholics? … getting all offended again … just not acceptable
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/03/egypt-muslim-scholars-call-for-destruction-of-theatres-showing-noah-movie
… “Muslim scholars have called for “destroying” any movie theatre that displays the blasphemous Noah film.”
… Bloody Catholics eh!
CBN News US … ‘Noah’ To Be Banned in Most of the Muslim World
“One of Islam’s most revered religious institutions, Al-Azhar in Egypt, issued an edict saying it objects to the film because it violates Islamic law by depicting a prophet and that could “provoke the feelings of believers”
provoke …. feelings?
… don t those blinking nuisance damn … Catholics
ever stop?
What will become of the Kabul Odeon and the Islamabad ABC , now?
And what of the burgeoning Islamic Film Industry-and the cartoonists?…and the musicians and cavorting dancers for which this vibrant part of the world is now famous?
Maybe Will Gompertz can earn his bald brasso at last, and take a DVD of Noah over there to show the Rawalpindi Mosque what it is they`re missing…
Come on BBC-have some faith in the Religion Of Peace…passionate yes?…primitive maybe?…but more than happy to let the BBC set the agenda, as we are here….
Beginning to wonder if the BBC’s finest is trying to figure out how to close down a FaceBook page like they did blogs, when an idiot report/post gets the responses it deserves…
BBC News
Does a lively mother make for a lively child?
A UK study of 500 mums and four-year-olds suggests the more active a mother is, the more physically active her child will be.
http://bbc.in/1gudNcu
Top comment:
Josh Brontrees BREAKING NEWS! Kids learn from their parents! More at 11.
Here is that bBC news report where they allow 50 16-17 year olds to discuss the Scottish vote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03zlzjf/Scotlands_Future_Generation_2014/
They ‘ allow’ 16-17 year olds to discuss this issue because as 16-17 year olds they will be ‘allowed’ to vote in the referendum. What is your point exactly ?
Jack,
First of all thank you for your concise reply. Please note that my post was completely neutral. Yet for some reason you feel that I am at fault for posting it.
Now if you had read my post from last night you would know that the program was heavily biased towards the SNP , and that when the bright children asked uncomfortable questions about funding the bBC idiot moved onto the next . However for reasons of brevity and not wishing to repeat myself I left all that out .
To that end please feel free to find fault with this explanation.
Dear Pounce I will remail concise. Your rather stroppy reply was befiting of a 16-17 year old. How ironic.
16&17 year olds voting – crazy but true.
What’s the word I’m looking for?
Ah yes.
Gerrymandering.
Although amusingly most 16-17 year old Scottish voters turn out to be Unionists. Ha! Salmond trying to be too clever by half.
Brainwash ’em through school and through the BBC with Leftist ideology and climate change claptrap then stick ’em straight into a polling booth. What’s not to like if you’re a totalitarian eco-socialist twat.
Witness “Free Speech” on BBC that I`ve just seen.
First part was about -yes guess what-the legalisation of “medicinal” drugs…what others are there?
It`s all the young care about-so here`s another poll that begs for their decriminalisation…well, if they`re trying to take on the BBC License, then here come the spliffs.
Second part managed to make me back the Islamic girl who was a fundamentalist but actually stood for something.
Whereas the yoof invited to bark at Broadwater Farm just applauded -well words like love and free drugs and don`t you judge.
All those years of compulsory social work bullet points in school have done their job…boy these kids were FIKK!
At least the madrassa provides an education these days…Allah `elp us!
It’s easy to understand why the BBC’s late afternoon religious slot on a Monday is called ‘Beyond Belief’.
Tuned in today part way through a discussion on religion and environmentalism. A lady of faith (not clear which) from near Barton Moss, scene of fracking tests and BBC endlessly-plugged protests by a handful of the great unwashed and unworked, was interviewed and allowed to spout the usual fearmongering crap, including how much water the process wastes, followed by the usual paltitudes about how we’ve got to live our lives more sustainably (she was a bit short in the practical hints department).
Back to the studio discussion and the only bloke allowed briefly to talk any sense came out with the inconvenient stat that in Texas fracking accounts for 5% of water consumption compared to watering lawns at 19%. He also made the obvious point that we won’t be able to sustain human life as we know it without fossil fuels so we need more rather than less.
Over to a sustainability Johnny who was asked to answer the water question. ‘Well it’s not about the water is it, it’s about more sustainability blah blah blah……’ Needless to say, he was allowed to get away with it and never asked to explain how this sustainability thingy will actually work without the civilised world collapsing in a heap.
Rough balance of views heard during the discussion: environmentalists 95%, common sense 5%.
End result: sustainability is the only way.
Your £4billion-funded BBC – working hard for their 28gate mates.
About four to six weeks ago there was a ‘Hard Talk’ on the BBC World Service. A (Italian?) CEO of an energy company was given a hard time by (I think) Stephen Sacur (sp?). At the end of the interview the CEO said that Europe must either embrace fracking, or embrace Putin (to keep the supplies of gas flowing)
Prescient words.
I watched that and he gave a good account for himself. I too noticed the green anti fuel agenda from the bBC prat and noted the CEOs words on placing all our energy needs in Russian hands
Appalling drivel-the Green Gospel According to the Rev Giles Fraser of the Church of Occupy…or so it seemed.
Yet this piece of spinach flecked turd will be classified as “religious programming”…when all it was was Al Gores tracts rewritten.
As if Salford has anything to fear from fracking…they`ll be able to bottle the shale gas and blow it through the nicked milk at less cost and risk to themselves.
Laminated help sheets in 40 languages will be available at BBC reception any time soon.
i just dont get question time and how they choose there panelists,a sneak preview into thursday nights dose of left wing bias,whos that,well of course the black radical dianne abbott the socalist who sends her son to a private school is not happy enough with coining it in spouting her left wing rubbish on this week after question time that the bbc decided to best to invite her on question time before this week,very confusing,whos next,oh,its mick hucknall,oh dear the red headed socalist multi millonaire has been pop star is going to pitch up on question time no doubt lecturing us on the evils of capitalism while no mention of his £200 million fortune he earnt while fronting his nicely named labour supporting band called simply red in the 90s,i suppose i will watch question time on thursday just to listen to the hypocrisy thats comes out of the mouths of mrs abbott and mr hucknall.
Hucknall has a £1.09 million Scottish hunting estate:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26725972
So money isn’t too tight too mention for this
Champagne socialist then.
It’s in Ireland, not Scotland. Ireland was once famous for its no income tax for luvvies’ policy.
I’ve no idea if Hucknall was domiciled in Ireland for tax purposes. If the subject of tax comes up, perhaps the Dimbleby will ask Hucknall the question.
It’s of note that Tufail Ahmad, the author of the piece below, USED to work for BBC Urdu but was mysteriously removed from his post..
Anybody care to wager why after reading the article in the link?
http://www.newindianexpress.com/opinion/Threats-to-Britains-Open-Society/2014/02/05/article2038028.ece#.UzCVMF7j07B
‘English as foreign language in England’: report censored by BBC-NUJ from online ‘Education’ pages, so as to pretend BBC-NUJ played no role in creating this situation, via its support for mass immigration open-door ‘policy’.
“The British school that teaches English as FOREIGN language to all pupils because it has more than 50 nationalities.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2587873/British-school-teaches-English-FOREIGN-language-pupils-50-nationalities-pupils.html#ixzz2wuozfn00
And Islamic Republic of Pakistan celebrated in Islamising Rochdale:
“Flag raised for Pakistan Day”
http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/86094/flag-raised-for-pakistan-day
” Face the Truth: Pakistan Is Not An Ally”
By Robert Spencer.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/03/robert-spencer-in-frontpage-mag-face-the-truth-pakistan-is-not-an-ally
this was mentioned earlier in the thread
law society – sharia wills
This section does have a secular society rep, but sadly VD Derbyshire, and two Islamic law reps, working in unison … almost like Question Time 😀
AND as soon as these two are questioned … “why are you picking on Muslims” comes the bleat, the Secular Law rep
is also continually interrupted by VD … in fact normal BBC practice.
1hr 9 mins
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03ymmsz
ps … this issue should not even need to be discussed, it is needless as The Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights ruled in February 2003 that :-
Islamic Sharia law is “incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy.” The court said that a legal system based on Sharia law “would diverge from the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly with regard to the rules on the status of women, and its intervention in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts
22:00 hour news, the song remains the same. Isn’t it terrible those people who voted to join Russia. Support grows on reforms to the penalty to watch the BBc. I was down at the house I look after for a family member. It’s currently empty and THERE IS NO TV. Latest letter from the licence Stasi. Yep back under the final stages of their investigation, this being the third or forth time the address has been under the final stages of investigation. I won’t contact them and inform them because I did once at another address and they were plain rude. A friend of mine moved in with his partner and got the Spanish inquisition about was it in partitioned property and did he have his own dwelling. The BBc then did their bit about how it would be more difficult to fund their “blockbuster” -simply come bake off & Sherlock, etc. – think I could survive without those some how. More like how could they carry on paying themselves nice big wages.
Don’t worry about the letters, just shred them.
Just make sure you don’t answer the door to the “inspector”. If you do answer it accidentally, just close it without saying anything.
Have to say, even by recent standards, Newsnight has again excelled itself…
—-
@BBCNewsnight: Now, @mehdirhasan, @MaajidNawaz, and @MoAnsar debate who speaks for British Muslims #Newsnight
—-
One presumes British Muslims are happy to be spoken for by Newsnight’s crack panel. I wonder if Ian Katz & Nicky Campbell ever bump into each other to compare notes?
Just been sent this. apologies if it’s been seen before on this site. The BBC will no doubt be enthusiastic about this disgraceful distortion of justice http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10716844/Islamic-law-is-adopted-by-British-legal-chiefs.html
I don’t see what the problem is with allowing Muslims to live under sharia law, I mean look at how FGM was made illegal in 1985. Not one prosecution , so that says something, not one Muslim has ever been done for race hate, no Muslim has ever been done for : sexism , pedophilia, terrorism etc. in fact according to the media ( and the government) Islam can only be a religion of peace. This may explain all the peaceful mosques they build .
I’m sure that all this reporting about sharia law is just islamophobia from the likes of the EDL,
Meanwhile in the real world.
Come on pounce if you’re going to write incendiary posts which amount to lies then at least do some research to avoid them, otherwise no one will believe anything you write!
no Muslim has ever been done for : pedophilia [sic]
Mohammed Sajid 12 years
Rape, Sexual activity with a girl under 16, Trafficking for sexual exploitation, Conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with children
There’s one !
no Muslim has ever been done for : terrorism
At 31 March 2008, there were some 125 terrorist prisoners in England and Wales.
Of these, 62% were UK nationals and 91% classed themselves as Muslim
So that’s 114 successfully prosecuted !
no Muslim has ever been done for : sexism
Seeing as ‘Sexism’ isn’t a criminal offence neither has anyone else been prosecuted !
Thoughtful wrote:
“Come on pounce if you’re going to write incendiary posts which amount to lies then at least do some research to avoid them, otherwise no one will believe anything you write!”
At the end of my post, I wrote:
“Meanwhile in the real world”
In other words i was taking the piss. I don’t know about others here, but i still pride myself on my ability to have a crack a joke.
Sorry but it doesn’t read like a joke to me.
I wonder though whether you would stomach the alternative?
England is the only country in the civilised world where a will can be written completely freezing out a family member – or all of them with the estate left to charity. The argument in favour of this is that ‘it’s their money and they can do with it as they please’.
It is however a weak argument.
Most estates comprise of money which has never been taxed and the Tories are looking to raise tax exemptions to £1 million, meaning in practice that there is no inheritance tax at all and making a very powerful tool with which to bully and blackmail beneficiaries.
So it is possible for the person writing the will to refuse to leave anything to someone who does something the writer disapproves of, like marrying someone of a different race; being gay; changing their religion; or it could be something far more petty.
This is the reason that it is possible to write a Sharia compliant will and the same argument which applies to non Muslims applies – It’s their money and they should be able to do with it as they please ! That’s called being hoisted on your own petard.
We should of course adopt the law which every other civilised country practices – that it is not possible to miss family members out of a will, in countries such as France the law means everyone has an equal share, and if they want to change that then a legal document called a ‘Tontine’ has to be drawn up. Even Scottish law does not allow the omission of a family member.
This is my preferred route. The tax advantages are simply to great to absolve people of responsibilities and the opportunity for legal blackmail simply appalling. Of course many do not believe that England is a civilised country with far too many greedy self interested power crazed people with an interest in preserving the status quo.
Sorry, but trying to shore up your argument by inserting “civilised” won’t work. Sounds a bit BBC, as does:
“…..like marrying someone of a different race; being gay; changing their religion; or it could be something far more petty.”
IMO, heirs can have expectations but not rights. I think it’s unlikely that changing the law would prevent family disputes. Responsibility cuts both ways, and it would be grossly unfair for a negligent offspring to be legally entitled to the same inheritance as a dutiful one.
Lastly, your implication that “even Scotland” is more civilised is not supported by my experience of the place, or the processes involved in obtaining probate in my father-in-law’s circumstances. There are some seriously obnoxious people up there, like anywhere else.
Then by force of your argument you must accept that allowing Sharia will is a good thing as after all heir can only have expectations – but not ‘rights’ !
When the rest of the world is doing something different, there’s a pretty good chance that they’re the ones who have it right!
The other issue of course is that Islamic marriages normally involve a sizable dowry so it could be argued that women receive their share before parents die, but for the rest of the country there is no such parity.
I don’t care about the Sharia issue. Under no circumstances should our laws be changed to resolve Sharia issues.
“When the rest of the world is doing something different, there’s a pretty good chance that they’re the ones who have it right!”
The world’s a big place. Nice simple solution though – let’s not bother with what government we have left. We’ll just ask the civil service to impose whatever the “rest of the world” does.
The world certainly is a big place. Nice to know that North Korea, Zimbabwe, the USA, France, Nepal, Paraguay et al have some common form of inheritance and we are the odd ones out.
I mean why bother with our own laws and legal system at all, just adopt some other country’s.
Rather difficult to bring the UK’s inheritance laws into line with other countries without bringing property ownership laws into line first.
Good luck with that!
“Even Scottish law does not allow the omission of a family member.”
Not that simple. Depends whether it’s heritable (land or buildings) or movable property (everything else).
Thoughtful, I must be misreading your post. I’ve been executor for several estates here in the US, which cut out family members in favor of either church groups or charities. The only time the state checks in to distribute money based on relationship is if there is no will. I suppose we could be overlooked based on your “civilized” caveat. In each case where I was the executor all of the money I distributed had been built up by hard working folks who paid taxes on all their earnings and the estates represented what they saved after taxes. Federal law exempts the first several million on estate taxes but the local states took their toll on the recipients.
Given that people can already decide how they wish their estate to be distributed after their death, why the need for “sharia-compliant” wills at all? I find it disturbing that a parallel legal system is gradually being developed, and particularly one where women are treated as inferior and non-muslims are effectively worthless.
The point about it is the declaration of faith at the mosque to make the inheritance valid – not currently UK law.
Interview with media Professor Barnett of Westminster University (no I didn’t either) this morning on BBC radio 5Live:
‘And what is the downside of the licence fee?’
‘The arguments against the licence fee are unconvincing etc….’.
I kid you not.
That would be Professor Steven Barnett of Hacked Off. Hacked Off members have ready access to the BBC to promote the suppression the free press and shill for the BBC poll tax.
Yes-and the same Stevie B who just happened to be wandering round Richard Bacons show last week when Noel Edmonds talked of buying up the BBC.
Stevies languid drawl and bitchy asides were very History Man…which coming from a degree in the theosophy in Noelle Gordon at Lanchester( bus stop annexe) was quite something.
A petty little Hacksaw-and one of many the BBC wheel out for Steve Howlett or Rober Bolton.
A Poly Trustie…but was he famous enough to make the Hot 200 who wrote to the Guardian yesterday begging for more chains for the chavs, in the form of ” implementing in full ,the recommendations of The Justice Lord Leveson of Tobermorey”….ie carrying their f**in sedan chairs unto death?
If Barney did NOT make the top 200-why are the BBC asking the oik?
Even if he did-he`s hardly Victoria Wood is he?
So he`s nothing to say, except to his tuition fee loaded plebs that he saddled with debts…as Labour were wont to do in 2002 etc.
Don`t hear much about Labours destruction of Higher Education do we?…little Barnett sums it all up rather well.
Even Bacon understood him…THAT`S how dumbed down it`s all got…
Well at least he is consistent. Support for the BBC is support for liberal left propaganda and to hell with free speech.
‘‘The arguments against the licence fee are unconvincing etc….’.
Beyond saying it, which is enough for the BBc on most things, did he explain why with any substance?
Did he offer his own arguments for retention?
If so, did these convince? And who?
Wheeling out hopelessly compromised one-degree-of-separation ‘Friends of BBC’ to say the BBC is great seems to be their sole tactic, and if that’s their best… boy.. are they screwed.
In last nights Panorama ‘The Great NHS Robbery’ we led to believe (bar one dentist) that its only the indigenous that defraud the NHS, but we know different – don’t we chaps?
Now I’m not sure who’s to blame for this implication, both the NHS and the bBC are tax payer funded Common Purpose out of control top heavy behemoths. Is it the bBC for yet again refusing to reveal the elephant in the room or is it the NHS who prefer to only prosecute the indigenous?
My money is on the bBC as they focused the program on Scotland and Cornwall, wonder why?
I see the bBC is screaming ‘Victim’ again for the muslims of CAR again:
Could the Pope bring peace to CAR?
In our series of letters from African journalists, Cameron Duodu argues that the world’s Christian and Muslim leaders should become more involved in the apparently religious conflict in the Central African Republic. The world will soon be marking the 20th anniversary of the worst genocide that has been seen in Africa since the end of colonialism, namely, the Rwandan slaughter that began on 6 April 1994. This genocide was so horrendous that it has irretrievably robbed every African of part of his or her dignity as a human being.
Worse genocide in Africa since the end of colonialism, bBC?
Pray can anybody tell me when any European country murdered over 1 million blacks, in fact I’d question that Rwanda statement as more people have been murdered in the Congo/Sudan. But that isn’t what caught my eye in this bbC article , what did was this little sidebar which gives you the relgious breakdown in C.A.R:
CAR’s religious make-up
Christians – 50%
Muslims – 15%
Indigenous beliefs – 35%
The above gives the impression that Christians make up half the population, when actually they make up 80% I quote the real relgious breakdown:
“The country has an area of 242,000 square miles and a population of 4.3 million. According to the 2003 census, Protestants constitute 51 percent of the population, Catholics 29 percent, and Muslims 15 percent. “
Those figures are from the here
Got to love how the bbC always leaves out the full story when it comes to …Muslims.
The initial BBC News Channel coverage of the latest inflation figures majored on bolstering Labour’s “cost of living crisis”, telling us how inflation was still ahead of pay rises. They always fail to mention that this year’s 16% increase in the starting point for tax mean that take home pay is on average ahead of inflation.
Their website coverage is less pointed
A fall in petrol prices pushed the UK inflation rate to a new four-year low of 1.7% last month, figures show.
The fall in the rate of inflation means that the gap between pay increases and the rise in prices is narrowing.
Average total earnings rose 1.4% in the three months to January, compared with a year ago, according to the ONS’ latest figures.
Public sector workers saw a rise of just 0.9% in the same period, but private sector pay growth was 1.7%, meaning it has already caught up with the increase in prices.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26730533
Anybody else wonder about what the hell the likes of Paxman and Katz are on these days?
The “Muslim bitchfest” last night was very Medhi( Arabic for bizarroworld!).
Seemed to me a tag team contest where one of the wrestling combos had only one man in it…so the opponents took turns in bear baiting and pulling hair behind the refs back?
As if Paxman the Ref gave a f***!
Weird-not one argument allowed to be heard…Paxman baited the one bloke ceaselessly at the start like a toothpick in the picador…then let Medhi and Mo shout and holler over anything their apostate oppo tried to say.
But Paxman shot himslef in the flip-flop when it turned out that Mo( charming Bresslaw-type of “community activist) had been shoehorned in(and a big shoehorn it must have been!)-and replacing a woman Muslim on the panel.
The opponent of the M boys mentioned this…Paxo looked stuffed if not pained…and the M boys raged on and over any answer but….
1. How is 2 against 1 fair?
2 Why was the female Muslim bumped off in favour of the zealot?
3. How can Hasan be OK with the cartoon mentioned in the show…but want his opponent firmly dealt with for insulting Muslims?…absolutely no effort to get that answered
4. Who came up with this format?…and how sinister and one-sided did it have to be before broadcast?
There was NO excuse for this “look into who speaks for Islam”-just a zootime bitchfest that even Richard Bacon might have had to draw his line at…or sniff it up anyway!
Newsnight-Zombie telly. Katz ist kaput.
Mind you, heard the ex BNP Newsnight bloke do a radio show on a Commie economist earlier(8.30pm radio 4). He was cited as a TUC economist and not ex BNP/future Newsnight spokesman for money affairs.
Do you HAVE to be ex BNP now to get a job at the BBC?…and will they remove him, now they know of his Fascist past?
Could be fun-bring the popcorn Eva!
Nicki ‘the ego has landed’ Campbell this morning, the phone in topic ” is the BBC good value for money ?”
Wrong question, it’s irrelevant whether you pay 10 pence or £150 pounds or a thousand pounds, if you don’t watch the BBC, you still have pay for it.
It’s a bit like if you don’t shop at Asda, you still have to give them £100 a week to the supermarket.
The first caller was a working class London Cockney Dick van Dyke type from Central Casting or so we’re led to believe, to paraphrase ”’ Corr blimey guv’nor, the BBC is great value !! Are you being served is fabulous !!! ”
You’d think it was Kirsty Squawk holding a handkerchief over the mouthpiece, or am I being cynical ?
Peter Allen standing in for Victoria Derbyshire.
” Slavery is still around in Britain !!! ”
Hmm, I wonder why that is, I’m going to take a wild guess, is it anything to do with Third World mass immigration ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25048307
It’s this ‘attention to detail’ that I’ve come to expect from the BBC.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/grimerking/20140325-bbc_zpse9fcc926.jpg
Sorry about the multiple posts, I don’t seem to be able to get an embedded image to appear.
I see BBC News has found a new “acceptable Tory” whom they can frequently interview on matters relating to immigration. MP Mark Field is leading a small group in the Commons who want Cameron to drop the pledge to cap immigration to tens of thousands.
Let ’em all in! I need cheap servants!
Another approved Tory turns out to be Tim Loughton-ex Childrens Minister who`s been sacked, so is useful to the BBC.
Joins Ken Clarke and Tim Yeo as Tory useful idiots for the BBC.
The Guardian-approved list of Tories is s short one…but we get plenty of then as the BBC decides.
Not bias just absolutely dreadful interviewing by Evan in the Today programme this morning just after 8. Asking a man whose relation had been declared dead this morning as he was a passenger on the Malaysian flight. Evan asking how the man felt. Come on Evan, how do you think he feels? Could the man have closure? etc etc. The interview went on for at least 5 minutes longer than it should have with nothing constructive to say.
Given the declaration of loss, the whole circus in KL is winding down as location budgets dry up.
Hence the only way to eke a few more ratings out is grief-mongering.
The relation is voluntary and may see the BBc still as pressure point to seek further action, but still likely not rational (understandably).
The BBC/Today Producers/Evan will milk such people unmercilessly if it serves their interests, ethical or moral or not.
Yes I found it highly distasteful. How anybody can think this tragedy-porn is good listening.
“Presumably you don’t still hold out hope, do you?”
Creepy. Just creepy
Wasn`t it Mishal Husein seeking the money-shots for the ears and the 10 O Clock news yesterday at the same time?
She though wanted to empathise and get under the skin of that girl who had acid thrown in her face by “somebody disguised as a Muslim”.
A real Muslim would never do such a thing, so it would HAVE to be a disguise.
Yet no calls to ban the veil today…why ever not if people use Islam to do such things?
Husein wanted grief, tears, anger-and, yes some compo and an enquiry into the Met…well, duh!
The Today Programme now offers Primal Scream therapy for the nations misfits, grief-stricken victims…and indeed anybody that might take on the Army. Police or the Tories…in that order or thereabouts.
Davis and Husein-the new Kyle and Winfrey-mere prurient scum with piercings and bigger words.
this was mentioned earlier in the thread
law society – sharia wills
This section does have a secular society rep, but sadly VD Derbyshire, and two Islamic law reps, working in unison … almost like Question Time 😀
AND as soon as these two are questioned … “why are you picking on Muslims” comes the bleat, the Secular Law rep
is also continually interrupted by VD … in fact normal BBC practice.
1hr 9 mins
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03ymmsz
ps … this issue should not even need to be discussed, it is needless as The Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights ruled in February 2003 that :-
Islamic Sharia law is “incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy.” The court said that a legal system based on Sharia law “would diverge from the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly with regard to the rules on the status of women, and its intervention in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts
latest news video …
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/sharia-law-a-fact-in-the-uk/3386706532001
http://youtu.be/srWFnM9dlp0
subsidiary
remember this BBC classic, (perhaps D Murray might not get an invite this time around)
Concerning the Malaysian flight MH370 it is now being suggested that the pilot may have committed suicide, by taking the aircraft to an altitude where the oxygen ran out, and everyone on board died as a result.
What is being studiously avoided is the reason why he might have done this, and yes you guessed it – the Religion of peace claims another load of victims!
The pilot of the aircraft captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah was said to be a ‘fanatical’ supporter of Anwar Ibrahim the opposition leader who was jailed by the government who say he is ‘gay’.
Whether he is gay or not is hardly the issue, but the fact that yet again the intolerant murderous face of Islam has led to the imprisonment of a man on the grounds of his sexual preferences (real or imagined).
The captain of the aircraft has been pictured wearing a Tshirt saying ‘Democracy is Dead’ following the arrest and imprisonment.
Yet again there is an unwillingness on the part of the propaganda organisation to acknowledge the unacceptable face of Islam, I expect little coverage of the reason behind this, other than the fact the opposition leader was jailed, without examination as to the reasons for that.
Yet again Muslims will be painted as victims when in reality they are perpetrators.
I saw reports that Anwar Ibrahim was linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, which made me think rather better of the Malaysian Prime Minister and his government. If true, maybe they have some good on their side after all, and Ibrahim will be less influential in gaol?
I don’t think in this context his politics are important, I doubt any serious links to the Muslim Brotherhood as he’s a real liberal which is one of the reasons he is in prison.
The point is more than an accusation of homosexuality can see someone imprisoned regardless of their political beliefs, or how true that accusation might be.
In 1999, Anwar brought suit against Prime Minister Mahathir for defamation for allegedly uttering accusations of immoral acts and calling Anwar a homosexual at a news conference in Malaysia.
the High Court found that he had committed libel and awarded Anwar millions of ringgit in compensation
Since his release from prison, Anwar has held teaching positions at St Antony’s College, Oxford, where he was a visiting fellow and senior associate member, at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies in Washington DC as a Distinguished Senior Visiting Fellow, and in 2005–2006 as a visiting professor at the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim–Christian Understanding in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, where he continues as a Senior Fellow. In March 2006 he was appointed as Honorary President of the London-based organisation AccountAbility (Institute of Social and Ethical AccountAbility).
When asked about the possibility of Anwar becoming the next Prime Minister, former leader Tun Dr. Mahathir reacted by saying, “He would make a good Prime Minister of Israel”.
(Hardly a compliment in a Muslim country and not exactly what you would expect of someone associated with the Muslim Brotherhood !)
On 29 June 2008, online news portal Malaysiakini reported that an aide of Anwar Ibrahim, Saiful Bukhari Azlan had lodged a police report claiming that he had been sodomised by Anwar.
Anwar was found not guilty on 9 January 2012
A Malaysian court has overturned the acquittal of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim on sodomy charges, upholding a government appeal. While homosexual acts are illegal in Muslim-majority Malaysia, very few people are ever prosecuted. Anwar has always maintained the charges were part of a political smear campaign. The court decision may affect Anwar’s plans to compete in a key by-election in the state of Selangor this month. His lawyers are expected to appeal the court ruling, Reuters news agency reported. [59]
As part of his overturned acquittal on 4 March 2014, Anwar has been sentenced to five years in jail, but remains free on bail while he appeals the verdict. Many Human Rights and other Activists Group’s have accused the Malaysian Government of meddling in this particular judicial matter. Analysts claim the initial charges and conviction were also aimed at undermining Anwar’s growing political popularity. Since his earlier release from jail, Anwar has been rebuilding his political career and was preparing to contest a seat in the central state of Selangor on 23 March 2014. In addition, this case raises very serious issues of judicial independence from the Malay Government, and accusations of corruption have been levied on certain member of both the government and court members.
So we have a married man who has high profile appointments in the West accused of homosexuality – something not illegal in the West, found not guilty, but then found guilty after the intervention of the government !
The media should be screaming out the alarm bells!
Corruption
Homophobia
Governmental interference with due process
anti democratic removal of a rival leader
But they aren’t. All because they don’t want to offend the Muslims
After all this time of waiting and hoping for news, it must be fairly evident to all (including the unfortunate relatives of the passengers and crew) that this aircraft is lost, and in the sea.
The hijack and suicide theories, I believe, are preposterous. Personally, I think it more to the point that the flight crew are considered heroes. I am no expert (but have some ATC knowledge), but it seems likely to me, that after some catastrophic incident on board, electrical power may have been lost, and the flying crew attempted to operate procedurally, as they had been trained to do.
The aircraft flew for approximately seven hours, during which time, it is entirely conceivable that the crew wrestled to keep it airborne, at low level, for as long as they possibly could, and eventually ditched when the fuel ran out. Handling an aircraft on redundant control surfaces is no easy task.
The hijack theory really doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, as hijackers invariably wish to broadcast their actions, and the reasons why, together with demands. Had they merely wished to destroy the aircraft, they would have done so at a time far earlier in the flight.
Similarly, with the “crew suicide” theory, if that were the case, the aircraft would have gone down sooner, rather than later.
None of it adds up, and it is just my idea. I’m no expert.
To put things in context, perhaps a read of this might interest some:
https://plus.google.com/106271056358366282907/posts/GoeVjHJaGBz
Nope sound thinking OG I have spent years looking into plane accidents and the theories are piling up faster then the facts so until further evidence comes out then the suicide theory is highly unlikely as no message was left to explain the action which is a given if your trying to make a point and as for hijacking the crew would have had some training for this case and would have know the planes course was leading them to no where so unless killed out right I’m sure they would have at least tried something to save the plane ! in this day and age we forget that radar covers only a tiny area of the planet and big planes go missing over land let alone over the seas !
In my view mechanical or systems failure led to this loss as over water at night either would be fatal to a plane !
There’s no chance what so ever that electrical systems failure caused this as everything is battery backed and the crew would have been able to get off an emergency distress call.
The aircrafts transponder and other location devices were deliberately switched off shortly after the last communication – coincidence ?
As for a mechanical failure, again it would be a pretty odd one which disables all coms but allows the aircraft to fly until the fuel runs out.
We do know that the aircraft climbed to 43 000 ft and we know what would have happened in those circumstances.
We do not know why the aircraft climbed so high hence the speculation of suicide.
As these aircraft are ‘fly by wire’ with several computers monitoring the main one, computer failure causing a deviation from flight plan is unheard of.
So they have found the plane at last then? No? Well until it is all is speculation and nothing more.
We do not know the transponder was switched off – that’s a supposition.
There are a number of reasons why a plane could climb not least of which is an instrument failure followed by pilot action. In fact there have been cases where the instruments worked as per spec but, for one reason or another, the crew did not believe what they were seeing.
So until they find the plane and its black boxes we won’t know what happened – and even then it will be a case of balancing probabilities and then blaming the crew.
Shortly after the last voice communication from the cockpit of the plane on March 8 it was tracked by military radar flying between 43,000 and 45,000 feet.
So not speculation – actual facts !
‘It was tracked flying at this altitude for 23 minutes before descending. Oxygen would have run out in 12 minutes
There are so many instruments backing up instruments that failure is unlikely.
The Air France flight from Brazil to France fell into the sea because the speed sensing pitot tube became iced and failed to register the airspeed correctly, and the crew failed to react appropriately which might have saved the aircraft.
Speculation is indeed rife and the black box might not be recovered for many months. Even then we might never know, but there are enough suspicious events to point to foul play.
With the Air France flight from Brazil, just switching on the autopilot would have saved it.
At a time like this, maybe it’s best to rely on the sensitivity and professionalism of an experienced broadcaster:
BBC World News
Twitter’s reaction to flight MH370
#BBCtrending analyzes how Malaysian PM’s announcement on the missing flight #MH370 was received on Twitter.
BBC reports that the Met Office is predicting hotter summers and mild, wet winters. So I think we can all be confident that this summer will be a washout, and it might be an idea to buy the kids a nice sledge to make the most of the winter weather.
I’m preparing for this year’s BBQ summer by investing in a few raincoats and umbrellas.
The Met Office official stance:
There will be weather. End of. Lots of money, please.
A reminder of Met Office forecasting, which BBC-NUJ doesn’t provide:-
“Could Met Office have been more wrong? Just before floods, report told councils: Winter will be ‘drier than normal’ – especially in West Country! ”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2564358/Could-Met-Office-wrong-Just-floods-report-told-councils-Winter-drier-normal-especially-West-Country.html#ixzz2wz7WUQI2
I’m counting the days until the hose pipe ban of spring …
The article, by David Shukman, is infantile but amusing. Unusually for BBC climate science reports comments are allowed and it is worth reading a few of the highest rated.
I have to say that I read a fair number of AGW blogs, from both sides of the argument, and it is noticeable, to me anyway, that the number of sceptical comments is on the increase as a proportion of the whole. A very encouraging sign.
I have often posted on here snippets of my BBC complaints and also contents of my completed BBC Trust or Media Sport Committee public surveys.
I particularly think my input, combined with scores of others communicating with the Government Media Committee and BBC Trust, is always going to be the most powerful tool one can use to get points across to those who can do something about it.
The reason I post this again now is I am very pleased to see that exactly my points I, (assume also many others made similar submissions), in December, about the TV Licence criminalisation in the last BBC Trust review, plus Media & Sport Committee questionnaire I completed online, are now being taken up and addressed by the Government.
QUOTES FROM MY LAST TRUST REVIEW INPUT AND MEDIA & SPORT COMMITTEE ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE
“One other point which I would wish the BBC takes more seriously. Why are our Magistrates Courts clogged having to deal with hundreds of thousands of non-licence fee payers, making this the largest single crime these courts deal with? This is an enormous national scandal generally affecting the poorest in society and is the next big thing to be exposed. Surely you can find a better way?
I do appreciate the BBC does produce quite a lot of quality news and current affairs, but let us be honest, being in receipt of £3.5 billion (+?) from the taxpayer it comes at a stupendous cost.
I do hope you understand my absolute disgust and resentment the way the BBC treats me and other peoples taxes with the gigantic corporation management payoffs we hear about, the enormous salaries, prolific immensely costly waste like the digital media IT cancellation, staff perks and even the way the BBC entered the avoidance of tax arena with its own employees, (you really know how to push our noses into it), etc, etc.
Additionally I believe the mainly progressive left of centre, ‘champagne socialist culture’ that for years and years has been allowed to exist within the BBC, has been a contributory factor that has resulted in such criminal ‘Savillle’ and similar scandals to develop and also the corporation ethos is the reason in my having sometimes to receive biased reporting, leaving me to trawl other media for the full balanced facts.
It is no surprise therefore that I personally find your organisation needs radical reform and quickly.
Possibly the BBC management recruiting in a more balanced way, other than from mainly left of centre sources, would possibly be a good start to enable you to represent the majority of the nation.
If the BBC could also enhance further its already highly successful commercial activities, this saving could go to reducing the licence fee for people like me who have to now watch the pennies.”