Remarkably the BBC is able to continue operating as smoothly as ever without the talented Chris Patten’s guiding hand….so I’m assuming the bias is coming as thick and fast as ever…list it here……
Open Thread Wednesday
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Zephir Dec 23, 00:37
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
bbc’s bloody outrageous fixations with muslims, black people, Elon Musk and Donald Trump, for a publicly funded and impartial organisation.… - StewGreen Dec 23, 00:32
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
BBC “Elon Musk’s curious fixation with Britain ” by Mike Wendling is rightly double ratioed and CCBGB’d When someone has… - Guest Who Dec 22, 23:11
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
There might be a smidge of irony here. https://x.com/rrrrnessa/status/1870495794236977278?s=61 You people are deeply, dangerously unwell and evil. The majority of… - JohnC Dec 22, 22:54
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
I always go to the user reviews then sorth them by date so you get the ones after the initial… - BRISSLES Dec 22, 22:49
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
Also a non white detective in new season of Death in Paradise. The diversity directive that has infected the drama… - JohnC Dec 22, 22:44
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
Children among dozens killed in Israeli strikes, Gaza officials say https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9g4yl8j17o Here’s a new low: The BBC went from telling… - Deborah Dec 22, 22:22
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
I used to be a Covid numbers junky, from watching Valance asking for the next slide please to still regularly… - StewGreen Dec 22, 22:14
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
BBC presenters “we are IMPARTIAL IMPARTIAL IMPARTIAL” BBC presenter Paul Lewis Money tweets An interesting list of broadly good things… - Deborah Dec 22, 22:12
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
I am reading John C’s first post, and I am watching Wolf Hall at the same time. Cromwell’s daughter has…
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
Excellent video (INBBC gets a dishonourable mention).
It’s not BBC-NUJ ‘Newsnight’:-
“Video: Robert Spencer and Paul Weston on Sharia, free speech, and the jihad threat”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/video-robert-spencer-and-paul-weston-on-sharia-free-speech-and-the-jihad-threat
“we all know the BBC will be after you Paul”
The Department of Culture Media & Sport are running a select committee into something they call ‘The Future of the BBC’.
The remit is wide and covers issues like bias, accountability, size, licence fee etc.
They are currently taking submissions, but if you want to have them taken seriously then they have to be ‘reasonable’ or backed up with facts to show the truth.
Here is the web site, please read the guidance notes if you want your submission to succeed.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/future-of-the-bbc/
I can advise anyone making a submission about the licence fee that the current position regarding encryption of services is that although satellite, cable and freeview all offer encryption services the problem (objection) lies in the fact that all those digital set top boxes we saw the licence fee ‘top sliced’ for do not have provision for the top up TV card.
I feel this is something of a red herring as anyone who doesn’t want to pay for the BBC can stick with what they have, and anyone who wishes to subscribe would only need find £20 or so for a new set to box with a card slot. A small amount in proportion to the licence fee itself.
This is your chance to make your views heard in a report to parliament, don’t miss it !
A now tv box can be bought for only £10 pounds so there.
With decryption ? (a top up TV card slot).
No card slot, just pay and go via bank debit.
‘The remit is wide and covers issues like bias, accountability, size, licence fee etc.’
Well, in theory all of the above. But mostly so far the last, best I can see.
The initial submission posts did cover a fair spread, and the process is in theory ongoing:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/future-of-the-bbc/?type=Written#pnlPublicationFilter
However, that is a wee bit tucked away (last back in March), and the focus seems more on the in-person oral evidence from various selected, guests, experts and witnesses, many of who seem to either owe the BBC a living, depend on it for their pensions or simply appear smitten.
And almost all seem to be pretty clear that the BBC does a great job so the only real issue is making sure it keeps getting its unique funding via compulsion, and maintains that ‘we only hold others to account’ accountability epitomised by the Trust’s recent ex-chair, whose unexpected departure has managed to throw a few spanners in a few works whilst bringing spotlights on dark corners some clearly thought would get away with anything if those darn kids could be kept occupied elsewhere.
Let’s have a quick look at what has been run up the flagpole, and then saluted, thus far:
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/future-of-the-bbc/oral/5368.html
Potentially promising start, but stacked from the off like a BBC QT panel and audience either side of the table.
The only dissenting voice David Elstein, and even then he opens by saying he’s ‘a great admirer and strong supporter of the BBC’.
This was the session that already caused my concerns when Steve ‘no conflict of interest at all’ Hewlettt suddenly chimed in on 28Gate (see Qu10) professing not to know much about it but then having an awful lot to say in the BBC defence.
Which MP Angie Bray was trying to amplify upon before being told to shut up.
There was also an insight to the mindset and priorities of the rest of the committee:
Q22 Mr Leech: The reason for my argument is that you started off with quite a lengthy contribution, starting off by saying that you were a big supporter of the BBC but then gave numerous reasons as to why you did not really like the BBC at all.
David Elstein: Honestly, Mr Leech, you can’t have been listening to me very carefully. I am a strong supporter of the BBC. I wish it were a bigger, better, bolder, braver, richer organisation than it is, funded voluntarily by citizens of the UK and elsewhere. That’s all I have to say about the BBC.
Mr. Farrelly also seems a fan.
We also get to hear from Ben Bradshaw:
Q47 Mr Bradshaw: a number of other countries with strong public service broadcasting traditions have moved away from a licence fee, either to funding their public service broadcasting by general taxation or to funding it by household charge. Would that not overcome some of your objections to the licence fee without jeopardising the funding stream or the BBC’s independence?
He does seem to view this more in terms of how to keep things going as is rather than any question on how well it manages on the current £4Bpa compelled funding less the loophole opt-out losses they are all trying to plug and drag those with real issues with BBC professional performance back into doing so by force.
Jim Sheridan seems a fan, too, and keen to share interesting facts it may have been of value to see less BBCphilic committee members or experts in the mix to challenge if in error:
Q64 Jim Sheridan: The figures that I have seen are that the popularity of the licence fee is increasing in the last decade. I think it is up to 47% compared with 31% just a decade ago. What I am intrigued by is that the costs of collecting the licence fee are relatively low. Would there be any significant change for the alternative method, subscription?
Paul Farrelly then chimes in again to try and put words in David Elstein’s mouth. He also refers to lack of time and wanting to get on governance.
Handed to BBC groupie Claire Enders to mea gulp a lot, but basically waffle the time away until Steve Hewlett kills off the rest in his best ‘it was another time’ manner.
Governance opinion barely afforded the sole vaguely BBC critical witness there.
Philip Davies’ question was facile and the answers lost in the rush to close. Job done.
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/future-of-the-bbc/oral/6170.html
A hideously white male session asking a bunch of guys just how much they’d like their index-linked golden pensions to stay golden and any dodgy activities taken kept under wraps for ever.
Like that was going to go any other way.
Again Mr. Sutcliffe being more than undertstanding that no one knew anything about Saville then, or now, and this was understandable.
Then of course there’s Mr. Farrelly:
Q89 Paul Farrelly: Greg, you mentioned the BBC has enemies, both ideological and commercial. In one area, News Corp probably would dearly love to restrict that website, the BBC being a free source of online news.
Not sure Murdoch or the DM had much to do with McAlpine though, Paul. That seemed pretty much all BBC.
But mostly it’s about keeping the money spigot open, on full:
Q99 Mr Bradshaw: Could I ask you for your views on the desirability and sustainability of the licence fee as the long-term funding mechanism for the BBC?
Angie Bray a lone voice trying to delve a bit deeper. And again some claims being bandied about I’d have liked an actual informed, impartial guide on, as the BBC big-wigs clearly only read BBC PR. And it is, also, very well funded to tell the BBC story often enough:
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/bbc-spending-slick-pr-condemned-after-website-reveals-220-press-contacts
One wonders if they ever post elsewhere under rotating nicknames?
Anyway, at least governance was agin popped at the end for a quickie:
Q114 Mr Bradshaw: Why not just change it into a more normal-looking board with a chairman and give the regulatory responsibilities to Ofcom?
That would be under DG-applicant Ed Richards, friend and colleague once to Ben, James Purnell and so many others in the revolving door between Labour and the BBC, now overseen by the Trust in interim by a Labour Minister’s adviser.
What follows is a bunch of Lords a-leaping. Add Hall & Patten and the number of Lords seems to exceed anyone actually capable of operating on a day-to-day basis.
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/future-of-the-bbc/oral/8328.html
More insiders and academics. Public interest, what public interest?
Professor Beckett: I will start. In terms of its actual performance, most people’s experience of the BBC is of services that have improved generally in terms of quality, usability and so on.
Most people being his gilded, ideological circle?
They are clearly trying to wear folk out and grind them down by attrition.
These clowns are paid no matter what to deal in this guff.
Who else, out in the real word, has time to wade through all this?
Let me skip to one exchange on the done deal of funding options:
Professor Barwise: I am still in reasonably amicable dialogue with Elstein and—
Chair: You cannot say nobody disputes your findings.
Professor Barwise: What I meant is that no economists dispute my findings.
Showing just how wild the claims are and how often goalposts get moved if you take the eye of the ball for a split second.
And… yet again… governance is tacked on in a rush at the end, with editorial supposedly overseen a non-issue by now.
And frankly the answers were pure partisan or waffle, with near zero challenge from a committee that always seem keener on lunch than anything.
Next (which is what they are banking on- near every utterance of witnesses and committee deserves a fisking. Who, anywhere, supporter or critic, MP or activist, could put hand on heart and say they have read through all this?)…
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/future-of-the-bbc/oral/6881.html
Old boys and girls arguing over pie shares, not how well the pie is prepared and served, or the ability of the audience to not be fed it and/or pay no matter what.
I simply cite this one ‘question’ to show how this committee seems set up:
Q159 Mr Bradshaw: You go on about the things that you think the BBC should be doing, but do you not at least acknowledge the argument that the only way the BBC can do these things—the public value, the distinctiveness—is because of its funding through the licence fee, which is only justified because of its universal appeal, including Radio 1 and Radio 2? You are nodding, so you do agree with that.
It’s like listening to a Today or watching a Newsnight ‘interview’, with the person being interviewed mainly existing so the BBC view can be pushed.
So, again, near zero on actual calibre of service delivery or oversight. Just industry insiders jockeying for a slice of public pie or worrying about turf.
Next….
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/future-of-the-bbc/oral/8476.html
Sorry, they have worn me out.
It’s pure attrition.
The BBC will get its money, and a toothless oversight system, and blanket immunity from being held to account, because vast public funds have been spent paying public sector professional committee wafflers to generate vast reams of guff so those who want the gravy train to continue can simply get it signed off by their mates.
I’ll stay with this showcase of Yes Ministerial ushering a national treasure into a new, comfier, more secure age, but if the core issues of the BBC failing across the board on accuracy, objectivity and integrity of editorial are actually addressed I’d better not blink, and likewise with governance also being a neat little old-boys’ club stitch up with censorship of critics kept as a given, little secret, like Jimmy & Stuart’s activities.
Meanwhile the rest of the media estate, even those tasked with checking out each other, will quickly scan a BBC press release and spout as their tribal hearts’ desire based on the executive summary:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10813893/The-future-of-the-BBC-is-at-stake-and-David-Cameron-must-take-control.html
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/may/08/howard-stringer-bbc-trust-chairman-martin-sorrell-wpp?
I’ll leave the last quote to a poster responding to one of those odd BBC-supportive one line posters in no way connected to the special projects PR budget who see even discussing the future of a £4Bpa broadcast monopoly as something to be contained:
Vlad_the_Inhaler
No-one is taking about banning views. But you seem to think it’s fine that we should all be forced to pay for an organisation that voices only your views?
Backed up with facts? A departure for the BBC surely?
The BBC to their shame, allow the same Islamic deceit that was debunked … on the Halal scandal only the other month, by everyone including, The Brit Vet Assoc … following on from the expose on “Subway” only last week
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-27313185
” The discussion soon prompted a backlash hashtag – #halalhysteria. “These aren’t secrets being exposed,”
“more vehicles for bigotry”.
“This is power keg stuff,”
Others were similarly damning.
“Funny how bigots have a problem with halal meat in Subway and Pizza express but no issue with a ‘dirty kebab after a night on the lash!'”
tweeted Omar Ali, president of the Federation of Student Islamic Societies.
“Do people upset about halal chickens in Pizza Express think regular abattoirs are like luxury health spas”
The arrogance of these Islamic spokesman, after their position has been proven to be so in disrepute is galling.
The BBC? ……… beneath contempt,
(they are made for each other)
Boycott Pizza Express
Boycott Subway
BOTCOTT HALAL!
http://www.boycotthalal.com/
http://www.boycotthalal.com/call-on-the-government-to-investigate-halal-charities/
And boycott New Zealand lamb because it’s all halal slaughtered.
“”New Zealand law also requires all animals to be pre-stunned at slaughter”.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/08/halal-meat-hysteria-new-zealand-lamb_n_5285905.html?utm_hp_ref=uk
Morrison’s is the only main supermarket which gives you a choice over Halal. Their chicken is NOT Halal, however I think their lamb may be.
If you want to avoid Halal meat on religious or animal welfare grounds, then use your local butcher and ask them how the animal was slaughtered.
Eat pork.
Al bbc censoring Thursday`s Daily Mail front page on News 24`s paper review, but on Sky it was shown & discussed .Their canteen/ 5 star bistro must already be halal compliant , without a doubt .
“Britain’s chief vet John Blackwell – pre-stunning should ALWAYS happen regardless of any religious objections. ”
BBC News’ review of the papers last night DID cover the front page article in the Daily Mail, but of course they did it BBC-style.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2622830/Millions-eating-halal-food-without-knowing-How-big-brand-shops-restaurants-sell-ritually-slaughtered-meat-dont-label-it.html
Chris Myrie’s guest reviewers were Oliver Wright of the Independent and Zamila Bunglawala, a Muslim activist and New Statesman journalist billed as an “Academic”. So, a nice balanced mix! They first of all agreed that this is not a real problem since no one is complaining about it and anyway there’s no legal requirement to label halal meat. It was, they strongly implied, just the Daily Mail stirring it up again. Myrie then asked if this would have been a story if the meat were kosher (despite the fact that kosher meat is discussed in the article), thereby raising a rhetorical question to avoid discussing a real one They all, of course, agreed that it wouldn’t be a story in that case so it must be the poor old muslims (and not the slaughtered animals) that are getting it in the neck again.
Ok , only saw 2230 edition ,plus Sky`s ,with a bit of flicking channels .
Well done Paxman!
Now he`s leaving…we get a Housing Benefit spot from Venezuela…clearly, things are grand there…more Chavez, more squatters, just help yourself-the State pays and the white goods men can hang nicely from the electrical cables afterwards.
And now it`s Irvine Welsh…he was sticking it to the man in the USA a few weeks back c/oNewsnight and here he is tonight…writing as a lesbian might so we can admire the diversity.
One long Labour Party broadcast…subtle, and fools us all.
When will the Tories wake up and neuter these lefty scummards?
When?
Sometime after they lose the 2015 general election I suppose.
The Daily Mail still hopes that Cameron can change into a Tory before its too late.
So, am reading the news before retiring to bed and I catch the bBC article regards UKIP and it protestations that it isn’t ‘racist. The bBC simply continued with its mission in which to imply that because UKIP is a British Nationalist party (It isn’t) then by default everybody who supports it is a…racist. This got me thinking about the subject at hand and just who are the real racists:
White British and Muslims
To the left and the Islamic world, Brits can only be racist and Muslims their victims. Yet the fact remains Muslims yes Muslims to a tee are not only polarised towards their own, but as a rule exhibit much more open racist views than White British.That is in the Uk alone, around the world that racist mindset is even more publically displayed.
White British and Blacks
To the left and the Blacks world, Brits can only be racist and Blacks their victims. Yet the fact remains Blacks (mainly Black men) are not only polarised towards their own, but as a rule exhibit much more open racist views than White British people. Think I’m kidding try walking past a bunch of black men with a beautiful black girl on your arm. More Black men have been shot dead in London since 9/11 by Blackmen than soldiers in Afghanistan, yet any attempts to combat this ugly trend is met with cries of ‘racism’ by the black political elite. This has led to a reduction in police activity in those areas where black on black crime is rife and naturally more criminality in those areas. Allowing those same bigoted idiots to play the race card in claiming the police aren’t doing their job.
In the UK minorities have more freedoms than they have in their homeland (Halal chicken at Pizza express???) freedoms which are steadily been imposed on us all. (Sharia law) If found guilty of a crime, the judicial system will not only bend over backwards towards the criminal it will ensure they get treated better than their victims. (Courts review that a 4 year sentence for a thug who murdered a man in public wasn’t lenient)
So when I see how the bBC promotes the view that Whites in the UK (I am brown skinned by the way) can only be racist. I worry that a country which everybody tells me is multicultural and better at that tag than almost everybody else is been tainted by the left for political purposes.
Give them enough rope ……
A fairly good example would be http://www.justblacksingles.com which I saw advertised on TV the other day. I believe that people should be completely free to date whomever they wish. I just don’t think that a ‘justwhitesingles’ website would be permitted.
Perhaps this is actually just indicative of the relative levels of racism within society – i.e. white people are generally happy to date anybody of any ethnicity, but black people aren’t so keen?
It’s a tricky issue, but I’m pretty sure I know how the BBC would react to the ‘justwhites’ site.
David Elstein again:
My message to new BBC boss: take an axe to this monolith
A root-and-branch restructure is needed of the bloated BBC
Lord Patten of Barnes’ three years as chairman of the BBC Trust made his predecessor, Sir Michael Lyons, look pretty good. A botched succession to Mark Thompson as director-general and a failure to get to grips with internal costs were the low points of his period in office: high points are hard to find, apart from the triumphant (in both senses) coverage of the Olympics.
His successor faces three major challenges. The first is negotiating renewal of the BBC Charter, including the structure of the trust, which has failed to prevent scandals such as the £100 million cost of the failed Digital Media Initiative, and indulged in public warfare with the BBC executive over excessive pay-offs. So the new appointee will have to consider replacing the regulatory body with a traditional PLC board of executives and non-executives.
He or she must also accomplish what the director-general, Lord Hall of Birkenhead, seems reluctant to undertake: a root-and-branch re-structuring of the over-centralised and managerially bloated BBC.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4083636.ece (£)
The bBBC ‘news’ thought the recent abduction of 200 Nigerian girls was less newsworthy than one blonde white girl who has been missing for five years. But now the Blessed Saint Malala has spoken, so the story has top billing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-27320098
“She told the BBC that “if we remain silent then this will spread, this will happen more and more and more”.”
who is this we?
Malala Yousafzi seems to be one of the few muslims who will speak out against the more extremist elements of that religion. It very nearly cost her her life.
I’m glad she has spoken out about this. It has seemed to me that Islam’s useful idiots at the BBC and MSM don’t know what to do about this story – after all, they don’t want to seem like they might be criticising the RoP. When people like Malala criticise Boko Haram, it makes it seem “okay” to be mildly critical of them and their “warped interpretation of Islam” (paraphrasing Nicky Campbell).
The INBBC are slowly but surely, painting themselves into a corner.
Agreed.
I despised the adulation and faux compassion for a kid who, in any civilised place, would not have been nearly killed by the Pakistani barbarians who tired this.
It was not her fault that she became a poster girl for the useless quislings for Islam in our liberal elites.
And the fact that she spoke out on girls education being s factor both in her case as well as that of the Nigerian girls made the BBC HAVE to suddenly take an interest…so well done her!
That said-when I heard Humphrys berating the Nigerian Government this morning for not acting or being interested immediately( 8.15 Today, 8/5/14) I could have killed the hypocrite.
The Nigerians have to risk lives to deal with psychotic nutjobs like Boko Haram…and Humphrys and the BBC dare not even say anything remotely truthful or honest about the Islamic sickos that behave like this.
The BBC has got to be made haram…cut its f***in throat somebody before it gets ours cut by its pals in the Umma.
Apart from Humphrys this morning – which I did not listen to, I am forbidden to listen to “Today” for medical reasons – Listening to the six o’clock news tonight and the report from “our correspondent” in Nigeria had me cursing the whole of the BBC’s warped views on the news. This is supposed to be a news bulletin, one of the most important of the day, yet we have some cretin suggesting it is to be hoped the Nigerian government will engage with the mass kidnappers rather than some of the brutal measures used again the “militants” in the past.
When will these lickspittle apologists for Islam realise you do *not* engage with such bloodthirsty thugs? They look on negotiation/engagement as weakness. Their whole mindset is totally different to anything the comparatively civilised west has ever known.
A few things the bBC have left out:
The girls are mainly Christian ( So rubbishing the western education is forbidden angle as the children are not Islamic and thus do not fall under Islamic sharia law?..oh hang on)and on Monday the same bunch of bloody Islamic terrorists marched into a town on mindayand while screaming ‘ Allah ackba’ mudered over 300 people. I see the bBC haven’t mentioned that story yet. Seeing as it has nothing to do with western education thus to denying the bBC the right to substantiate this Nigerian bloodlust you can see why.
But the BBC has consistently lied over the shooting of Malala Yousefzi.
It has put out a false story that she was shot because the Taliban (extremist Islamists) did not want the education of girls because of their extremist religious beliefs.
I can’t say it often enough, that this is a lie !
The Taliban (extremist Islamists) were opposed to the unsegregated education of children, and that meant that if there wasn’t space then the boys took precedence and the girls had to go.
Unfortunately this inconvenient truth is rearing it’s ugly head in Birmingham schools under the Trojan Horse plot, and other areas too. What the BBC hasn’t told people is that this plot requires the support of a considerable number of parents to remove a head and the governors.
Segregation of children in education is a mainstream Muslim belief and not a tenet of the Taliban (extremist Islamists), It cannot be broadcast to the people that the views of extremists are also the views of mainstream Muslims in Britain so a lie needed to be told.
Malala Yousefzi was shot because she spoke out against the Taliban. The Taliban published at the time it’s reasons for doing so and the religious verses (I believe from the Hadith) which supported its actions.
These reasons were completely ignored by the BBC who were and continue to spread a story which is nothing more than a lie to protect Muslims in the UK, many of whom probably believe the Taliban were right to do what they did.
To many of us the opening statement is true.
so nigel farage is on question time tonight,we all know what is going to happen here dont we with the carefully selected panel of biased politacal establishment ukip hating leftist and liberal dinosaurs who will no doubt be calling him a racist and zenophobe with howls of cheers and wild clapping from the aggresive ukip hating labour party and liberal party activists who will no doubt pack out the question time audience tonight.the bbc and question time are trying to set up nigel farage for a pre euro elections fall tonight on question time with the most biased anti ukip panel and audience ever,i hope he whips there butts tonight,i really do.but i fear it will just be one big anti ukip hatefest.
I shouldn’t worry. No one watches Question Time now.
Unless they can goad him into making a gaffe for broadcast on the news at ten.
Yes, Stuart, I fear your predictions for tonight’s QT will all somehow prove correct; the BBC is desperate to plunge the knife into UKIP as the days dwindle down prior to May 22nd – tonight’s QTY might be its last best chance, before a national audience, to ‘get Farage’ before the fateful day of the election.
I’ll be watching. If nothing else I feel it’s the duty of all of us who care about the BBC’s bias to record the evidence, to detail it and to report it back. Let’s see how long it takes the preening, sneering leftist fascists on tonight’s show to resort to ad homs and naked insults against UKIP, Mr Farage and UKIP supporters generally – I’ll wager within the first ten minutes, if previous QT’s are anything to go by.
Ho-hum – just another day of unaccountable ‘impartiality’ at ‘the world’s most respected broadcaster’.
HIGNFY usually gets the first ‘Farage’ or ‘UKIP’ mention within the first 2 minutes of every show
Yes I’m running a tote on how many minutes before UKIP gets a mention. All my family take part (no money changes hands).
A little friendly advice, people will take your posts a lot more seriously if you run them through a spell check first.
It allows those who wish to ridicule like Scott does to make implications about intelligence and the depth of your knowledge on the subject. zenophobe for instance is correctly spelled Xenophobe.
I’m not trying to be picky or pedantic, just to offer a little advice to prevent the people who have little to object to, having an open goal to shoot at.
Don’t worry stuart those people who will only take what you say seriously if you cross every T and dot every I expose themselves as old fashioned snobs And those that use it as excuse to ridicule you admit they have no answer
(I’m not even bothered that you don’t spell stewart correctly)
I did not realise Farage was on the programme tonight and I am almost persuaded to take the dust sheet off my TV and give it a look. “Almost” is the operative word. The last time I watched it – I honestly cannot remember when it was, though I did give up on regular viewing after the disgraceful 9/11 transmission – I almost destroyed the set whenever Dimbleby interrupted a guest to upset the flow of anyone who deviated from the BBC’s script. (I wonder if Dimbleby knows the actual meaning of the word “guest”, and further wonder how he treats any guests at his home?)
I cannot watch this tonight, though I will check various blogs tomorrow for unbiased opinions of the programme.
(And before those BBC stooges jump in, I spend hours reading blogs and reports from both the Left and the Right and surprising as you brainwashed types might find it, I do occasionally agree with some from the Left. I wonder if that bloke wearing the spectacles on his avatar – I honestly forget his name – I wonder if he can ever say such words about a “Right Wing” site, or would he be banished to today’s equivalent of the Left Gulags for his deviation? )
It is absolutely a waste of time checking the MSM for a clear report. They all seem to be singing from the same sheet these days.
An amazing item about the Nigeria girls kidnapped by Boko Haram on ‘Today’ on Radio 4.
I stood in open mouthed shock as the radio told me that the disappearance was a result of too much wealth in the country from its oil reserves, and corruption.
We were told that the Nigerian government had been doing next nothing to find these girls, with the inference being that they weren’t prepared to spend the money.
A Nigerian minister told them they had been doing everything they could and detailed some of the activities the armed forced had been undertaking.
The whole program was blaming the Nigerian government for failing to keep it’s borders secure, and blaming them for the kidnapping and the atrocities of the Muslims, Islam and Boko Haram was not mentioned once!
It’s the Lee Rigby thing all over again, seeking desperately not to blame the Muslim perpetrators, and blaming some wholly innocent party.
“…The whole program was blaming the Nigerian government for failing to keep it’s borders secure, and blaming them for the kidnapping and the atrocities of the Muslims, Islam and Boko Haram was not mentioned once!”
This has been a common theme in the BBC’s (and other msm broadcaster’s) reporting of this incident. There seems to have been a universal memo sent out to every news outlet that in reporting the events they are not to mention Islam. The BBC skirt around the issue, occasionally dropping a sly ‘Islamist’ into the proceedings, but their central method of avoidance is to simply blame the kidnapping of the girls on everything but…you know, the ‘religion of peace’ and all that. As far as the BBC and its fellow travellers are concerned (stand up Channel 4), it’s all about how the Nigerian government have failed, nothing at all do do with some gun-toting, Quran-bashing outfit called Boko Haram.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Just heard the news at 930 on 6 music, they are now just being reported as the group boko haram, no mention of islam.
Always ‘Boko Haram’ or ‘Al Queda’ or ‘Insurgents’ or ‘Militants’ etc etc NEVER what it actually is…………..
All this week I have had to listen to a medieval muslim savage on the BBC boasting about selling the abducted Nigerian schoolgirls as slaves…..yet the BBC introduce him as an “islamist militant” as if he is some sort of African freedom fighter !
Not heard much or anything for that matter from Muslims (or indeed Liebour) other than that schoolgirl interloper who seems firmly stuck here. I understand why Nick Clegg hasn’t said anything, he’s still looking for the correct verse in the Koran to prove its nothing to do with Islam. But I would have thought Labour or Liberty. I would have thought child rape and slavery..oh wait maybe not.
Have to agree entirely, a UKIP councillor posts a dubious statement , and the bbc, labour Liberty, Guardian etc are all up in arms.
200 girls get kidnapped and are about to be sold into slavery , the left keep disturbingly quite.
Three weeks after the enslavement and child abuse of these poor girls, the BBC DARES to moan at the Nigerians for not holding press conferences and giving them photos of the girls…and accuses the Nigerians of being slow off the mark.
Very Westgate Shopping Mall stuff yet again.
The Nigerians accused Humphrys of being racist and patronising….and they were right.
Todays Humphrys interview at 8.10 was yet another new low….ignorant, racist and ignorant…that the BBC only bother their fat white lily arses now means that the Nigerians have no lessons to learn from the craven halal-compliant BBC!
http://chersonandmolschky.com/2014/05/08/hillarys-state-department-refused-brand-boko-haram-terrorists/
Guessing it may be time to weigh in again on the silly book-selling, parapet-poking bint whose fault it clearly was the most powerful, charismatic man in the world decided to play hide the cigar with her in the John Prescott wardrobe at the White House whilst keep his country’s best interests top of mind.
Clearly when trying to avoid the obvious, it helps to have the BBC onside to ‘ask questions’ about who is really at fault in these cases.
Hence predatory Presidents, dopey FLOTUS up to Sec of State family and lunatic religious groups are clearly the victims here.
But all will be well once Michelle taps out a sad face to her followers:(
Miss Shouty Montagu currently on the Toady programme contrasting the effect of fracking on the wide open spaces of the US with the likely effect on the UK.
Pity they don’t apply the same criteria to the unfettered immigration which is blighting the south particularly of the UK.
Morning It’s BBc Breakfast the industry standard in bias and bollocks. Turning on to watch the end of a segment on fracking. Complete with now obligitory f**king inane pun “It’s not just the ground beneath us that is fractured” Plus the usual “expert” where do they get all these “experts” from, are they from some kind of agency, Experts4U.co or something. Anyway he goes on to comment about the effects of burning fossil fuel on climate change…
Then on to kidnapped school girls. Were the BBc so bothered when it first happened I don’t seem to remember that being the case.
Climate change again with an alarmist claiming that the there will be a 4 degree warming by the end of the century.
The fact that there has been no warming for the past 15 years was brushed aside as it ‘going into the deep ocean’ for which there is of course no evidence at all.
Apparently the ocean warming is the cause of stronger hurricanes – but it was never put to him that there wasn’t a single hurricane last year!
More lies without anyone available to challenge yet again.
“…The fact that there has been no warming for the past 15 years…”
More like 17 years and 9 months, according to the latest actual scientific data (not models, not predictions). Not that the BBC could give a damn. Who cares about actual science, anyway?
When known phenomena such as the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation (in water temperatures) are brushed aside in the claim that “All the global warming is going into the deep ocean!” (just how, one wonders), you know you are not dealing with an honest broker of information.
When, as papers publicised on WUWT argue, you find a more congruent correspondence of temperature variation by using PDO and AMO and using solar maxima/minima data (another known periodicity), which will account for the “hiatus” of the past 16 years despite the additional CO2, you do not need the preposterous claim that “The oceans are sucking it all in and will release it later!” (“Nous n’avons pas besoin de cette hypothese!” of the Climate Gods.)
But for the BBC or any outlet seemingly so enamoured of CAGW (or whatever we’re calling it this week) not to give a possible alternative theory and prediction of the year 2100, based on that which we know independently of any GIGO modeling, is, as the French say, worse than a crime– it’s bad manners.
But we all know what would happen were such an alternative theory propagated– too many people would ask, “So– up till now, it’s basically been the witch doctor shaking his rattle doing the mumbo-jumbo dance, with regard to divining and interpreting the data and forming a course of action therefrom?” and they’d wonder why we’ve been so under the cosh to spend so much dosh on so much bosh.
Radio London for the second day running Halal meat story. Vanessa Feltz saying who cares that a prayer has been said over the meat, yesterday Robert Elms agreed, so long as it is tasty. Mo Ansar on this morning telling us how humane and tasty it is. BBC disgracefully pushing the Sharia agenda. The number of establishments I won’t be buying from gets longer.
“Halal Meat Is the First Giant Step of Our Islamization”
By Enza Ferreri.
(2013.)
Read more: http://enzaferreri.blogspot.com/2013/05/halal-meat-first-step-to-islamization.html#ixzz31719Dj71
Follow us: @EnzaFerreri on Twitter | enza.ferreri on Facebook
What is Mo Ansar doing being given concerted airtime again? on the BBC?, he is ( just like M Shafiq or F Mughal) … nothing but a shameless, agended Islamic apologists.
Even BBC darlings are starting to disown these problematic shills.
example below, do listen in
Cleggy’ll eat halal pizza (so long as it’s labelled), so that’s all right, then.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/10815744/Nick-Clegg-I-would-eat-a-halal-pizza-but-it-must-be-labelled.html
So what’s the point in labelling it, if he’ll eat it anyway?
What a load of fuss about nothing. What a sad state we find ourselves in, if we are reduced to scrutinising every label on everything before buying or eating it, in case the contents offend our “faith”.
And what if you discover afterwards, that something you’ve eaten (and found delicious) doesn’t quite fit in with your religious expectations – are you going to throw it all up again?
Religion has a lot to answer for.
oh let me cast my mind back. A few years ago I complained that on one of the many varied cooking programs. One of the “cooks” informed us that halal was the best meat. Unfortunately I’ve now lost the records of that complaint. I also entered into an in depth argument with Asda which was over four years ago also about halal. Others I know where also trying to raise awareness of the issue. The animal welfare brigade were not in the slightest bit interested to the best of my knowledge. I’ve known for a very long time what has been going on, that why we never us Subway or KFC. What interests me is why something that has been ongoing for several years is all of a sudden “news”.
That Vanessa is just bloody awful , but she was caught out , when a woman caller rang in ,who VF assumed was white English & complained about halal being served in supermarkets without her knowledge . VF was basically telling her “So what , & who cares?” ,when the woman said she was a Sikh ,who are not allowed to eat halal for religious reasons. VF nearly choked on the mic , followed by silence & immediate back tracking . Just typical of her lefty type & I know she is Jewish .
Following on from the scandal of Halal food at the top of the thread …
BBC 5Live … has a “your call” phone in, on this subject now.
As per usual, biased from the off, with the Islamic perspective (surprised?) given unfair airtime so far, there is continuous attempt to narrow the debate to just “labelling”.
One switched on caller (at least), has not read the script …
bringing it back to cruelty, unnecessary suffering, and a important point … many animals are ritually slaughtered and pass into our food chain unlabelled – especially those that have been, for some reason, declared haram,(re not Islamic), in the post-slaughter inspection! This haram ritually slaughtered carcasses are not allowed to be labelled ‘halal’ – so …. they pass unlabelled into our Supermarkets!
But of course, immediately, this chap disappears into the ether, thanks to … “BBC microphone fairy” intervention.
no link …. yet
Listening too Noggin.
With dhimmi Campbell hosting what else can you expect?
Please post the link when you get the chance.
I was particularly interested in how, when a Christian lady expressed concerns that Muslim prayers may have been offered over meat she ate, Campbell got all flippant;
To paraphrase;”It’s the same geezer isn’t it?” “Does it really matter?”
But when the Muslim man rings in, not a hint of flippancy over his chosen “deity”.
Campbell fucks me off the vast majority of the time. But today he excelled himself.
agreed will, that lady and I believe a Sikh gentleman too, but not an intentional oversight simply, the show was running as I typed up.
5live – your call”
sadly, if you want to miss the al bbc apolifest – best to skip to 22 mins
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b042lgy3
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b042lgy1
2hrs 24 min.
Cheers Noggin.
Important people have a listen to hear what a truly spineless appeaser Campbell really is (if they didn’t already know, natch)
Where is all the UAF/SWP/HateHope rent-a-mob scum ? They should be fighting for animal welfare at every halal slaughterhouse in the country.
Islamic Republic of PAKISTAN.
Two contrasting headlines on Islamic jihadi murder of lawyer.
1.) ‘Jihadwatch’:-
“Pakistan: Islamic jihadists murder lawyer defending man accused of blasphemy”
By Robert Spencer.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/pakistan-islamic-jihadists-murder-lawyer-defending-man-accused-of-blasphemy
2.)BBC-NUJ:-
“Pakistan ‘blasphemy lawyer’ shot dead in Multan office”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-27319433
Yes the BBC is now giving headlines to the 200+ Nigerian schoolgorls. And John Humphrys even used the word “terrorists” to describe Boko Haram – a word that the BBC has been scrupulously avoiding in all its other reporting. But the accent has been on blaming the Nigerian government.
But NO – the BBC is still not reporting on all the reports and general supposition in Nigeria that the girls are now sex slaves, subject to being “married off” or being sold into sex slavery. No real mention of selling them off – which the Boko Haram leader was openly boasting about. And no mention of forced “conversion” to Islam under threat of death.
So in spite of the belated headlines the BBC is still underplaying major aspects of this tragedy. It is all being described as an “abduction” without describing the brutal truth of the horror the girls are enduring.
Bias by omission, as usual.
I heard on the BBC about Nick Clegg’s recent major rally. But, strangely, I heard nothing about the big rally in Westminster last night to mark the end of the nationwide tour by Nigel Farage. So the BBC can report on a rally in Swansea that had to be cancelled because of risks of violence by SWP and other – but not the huge meeting last night.
I wonder if this is because the whole thrust of the rally was to slam the racism slurs that the BBC loves amplifying. Compare these 2 written “reports”. Breitbart gives a real and vivid description, saying that the main speaking was by black and ethnic candidates, hitting back time after time at the racism charges, with Farage merely giving his standard stump speech at the end.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/07/Farage-do-not-ever-call-us-racist
By contrast the BBC plays down the ethnic speakers – they hardly get a mention in this report :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27315328
re. Question Time tonight – if UKIP is polling 35 to 40% support, the audience should be 35 to 40 % UKIP supporters to be in any way credible. Or even 20%. I expect the BBC will have selected a mere handful of UKIP supporters so they can be shouted down by all the lefties if they even get a word in.
Another story that the BBC won’t be reporting, Richard North catches ‘Mr. EU’ Nick Clegg out on the numbers game.
Remember how, in the second ‘debate’, he told us how unimportant the EU really was(!) and that Nigel Farage was scaremongering?
Well here he is, when he was an MEP, writing in the BBC’s house journal, telling us how important the EU is and that “probably half of new legislation now enacted in the UK begins in Brussels”.
An idiot AND a liar. Surely that is a more important than an ‘off-message’ tweet by a UKIP candidate? He is, after all, deputy PM.
Good find.
As a corollary though, even if UKIP swept the board at the euros, they would still only hold 9.7 percent of the votes. And then, with anything of importance coming through, the Commission could exercise its powers under Article 11 to overrule the Parliament, in the unlikely event that anything happened that it didn’t like.
So the democratically elected representatives of the people can have their decisions over ruled by the unelected Commissioners !
Just to remind you, that’s people like Peter Mandelson and Neil Kinnock.
Clegg needs confronting with this. Is it 50%, or only 7% as he said to Farage?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26843996
The pair traded verbal blows over the percentage of British laws made in Brussels, with Mr Clegg claiming it was only about 7%
Well done Jim.
Why is it that a poster on this blog can find such utterances, when the ever-so impartial, balanced BBC, with their army of 7000 journalists, are unable to?
Excellent find.
Taught me nothing new about Clegg though.
I’ve always thought he was a kn*bhead.
I’ve just given a story to the local press of an attempt 4 years ago to take over a local senior school by Muslim parents.
At the time it was seen as unusual enough to report but with no knowledge of the sinister plot behind it, no more was made of it than what appeared at face value.
It is only now when the story is revisited that all the pieces fit into place and it can be seen for what it is.
Ofsted / Birmingham council tell me it is the earliest example they have heard of to date, and although the plot did not succeed it is of some historical importance as it can be shown that the plot was widespread and in operation long before was previously thought.
I’ll not go into details because I’m sure that a story like this will end up in the nationals after the local rag has had its day of glory.
Very interesting piece on the hard left in this Country and their new found hatred of UKIP…
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/ukip-haters-desperately-seeking-fascism/14985#.U2taNigzKiD
These hate groups are certainly focussing on UKIP – trying to disrupt meetings, defacing posters etc.
I gather the SWP are having a demo in a big shopping centre nearby this Saturday. I must remember to pop along and remind them that we live in a democracy – so why are the not fielding any candidates for the local elections ?
Difficult times for the UAF and Hope not Hate, both funded by the Unions, even have their major meetings on TUC premises, but alas, inadequate evidence of fascists. Never mind, focus on UKIP as a racist, homophobic, embryonic fascist party and continue to collect from the unions. Anyone confused over their role in a democracy, then glance at the UAF facebook page. It is full of hate and calls for disruption of UKIP meetings. Want to argue with them, have a discussion? See how long your post will last on their page. I think these people are the BBC’s HYS moderators.
Because the Socialist workers party oppose democracy…They seek a totalitarian system where their word is sacrisanct..
And as for Hope not Hate, Cressey was formerly an SWP member, Nick lowles ran with “Red Action”, whilst the most ridiculous creature of all Matthew Collins, was a prominant member of the National Front, before he grassed his former Nazis up to Searchlight……Oh yeah, and then there’s Ruth Smeeth…About to stand as a Labour candidate for Stoke central…
I think the electorate of Stoke need to discover who she “hangs with”.
SWP fascists usually have a stall in my town centre on a saturday.
I know they relish protest and the free and frank exchange of views.
Meh maybe I’ll kick the table over on saturday see how *they* like it.
Read the comments section- very interesting post by ‘mike smith’ about leaked common purpose document
I did that a couple of years back in a fit of rage and, boy, did they not like a taste of their own medicine.
Mark,
Something similar happened to me a number of years ago, I was walking through Dewsbury Bus Station when we stopped at a stall by these idiots. They demanded that we sign a petition against the US. I kindly refused and walked away and the young hippy proceeded to throw abuse at me calling me a fascist and the like. As we walked away he actually followed us and not only continued to throw abuse, but that If I came back he would kick the shit out of me. Who I’m I to refuse such an offer. However for some strange reason as I walked towards him, he in turn walked, then ran away. (all the while throwing abuse and that he could take me) At this I walked away and once around the corner, I ran in a huge circle in which to outflank this prick and smash his lights out. Unfortunately just as I was about to grab the wanker, i found myself rugby tackled by my best mate , who succeeded in stopping me kicking the shit out of this leftwing toffu eater.
Mind you his face was a peach when he realised I was just behind him, and like all leftwing arseholes, he did a runner.
Beeboids, as an unelected part of E.U political class of decision-makers, won’t like this:-
‘Telegraph’ (£)-
“Our political leaders are losing authority fast.
Voters across Europe are fed up with the political elite, but there is a glimmer of hope”
By Sue Cameron.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10798833/Our-political-leaders-are-losing-authority-fast.html
‘Telegraph’ (£)-
“My compulsory halal pizza is hard to swallow”
By Brendan O’Neill.
[Excerpt]:-
“Yet anyone who criticises the phenomenon of default halal risks being branded an Islamophobe. Yesterday’s Guardian was scathing of critics of Pizza Express’s crafty feeding of halal chicken to all its patrons. This was a simple case of food outlets making their products more ‘acceptable’ in a ‘changing Britain’, it said. This is a newspaper whose columnists bore on about where their food comes from. Yet as soon as someone says, ‘You know what, I think I’ll pass on that chicken that had its throat cut while it was still conscious’, the Guardian accuses them of being Muslim-haters. Imagine if every Strada in Britain secretly started smothering its dishes in cheese from a settlement in the West Bank? Bien pensant types would be amassing Molotov cocktails.
“The argument now seems to be that if you don’t want to eat halal meat then you’re Islamophobic. In short, not being a Muslim is now an act of Islamophobia. Strewth.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100270578/my-compulsory-halal-pizza-is-hard-to-swallow/
No comments allowed, natch, in the all-new singing and dancing leftie Telegraph.
Closed comments
Why do you keep putting (£) after ‘Telegraph’?
The articles in the Telegraph are free to read. They are not behind a paywall.
Paywall kicks in after thirty articles (you can get around the restriction by deleting any telegraph.co.uk cookies or using a Private Window in your browser).
Halal being discussed on Jeremy Whine right now, BBC resident muslim Mehdi Hassan saying “we’re being alarmist over the issue” claiming its not about animal rights, its all about islamaphobia. That’s right Mehdi, play the victim card and indirectly call any opponents racists. The BBC give him a platform to sprout this crap. and also note the carefully selected callers who don’t seem to have a problem with it.
What gets me is if a vet were putting down cats or dogs by ‘humanely’ slitting their throats the animal rights nutters and the RSPA issue would all over it and plod soon knocking on his door….
Just waiting for:
Professor Jim Al-Khalil
Philip Pullman
Tim Minchin
Dr Simon Singh
Ken Follett
Dr Adam Rutherford
Sir John Sulston
Sir David Smith
Professor Jonathan Glover
Professor Anthony Grayling
Nick Ross
Virginia Ironside
Professor Steven Rose
Natalie Haynes
Peter Tatchell
Professor Raymond Tallis
Dr Iolo ap Gwynn
Stephen Volk
Professor Steve Jones
Sir Terry Pratchett
Dr Evan Harris
Dr Richard Bartle
Sian Berry
C J De Mooi
Professor John A Lee
Professor Richard Norman
Zoe Margolis
Joan Smith
Michael Gore
Derek McAuley
Lorraine Barratt
Dr Susan Blackmore
Dr Harry Stopes-Roe
Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC
Adele Anderson
Dr Helena Cronin
Professor Alice Roberts
Professor Chris French
Sir Tom Blundell
Maureen Duffy
Baroness Whitaker
Lord Avebury
Richard Herring
Martin Rowson
Tony Hawks
Peter Cave
Diane Munday
Professor Norman MacLean
Professor Sir Harold Kroto
Sir Richard Dalton
Sir David Blatherwick
Michael Rubenstein
Polly Toynbee
Lord O’Neill
Dr Simon Singh
Dan Snow
to declare that:-
“We are not a Islamic meat-eating country”.
boycott halal P Condell
Surely the vermin at the anti-fracking protests will now attack Pizza Express and Subway for their ‘animal cruelty’?
Vine comes out with a winner!
A Sikh caller who complains about having been fed secret halal meat and is told by Vine that “perhaps it is a numbers thing?”
Brilliant, so Sikhs don’t count because they are a minority minority! Using that logic Muslims shouldn’t be told if there is pork and non-halal meat in their food either.
Well spotted Jim. If we’re a nation of 65 million then surely the 4 million Muslims (God help us!) should abide by what the majority want. We can’t keep tolerating the most intolerant practises of this barbaric third world superstition. What next, covert honour killings? Forcing your daughters into black sacks when you send them shuffling off to school? And of course the most vile practice that our once civilized nation has timidly turned a blind eye to, female genital mutilation. I don’t think it’s in any way “phobic” to want to preserve our way of life where animals are killed humanely and women considered equals.
This is typical of Vine, the bbc and the left are beyond belief they make no secret of there love for Islam and the fact they despise all other religions Christians, Jews , Sikhs, Hindus.
Geoff,
Mo Ansar, on BBC London, starts blabbing about first, its prejudice, then the far right?.
M Hasan on Al Beeb 2, its “islamofauxbia”?
Panto Campbell, and his orchestrated nonsense.
so from far right chickens?, to islamofauxbic? lambs
… its clear you, and the BBC are just craven Islamic apologists,
… the public are on to you
Who the hell is he to say it`s not about animal rights?
Of course it is.
Let`s hope that the likes of Tesco and Sainsburys are now forced to get off the fence and boycott unlabelled halal.
None of us asked for this-and when else are we allowed not to label foods when it`s as offensive and loaded as this?
Hoping that this is the one that sets the ball rolling to bin Muhammadism. Their contempt for us is all too clear, and the suckup food chains are fully complicit.
As Brendan O’Neill said ‘Imagine if every Strada in Britain secretly started smothering its dishes in cheese from a settlement in the West Bank?’
In this long report, the word ‘Islamist’ gets only one mention by Islam Not BBC (INBBC):-
“Nigeria abducted schoolgirls: Malala Yousafzai urges action”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-27320098
The political left-Islam alliance is still trying to blame this mass violence against Christian schoolgirls on something other than the Islamic perpetrators.
Today’s DT bash UKIP article is penned by BBC serial lesbian lefty luvvie and the husband/wife of Mr/s Balding and ex of BBC resident lesbian comedian/enne Sandi Toksvig.
Alice Arnold tries to denigrate UKIP’s Newark candidate Roger Helman over his anti homosexual remarks, which ironically were made when he was a member of the Tory party. The overwhelming impression from the comments is that most disagree, can’t be too long before the comments are closed.
The hypocrisy of the BBC with regards to halal meat is staggering. Flick through their TV schedules and note the large number of programmes devoted to food – its production, preparation, consumption and the politics surrounding it – all indicating a massive interest in all aspects of the subject. Yet the topic of religious slaughter is noticeable by its total absence. The issues here go to the heart of democratic politics. Firstly, whether right or wrong, whether their views are based on rationality or sentiment, the vast majority of people in this country are opposed to it. Yet they are not even allowed a voice. Secondly, if such methods of production are deemed acceptable, then they are applicable to all meat production and if they are not acceptable then they cannot be allowed anywhere. The notion of one rule for some, one for others is obnoxious, whether it is based on religious belief, wealth, gender or any of the other things that the BBC profess to hold so dearly. Thirdly, there is the deliberate suppression of information by the supermarkets and food producers, preventing people making an informed choice. The reason they do not label their meat is because they know very well that people would not be happy with its method of production. People were not happy being fed horse when they though they were buying beef and it is no different from that. The BBC – and in fairness they are not alone – are conniving in this suppression of information. Given the current laws of the UK there is no issue with selling halal and kosher meat, but it must be labelled correctly so that those who seek it or those who wish to avoid it can do so.
Well said Ian, that had never occurred to me. All the food programmes keep plugging “organic” this, “ethical” that, “sustainable” the other but on this matter sod all.
If the indigenous population were unaware that they were buying halal meat it must follow that they were being deliberately kept in the dark ,the muzzies were under no illusion ,they must have been informed ,so why weren’t we ?
What I don’t quite get why is it that there is so much Halal meat being sold when only 3% of the population demand it?
Does this mean that non Muslim run slaughterhouses are employing Muslims to perform the task, which leads on to racial discrimination in the workplace, but I guess that’s OK as it only works one way.
Here’s an answer in the form of a report from a Pakistani newspaper explaining how an agreement signed by the Blair/Brown regime could provide employment in Britain for 5000 butchers from Pakistan (see http://www.nation.com.pk/Business/30-Nov-2008/5000-Pak-butchers-to-get-jobs-in-UK/).
Great link, explains a lot, thank you.
Great link – since I personally am an atheist and do not want to eat meat cruelly medieval slaughtered and wondered who approved all this in Government – further evidence, as if we needed any, of Labour animal rights and immigration policies at work. Roll on Chilcot and UKIP,:
5,000 Pak butchers to get jobs in UK
November 30, 2008 ASIF MAHMOOD
LONDON – Over 5,000 butchers from Pakistan would get employment in the halal meat industry of UK through Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between National Halal Foods Group (NHFG) of UK and Overseas Employment Cooperation of Pakistan. The MoU has been signed here at the Pakistan High Commission, London Friday.
If they ‘demand ‘ it they would be better advised to go to the nearest airport and get a flight to Pakistan or Bangladesh no longer a problem!!
Nigeria violence: Islam Not BBC (INBBC) political line
– ‘don’t blame the Islamic perpetrators.’
Following on from ‘Today’, INBBC’s Radio 4’s ‘World At One’ continued its political propaganda to deflect responsibility for violence away from Islamic Boko Haram, and on to the disparity between ‘wealth and ‘poverty’. In other words, INBBC is touting the ‘moral’ line that mass violence actions against schoolgirls by Islamic jihadists can be exonerated by poverty!” And INBBC put on Islamic propaganda to that effect from someone from BBC Hausa Service of Nigeria, which represents Muslims, and is paid for by British licencepayers!
where is it on the BBC, orchestrated continual gang rape
of these children? … taken to a different part of the country? lax government action?
any link to Bolton, Bradford, Derby, Oxford, Rotherham
is purely coincidental.
any link between gangs of Paedostani s, and these Nigerians?
anything at all.
Nigel Farage has tweeted he’s on Question Time tonight, yet the BBC seem to think he’s not important enough to mention on the QT webpage, strange…..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b043b2rs
With the obligatory lefty audience, it also looks like a four against one affair, Dimbleby, Shirley Williams, Ummna and Shapps…
and that disgusting communist in green clothing Caroline Mucus is on it as well
Hope he goes for the ‘sainted’ Shirley over why she destroyed the Grammar school system with her, her children and grand children not choosing to go to her world class comps but to independent schools – biggest hypocrite in the liberal establishment but generally given a free pass
Very strange – wonder why that is? No mention at all that Farage is on QT tonight on your link Geoff:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b043b2rs
Could it be security?
If I was Farage I would pull out at the last minuet claiming that their had been death threats (Lets face it I’m sure there have been)
made against me
That would deny the BBC the chance of their all out last ditch attack and place he the other panelists in the position of either condemning or condoning those threats
No – I think Nige will relish the chance to insult them to their faces – to say that the old parties have totally failed to listen to the electorate, that is why UKIP is so high in the polls. And I would expect him to snap back at Dimbleby if he tries to manipulate the flow of debate.
On the halal issue and Dhimmi Dave has copped out massively.
The capitulation of the nation continues unabated.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10816382/Its-up-to-retailers-whether-they-clearly-label-halal-products-No-10-says.html#disqus_thread
At least the DT has opened these to comments (pre-shutting the one about tip-toes around sensibilities was an irony failure of major proportion), and they are pretty reasonable, if not going well for the idiot in No. 10.
“The Prime Minister’s view on this is that this is an issue of consumer choice and consumer information.” – But we can’t make that choice if we’re not given the information. Clear labelling would allow everyone to make that choice.
Indeed. Given the efforts by government and establishment media on labelling – from fag packets to health traffic lights to eco-disposal – it seems remarkable it’s all become, like, ‘whatevva!’ from a chillaxed PM.
The BBC’s take will be interesting, given their often unique stances on what needs clear choices, informing and educating about, and what needs force-imposing, not mentioning or covering for.
I just wonder how BBC’s ‘Countryfile will cover the topic?
http://www.countryfile.com/countryside/the-truth-about
Countryfile covered halal slaughter, a few weeks back, in a totally sanitised and bullshit way. Links to the video were posted here. Dont ever expect them to cover it properly.
Would anyone expect anything else from Dhimmi Dave?
you means this Dhimmi D Camoron?
“So the truth is, if we are going to build that strong, vibrant and inclusive society, we need… many more Muslim men and women at the top of British businesses. Many more Muslim soldiers in the highest level of command. And, of course, more Muslims in our parliament. So there’s not just one Muslim in the cabinet, and one in the shadow cabinet, but British Muslims all across government in positions of leadership and authority”
or this D Camerimam?
“Muslims I’ve talked to about these issues are deeply offended by the use of the word ‘Islamic’ or ‘Islamist’ to describe the terrorist threat we face today …
It is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around”
or this one
Will he ask them to support the sanctification of sodomy?
to help with his speech
http://youtu.be/iMusJoH2vRc
Why doesn’t this twat make a youtube entry to wish me a Happy Christmas………..or is it that I don’t feature in his thoughts…………
Why am I so immensely annoyed having watched this crap?
Roll on the revolution
Whilst reading that dhimmi speech by our beloved prime minister, I wondered how it would sound if the word ‘muslim’ was replaced by ‘jewish’. By doing that, it highlighted just how ‘racist’ Cameron’s comment was. It is, of course, preposterous to suppose that that statement would ever be made about jews, but there appears to be no compunction about making it about musselmen.
See this Dhimmi speech, his grovelling to the BBC, lying to defend Islam (in in his response to the murder of Lee Rigby), his hostility towards UKIP supporters, and connect it with his role as a founder supporter of UAF, whose thug behaviour on our streets is becoming more apparent during the elections. We already have an Islamic dominated government supported by mobs – just like the muslim brotherhood do things in countries where they have access to power.
Sharia law says halal is NOT obligatory. Therefore, there are no religious grounds for it being provided in the UK. This means that the demand for provision of halal, and its imposition on non-muslims, is entirely political.
Like we didn’t know – another trojan horse to ‘normalise burkah – non oblig, sharia, concessions for Ramadan (non oblig for kids, Beards in schools – non oblig for kids.
Slowly slowly catchee Clarkson. I believe that the strategy has been posted on the interweb – so should come as no surprise.
The useful idiots have let it go unchallenged so it will continue to ratchet up
Hey guys,
What’s the current situation with the Question Time LiveBlog? Used to be a highlight of the televisual week before the hosting issues crept in. Is there an alternative forum or chat service on the web that is or can be used?
ScottishCalvin
halal off david cameron.
BBC radio 4
‘How much of the scare about Halal meat has been about food and how much about ‘Islamofauxbia’?
You just know where that’s going to go with the BBC fully backing the fascist viewpoint.
Well it was every bit as bad as I thought with a hysterical professional Muslim victim who writes for the Huffington post managing to turn the fact that the white majority who are not being told what they are eating into the oppressors who are victimising Muslims.
She moaned that the same headlines would not have been written about Kosher food despite the fact that it had already been mentioned that a Rabbi had responded regarding the religious slaughter of animals.
She mentioned unchallenged that there was a spike in Islamophobic attacks recorded by groups like ‘Tell Mama’.
All of this rant was allowed to proceed unchallenged by the drone who simply allowed her to vent her spleen.
There was brief mention of the suffering of animals and a vet was wheeled on, who confirmed that it does cause greater suffering, but it was only a brief intervention.
There is no chance of Kosher food being sold on mass, by the time everyone has had their cut ( no pun intended ) it costs 3 times as much as none Kosher.
And I take it this woman meant that the Jews have far too much influence to be criticised.
The old anti Jewish tropes again, she must have been watching Gaza TV.
Perhaps she has committed the crime of Yiddiphobia?
She committed the crime of breathing.
You an Arsenal fan ?
I guess there must be hundreds, if not thousands, of instances of the bbc shaming rape victims as `gold diggers`.
how odd then that this is the only one I can find
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27328185
There was an hour’s debate in the House of Lords yesterday about biased BBC coverage of the EU. Centre-stage was a demand that the BBC Charter is not renewed until the bias is rectified. It can be read in full here:
http://bit.ly/1jD06rS
As far as I can tell, the peers’ collective words on this vital topic have gone unreported. The debate was initiated by Lord Pearson of Rannoch who referred to a News-watch report that said that says that the BBC’s Prebble report (that gave the corporation’s EU coverage a virtual clean bill of health) was unprofessional and ‘incestuous’.
The News-watch report is here: http://bit.ly/1l2yDQ6
What’s most galling was the way that the Coalition spokesman Lord Bates, actually defended the BBC. He said:
“In conclusion, I thank again the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for raising this important issue, and all noble Lords who spoke in this debate. We have much to be proud of in the way that public service broadcasters in Great Britain cover news impartially and accurately. To date, this has allowed the UK to build arguably the best broadcasting industry in the world, bringing benefits to the UK public and across the globe. Given that the BBC is central to this broadcasting landscape, and the unique way in which it is funded, it is essential that the BBC retains the public’s trust as an impartial purveyor of news and programming and of balanced coverage of all matters. It is critical that it continues to do this.”
It’s no wonder the BBC doesn’t give a hoot about criticism. They think they are untouchable – and remarks like that, when there’s clear evidence to the contrary about the BBC’s performance, make it clear why.
He might not have said what you think he said though. The language is subtle as is often the case, but when he talks of ‘public service broadcasting’ he is not referring to the BBC exclusively but to all the broadcasters collectively who have a public service requirement by statute.
It might be a subtle point, but the fact he does not say that the BBC is impartial and accurate could be sending a message.
This is reinforced by the way in which he then goes on to discuss the BBC directly and talking about it being essential that it does not lose the publics trust, implying that there is a risk that it will.
It’s just a suggestion, but sometimes there is more than meets the eye in ‘diplomatic language’.
Here’s Radio 4 Today producer Adam Cumiskey tweeting his love for Bill Drummond because he painted over a UKIP billboard:
A producer on the UK’s most influential news programme openly antagonistic towards the party leading the EU polls. Fuck him, fuck the Today programme and fuck the BBC.
In the end all they deserve is four letter words. Very traditionally English.
Left’s intolerance and censorship is its ‘freedom of speech’!
Adam Cumisky/Bill Drummond, facists, plain and simple. “I don’t believe in free speech, democracy, or the rule of law. I think I should be allowed to disfigure anything I disagree with” Pieces of sh1t, given a free pass, by the Guardian because, basically “we think the same way”. Vile organisation – which is the main daily talking points briefing to BBC journos. I thought incest was illegal? Not when it’s license-payer funded.
Drummond, Welsh…the BBC loves its Celtic weekend rebels with money to burn and porn to sell.
No doubt all able to expound on colonial art to Kirstys, Naughties and Warks as they toss the salad when Salmond invites them over at the weekends in Edinburgh.
Real art is for the birds…Jack Vettriano is a Scot they`d never have invited onto Newsnight or The Guardian.
OK for the white trash, less so for the tartan shortbreads who do rather well down here.
Devolution?…yes please, send the buggers back.
The Vox Jocks need repatriation-and shake `em down for the training they`ve had down here at public expense before they go too!
Balmoral is ours as well, I`d think! Send it home!
Judging by the comments, even Guardian readers despise Drummond for what he has done. The general tone is that he exemplifies the worst of left wing fascism.
Speaks volumes that the senior and influential BBC producer approves of his actions.
Continuing along the lines of our Muslim / halal debate I recalled something that happened when I lived in south London. We had enjoyed (ahem) a huge influx of Muslims during the Blair years and we had foist upon us a couple of mosques, an halal butchers, Somali cafes etc ; indeed the full array of cultural enrichment. The area seemed to change over night. Traditional shops shut and pubs closed and I barely recognised the old place. But it wasn’t enough. Perusing the local rag one morning, and it wasn’t the 1st of April, I read of a proposal for an Islamic lavatory to be built (at public expense, of course.) I promise you this isn’t a wind up and Streatham now boasts a Muslim bog. Why chaps (it was a Gents) who follow this faith need to spend a penny in a different way to the rest of us remains a mystery.
Honestly, I’m not taking the piss…
Yep, ’06, that was.
Did anyone hear John Humphreys on ‘Today’ this morning being scolded by a Nigerian gov. spokesman as being “prejudiced against a black country” when he suggested that they were not doing anything about those girls?
There was a lovely bit of silence after that. Very telling…
Oh, to hear a Beeboid being given a taste of their own, foul medicine! Didn’t like it, did you John? Yes, the silence spoke volumes…
And Jon Snow got a similar blasting the other night from a redoubtable lady in a big flowery frock.
She`d be taking no lessons in how to deal with Boko Haram from some fop who tried to imply that the enslavement of these girls was only a natural response to poverty and corruption.
She was focussed and refused to let Snow off the hook-this was a feminist educational issue, not a plaything for political kudos by wordy dabblers that put her nations girls in danger.
No wonder Snow sought out a grieving Geldof to tell him what he wanted to hear…poverty, nowt to do with Islam…which we`ll not even deign to mention lest you think we`re racist like you lot!
Don`t these dusky colonials know the rules of liberal media interviews-to confirm the lazy liberal reflexes of the air miles grief/guilt trippers?
Maybe we need a BBC Outreach of Black African Journalism so the natives learn to genuflect before white panjandrums who`ve done f***all since 1967.
Well done Nigerian Government speakers-you`re playing a part in sending the shit on stilts that is the BBC to the bottom of the briney!
I do enjoy it when you see Africans come on to news programmes in the UK, and they give the patronising leftist interviewing them a right bollo*king.
The synapses in Snow’s brain must have been fried by the excruciating cognitive dissonance the situation presented.
Next chairman ‘should abolish role’
Roger Mosey, whose career at the BBC included stints as editor of the Today programme, controller of Radio 5 Live and head of television news, said the Trust “simply hasn’t worked as a regulatory body”.
In a letter to the London Evening Standard, he said: “Much of the red tape associated with the trust can be scrapped and it’s perfectly possible for content regulation to be done by Ofcom or the like. After the failures of recent years, the best chair would be someone who promises to abolish the role as it currently exists, saving us millions into the bargain.”
How the bBC bigs up Islamic (wannebe) terrorists:
Abu Hamza tells court of MI5 ‘work’
Radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri acted as a secret intermediary with MI5, his lawyers have claimed. The Egyptian-born preacher, on trial in New York charged with terror offences, claims he was tasked to “keep the streets of London safe”.It is not the first time he has made the claim, having previously said that MI5 first contacted him in 1997.
And if you click on his bBC bio they have this to say about the Islamic bigot:
“In 1987, after meeting Abdullah Azzam, an influential supporter of the notion of Muslims being obliged to fight jihad, Abu Hamza moved to Afghanistan. It was while he was in the country he lost his arm and an eye. He reportedly accidentally blew himself up during explosives training though he denies this. He returned to the UK in 1993 for treatment. But within two years he had left Britain again to support Bosnian Muslims during the break-up of the former Yugoslavia.
So the bBC informs the world that Abu (I love British benefits) Hamza was a tool of the British and they claim he lost his hands fighting for Allah. well I’ve known for ages (it is public knowledge) how the twat really lost his hands and today in court he himself explained how he lost his hands:
Abu Hamza, the extremist cleric, has claimed he actually lost his hands building a road in Pakistan as his long-standing reputation of being a jihad veteran in Afghanistan crumbled.
The hook-handed fanatic has previously claimed disfigurement that left him using his distinctive prosthetic hook was suffered while fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan during the early 1990s. But Abu Hamza gave his full version of events during his trial on 11 terrorism charges in New York. The trained civil engineer said that he was working on a road project with the Pakistan army and Arab veterans of the jihad conflict in neighbouring Afghanistan. He said that he was carrying liquid explosives that were being mixed by another engineer when the container exploded in 1993.
I wonder why the bBC haven’t amended their bio of the twat?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10818017/Abu-Hamza-reputation-as-jihad-veteran-crumbles-in-court.html
Maybe they like to promote the view that Muslims can only be victims of the …white (Russian) man.
The bBC, the traitors within our midst
“I wonder why the bBC haven’t amended their bio..”
—
Could make him temporary Trust Chairperson.
It would be updated before A. Journalist could say what’s really news.
Those 14…1 PR eager beavers know what’s a real priority.
Typical Liberal statement from Shirley Williams on QT, immigrants are always the doctor’s never the patients, always the teachers never the students and always the bus driver’s never the passengers…
Don’t worry, Nigel is ritually slaughtering them.
Halal I believe.
I think you must be mistaken. I have just been on BBC News front page and on the iPlayer ad it plainly says “David Dimbleby presents (QT) with Grant Shapps MP, Chuka Umunna MP, and Shirley Williams”. So you see he wasn’t there – an unperson!
Shirley Williams is a joke. The woman’s love for the disastrous Comprehensive education system that she devised is a wonder of fantasy over reality. Topped only by sending her daughter to a Grammar school after moving house to get in to the Grammar school’s zone. Then complaining that the Comprehensive system wasn’t as successful as is it could be because “middle class parents” weren’t sending their children to their local shithole Comp! (forgive language and punctuation I like many went to a shithole Comp’).
She’s a joke. Last year (early this year?) when she was on QT Starkey took her and the rest of the nepotistic panelists on QT to the cleaners (Harman, Williams, Coren and Dimbleby). But she’s so damned brass necked it doesn’t sink in and she keeps popping up. She said, I remember very well, that UKIP support was “just mid term blues” a stupid statement from someone clearly out of touch (she’s in the Lords, that expensive and undemocratic state sponsored retirement home for rich politicians if they are too daft to get a job at the EU, so it’s no surprise) to the anger of the many people on British streets.
”immigrants are always the doctor’s never the patients, always the teachers never the students and always the bus driver’s never the passengers… ”
Tell that to Kris Donald’s or Lee Rigby’s parents.
I like that, it resonates so much more clearly – always we are being told about the immigration benefits but not the negative impacts on the nations social fabric, infrastructure and the cost to the taxpayer, (like the grossly stupid paying child benefit for the kids back home):
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/1.38
Having spent time in the foyer of King’s College Hospital
waiting for my better half to emerge, it seems to me that our esteemed immigrant doctors and nurses bring their patients with them.
Someone should ask Shirley why there are few Indian students coming over now.
The answer is that the only way to reduce immigration while we’re in the EU is to squeeze non-EU and mostly non-white folks.
In Shirley’s fantasy world we had no immigrant workers in the NHS before we joined the EU in 1973.
Theres an awkward truth for the left..
Our medical colleges have always been oversubscribed [by a factor of 10]… there has NEVER been a need to import foreign doctors.
To put it crudely, it’s a very real case of ‘coming over ‘ere, taking our jobs’.
Yes the lazy whites never work, how on earth did we manage before mass immigration, I mean how did we win 2 world wars, have the largest empire the world has seen, lead the industrial revolution, invent more, discover more than any other nation.
Watching the recent program about parking on BBC1, it seems like a majority of the traffic wardens in London are immigrants. Why do we need to import people to do a job like this, which doesn’t require any skills, when we have about two million unemployed?
I love that buttery biscuit base.
Nice to see Mary Beard on Masterchef.
On 9/11 and the murder of three thousand decent folk…
‘”However tactfully you dress it up, the United States had it coming. That is, of course, what many people openly or privately think’.
I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether this woman was one of the ‘many people’.
Lucky for her she didn’t say ‘eeny miny mumble’ eh.
BBC – always disgusting.
Charmingly chuntering away with her mouth full.
Mmm, and ‘historian’ Terry Deary, too who didn’t go off on a class warfare/British oppression rant for just about the first time I’ve seen him : some heavy editing maybe, as one would have thought that the combo of Hever, Henry VIII etc etc would have flipped his lid to the ‘incandecent’ setting at 5 miles range. Two out of three, so thank goodness for Lucy.
Should be ‘incandescent’ obv.
Spot the lefty plant, well rehearsed and Fimbeley kept the subject going long enough to ensure he got his say in. Research required into exactly who this chap is, Amy Rutland mk2…
Ginger tosser.
Just watched 40 minutes of Question Time babbling on about the wonders of Mass Immigration.
Tortuous.
On QT when Farage was trying to point out, correctly, that the Pfizer bid would ultimately be decided not by the coalition government but by Europe, the panel joined together in a mass hoeling down.
He still managed to own ‘the British Obama’ with…
‘you’re either wilfully lying to these people or you’re pig ignorant’.
I would say ‘both… and’ rather than ‘either…or’ but sheer class nonetheless.
That was the most disgraceful thing I have seen on QT for many years. When Nigel Farage tried to speak, as you say, he was shouted down by all others panellists, and Dimbleby allowed it. It was so blatant, it was surely planned? The outrage of it is that other speakers are given the courtesy of quiet when they speak, but ‘the claque’ show no such common decency where Farage is concerned.
I don’t think it’s planned any more than lions killing their prey is planned.
It comes naturally. It’s just what they do.
If it was plan then it backfired spectacularly – most neutrals would have sided with Nigel after that display.
I’m sure I’m just being paranoid but it sounded like the other panellists had their microphones turned up a little bit louder than Farage. When he was speaking at times all you could hear were the screams of the other panellists.A bit of political meddling in the editing suite/gallery perhaps?
Remember when the BBC showed a picture of Farage with a Hitler moustache? Did anything ever come of that?
“The picture was originally tweeted by BBC TV Sportscaster Olly Foster, before he deleted the post saying: “Apologies for my previous tweet. An error of judgement on my behalf.”
The BBC said in a statement “The big screen is owned by MediaCity UK, not the BBC. The fault has been reported to them and they are working to rectify it as soon as possible.””
I liked the plant in the back row, man in his mid 50s ” Don’t interrupt me Farage” ( how rude ) ”I remember McCarthy and the Rivers of Blood ” ( Powell never said that line, made up by the media to smear him) I’m amazed he didn’t throw in Alfred Dreyfuss for good measure .
No fool like the an old fool.
The plant(?) also went on about UKIP creating a climate of fear before going on… “I fear for British industry if we leave the EU”. Priceless.
He was very self confident, being the first time on television, wasn’t he ? you’d think he rehearsed his little speech / rant !!
He stated that he voted in the 1975 referendum, the first time he voted ‘he thinks’ all too convenient, he looked good for 57 (at least) plant/actor…..
He was very theatrical, camp even, ham acting acting at its finest !!
Amazingly, our speechifying chum didn’t even have to look to left or right when Dimby pointed to the back row so as to check that it was indeed HIMSELF being indicated. Almost as if he expected to be picked out………
That’s interesting. Haven’t seen it yet (the blood pressure medication hasn’t kicked in yet) but unless Dimby was using a laser pointer, it would be very hard to know.
What the clown said was …
‘I’m old enough to have *read* about McCarthyism….’
Yeah, big whoop, chummy. My five year old is old enough to have read about McCarthyism and the rivers of blood speech. She hasn’t – but she’s old enough to have.
Very bright – she was reading at three, and short-changing customers in her grandad’s corner-shop at the age of four.
old enough to read rivers of blood?
rivers of blood … who actually said that then?
It appears to me, he s old enough to selectively read media propaganda .
.. and his voice … hmmm I ve heard that somewhere before? …
If he was old enough to remember that speech then he is old enough to have watched most of Powell’s predictions vindicated
The streets of England ,like the river Tiber, do indeed ‘foam with much blood’
And ,if like me, he was old enough to voted in the referendum (to stay in the common market) he would know that most people were voting for Belgium beer and cheap holidays in Rimini not the establishment of the EUSSR.
Yes, well I’m old enough to remember when the Bradford pub I used to pass every day on the way to school was in no danger of being firebombed. The thought wouldn’t have occurred to anyone back then.
It was attacked in the Bradford riots, 2001, in order to encourage diversity.
Says it all really!
Chukka Obama Clone screamed at Farage ” You’re part of the establishment !! ” More lies.
Lib Lab Con are all for mass immigration, the EUSSR and pro islam. And they say Britain is democracy ? !!!
The difference between Farage, Cameron, Clegg and Miliband is Farage has actually had a job outside of politics !!
Noticed that not one panelist mentioned the I-word when discussing Boko Haram. Extraordinary.
It’s all down to inequality, apparently.
Oh, and sexism. Shirley Williams thought the story would have gained more traction had it been boys, not girls, who were kidnapped. No, Shirley, Boko Haram simply burn boys to death in their beds. Not newsworthy at all. can’t think why she (apparently) had no idea that such things have been happening. Nor did anyone else, as far as I could tell.
They burn boys to death in their beds, and when they try to escape, they slit their throats as they climb out the windows.
I thought Farage played a blinder – again. As usual he seemed to be the only person giving straight answers to issues the public is really worried about. And for once there was a lot of visible support in the audience.
I have not watched QT for years now – but having watched it tonight I have followed on by switching to Radio 5 Live – I never usuallly go there. Jeez, what a creep that Nolan guy is – and Pienaar is not much better. I have already heard Nolan lying about UKIP – and quickly cutting off UKIP supporters.
‘The people of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are paying a compulsory tax of £145.50 to an institute which is non patriotic and indeed anti-United Kingdom.
And who represents these ‘tax payers’? The unelected Trustees of the INBBC.
And here is one of the ‘Qualities’ of why they are chosen… “An appreciation of the BBC’s accountability to licence fee payers and the ability to represent licence fee payers’ views”