Morning all. Time for a brand new week and a brand new Open Thread! The floor is yours!
START THE WEEK OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Eddy Booth Nov 5, 01:33
Start the Week 4th November 2024
“Plans to ban smoking outside schools and hospitals” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c79ze8gv1w4o “The Tobacco and Vapes Bill would also make it impossible for… - JohnC Nov 5, 01:25
Start the Week 4th November 2024
Doctors paid £200,000 overtime to tackle NHS backlog https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy0lkxl7061o And once again the BBC use this 100% fake, staged left-wing… - Eddy Booth Nov 5, 01:03
Start the Week 4th November 2024
Joe Rogan and Elon Musk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qZl_5xHoBw&t=4566s Timestamp, they discuss illegals being moved to swing states Love it if trump can… - JohnC Nov 5, 00:28
Start the Week 4th November 2024
The first thing they should teach is that classing a dislike of Islam as a ‘phobia’ is gross misinformation. The… - StewGreen Nov 5, 00:08
Start the Week 4th November 2024
Who is this woman ? https://twitter.com/realmrsthatcher/status/1853336135990407414 Well Twitter isn’t helping by refusing to embed this tweet . you’ll have to… - StewGreen Nov 4, 23:43
Start the Week 4th November 2024
the female/male boxer Imane Khelif, is trending Piers Morgan is convinced the leaked report is true Libmob media call it… - vlad Nov 4, 22:35
Start the Week 4th November 2024
Yep, let market forces decide whether the ‘customers’ want DEI ‘firepersons’ or fireMEN who actually get the job done. PS.… - vlad Nov 4, 22:21
Start the Week 4th November 2024
@Fedup2 – The results are already in. They were decided in 2020 by Obama’s gang of crooks. But I don’t… - vlad Nov 4, 22:20
Start the Week 4th November 2024
By mixing it up with ‘protecting children’ they make it sound more palatable – even virtuous – and more difficult…
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
This morning’s BBC news is dominated by shit stirring and incitement by the BBC on the NHS strike, which I understand was OK’d by just 4% of the union members.
My solution for the problem is this.
Task all managers in making sure the NHS services are only given to the people who are entitled to them.
Mrs MVR works in hospital admin as a clerk, and was recently seconded to another department to help out. In this department, a more senior administrator ensured that every referral was rigorously vetted, asking for ID, passport, proof of address, NI number etc.
In a surprising number of cases, these patients melted away never to return. They were all given the option of paying for the treatments, which most declined.
In the department Mrs MVR is normally in, many patients decline appointments and ask for one in 3 or 4 months time as they will be on “holiday” back to their homelands, which they are granted, even though the appointments are all heart related and as such should be regarded as urgent.
Of the workers she works with, those of “ethnic” origins often ship relatives in when they have a medical problem using their address as proof of entitlement.
In all cases where asked, interpreters are provided at £60 an hour paid for by the department out of its budget which is paid whether the patient turns up or not.
If all this was stamped out, I’m sure the NHS would be able to give their workers and Managers the pay rises they wanted, so why won’t they implement these sensible and legal policies, where are the BBC journalists asking these questions?
‘where are the BBC journalists asking these questions?’
As noted, apparently politely waiting in line to be served up sound-bite satisfactory pilgrims by PR minders.
HOT NEWS
Lee Rigby killer set to claim he is no longer ‘soldier of Allah’ in appeal against sentence
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lee-rigby-killer-set-claim-4428640#ixzz3G8zPFCqy
That he is a “changed man” has cone rather too early. He should have waited at least a couple of years, then converted to Christianity or Buddhism, before making his “changed man” routine.
Muslims practice Taqqiya, and our lib idiots fall for it everytime.
It doesn’t matter if he’s no longer a ‘soldier of Allan’. The fact he is, he is a barbarian who committed a barbaric crime, and deserves to die in prison. In any case, he was never a soldier to begin with. Just a follower of a medieval system of savagery.
NHS staff have been getting 3% pay rises year in year out. This is about them wanting another additional 1% on top this year. Most of the workforce in the private sector is not on an automatic pay escalator. Most ordinary workers have been on hard tack since 2008. NHS staff also have very good gold plated pension schemes that private sector workers do not get. They also have job security.
If the BBC was fair and balanced they would have made these points in uncompromising language.
If they weren’t all fellow Marxist Trade Unionists.
I’ve actually taken a pay cut this year. I’ve lost 5k off my basic which has been added to my ‘bonus’ which is discretionary and rarely gets paid.
Just responded to AsISeeIt who noticed BBC Interviewer on BBC 1 News this morning, being directed to interview Union members by what could well be a Union Propaganda Rep selecting out those briefed and on message.
I saw this too.
I am not surprised.
It is exactly as we expect from the BBC – it is not going to change it’s deliberate left slanted reporting now! Unless of course the 2016 review forces it to do so and in the light of UKIP having any influence, they will have to.
Disgraceful that such biased Civil Servants at the BBC earn the highest salaries from the public purse in the land and they deliberately do not keep to their Licence remit to report without fear or favour.
It really does remind me of my days spent working in Socialist Poland in the 70s and the way Polish state broadcasting was utilised as a tool of socialist indoctrination.
My complaint has just gone in. This looked like a pre-planned, scripted, costumed and casted event arranged with the BBC before hand. Unfortunately for the BBC and unions the camera caught a stage-hand moving ‘front of house’. It could be a fortnight before I hear back from the BBC with the excuses.
Good man.
Complain to Ofcom , Culture Dept , House of Commons Media Committee , your MP , & the Daily Mail etc too , this is a scandal .
It must be difficult for the bBBC to decide what is the most important ‘news’ of the day.
Another bloated public sector monopoly that wants even more of our money?
MPs voting to recognise the ‘State’ of Palestine?
Or Oscar Pistorius being sentenced?
Actually I am surprised at how little coverage is given the Palestine vote. David Cameron will abstain in Palestine statehood vote which seems to me a particularly gutless act, only features as ‘other’ news.
He’s a pretty gutless kinda guy … to paraphrase Blair.
How much longer can the BBC delude themselves about how the British people feel about immigration? They still seem to think that mass immigration has widespread public support when of course it never has had, but no respectable ( well semi respectable in the eyes of the BBC) party has ever had the balls to actually stand up and say so until UKIP came along. Of course the liberal left are disparagingly labeling people who resent mass immigration as racist or ‘left behinders’ as the world moves on. Hoping no doubt that they will soon die off. The left’s cause would have been strengthened if they had ever consulted the British people about whether we wanted mass immigration but of course they knew that we would say NO, so they just tried to force us to accept it.
That the BBC live in a liberal elite bubble and are totally out of touch with what the majority of the country thinks, was exemplified by QT from Clacton. The audience was hostile to UKIP whilst the people of Clacton voted overwhelmingly for it. Obviously the audience was fixed in one way or another, just as so many other BBC audiences are fixed to portray a particular set of liberal left values. Unfortunately for the BBC these values are not shared by the country as a whole, but they just can’t bring themselves to admit that their 30 year propaganda offensive in favour these values and in particular of mass immigration, has failed and that Brits reject them out of hand.
The BBC doesn’t represent the British people and hasn’t done so for at decades. It has no clue what our values are, or it does, it finds them repulsive, derides them at every opportunity, and tries to impose its values on us.
I hope that the Tories recognise how much of what UKIP stands for are in fact the original Tory values and that the Tories stop being scared of the way the BBC will react and move back to the right of centre where they should be. Also if the Tories and UKIP play their cards right they can inflict massive damage on Labour for having abandoned the Northern working class in favour of mass immigration. So hopefully we will have a centre right future government who will deal with the BBC once and for all.
I actually detect a slight shift in the leftie-bBBC position on ‘migration’, to emphasise the economic value and ignore the cultural/ social impact.
It seems to me that there probably is a positive economic value of most immigrants who come here to work and often to do jobs that workshy Brits refuse to take, preferring a life on the dole. But the flipside of the economic debate is the cost in infrastructure (healthcare, transport, housing etc) and that is rarely mentioned. Does the former outweigh the latter?
Culturally and socially, does the chance of eating a nice exotic meal or using a late-night shop outweigh the cost of giving many of our cities – especially our capital – to incomers, many of whom won’t speak English, won’t obey British laws and want to establish foreign enclaves within this country, often going back to their home country to bring brides here?
Finally, and again not mentioned, is that cheap immigrant labour is essential for supporting the leftie lifestyle in the metropolitan bubble. If they didn’t have workers prepared to put in long hours for low pay in the low-level jobs, life in London would become unsustainable, house prices would collapse (or return to a reasonable level, depending on your point of view) and we might once more be able to recognise our capital city as part of Britain.
If we had a proper state broadcaster, it would investigate and enlighten us on these key points.
“How mass migration hurts us all: No, it’s not the Mail saying this, but the verdict of a top Left-wing economist from Cambridge.
“Minor economic benefits of migration are ‘outweighed by social pressures.’
“Professor Robert Rawthorn gave the stark warning in think-tank report.
“The verdict pushes against pro-migration studies published in recent years.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2712677/How-mass-migration-hurts-No-s-not-Mail-saying-verdict-Left-wing-economist-Cambridge.html#ixzz3G1X3221R
The full CIVITAS report, still ignored by BBC-NUJ-
Click to access LargescaleImmigration.pdf
The BBC routinely ignore Civitas reports including this one that showed that the Prebble report for the BBC Trust on impartiality (which gave it a clean bill of health) wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on.
Click to access impartialityatthebbc.pdf
Another Civitas report, ignored by lefties because they encouraged the behaviour and don’t like the facts, is http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/experiments.php about the disadvantages of single-parent families.
All the data are in the report, neatly summarised as:
Lone mothers
– Are poorer
– Are more likely to suffer from stress, depression, and other emotional and psychological problems
– Have more health problems
– May have more problems interacting with their children
Non-resident biological fathers
– Are at risk of losing contact with their children
– Are more likely to have health problems and engage in high-risk behaviour
Children living without their biological fathers
– Are more likely to live in poverty and deprivation
– Have more trouble in school
– Tend to have more trouble getting along with others
– Have higher risk of health problems
– Are at greater risk of suffering physical, emotional, or sexual abuse.
– Are more likely to run away from home
Teenagers living without their biological fathers
– Are more likely to experience problems with sexual health
– Are more likely to become teenage parents
– Are more likely to offend
– Are more likely to smoke
– Are more likely to drink alcohol
– Are more likely to take drugs
– Are more likely to play truant from school
– Are more likely to be excluded from school
– Are more likely to leave school at 16
– Are more likely to have adjustment problems
Young adults who grew up not living with their biological fathers
– Are less likely to attain qualifications
– Are more likely to experience unemployment
– Are more likely to have low incomes
– Are more likely be on income support
– Are more likely to experience homelessness
– Are more likely to be caught offending and go to jail
– Are more likely to suffer from long term emotional and psychological problems
– Are more likely to develop health problems
– Tend to enter partnerships earlier and more often as a cohabitation
– Are more likely to divorce or dissolve their cohabiting unions
– Are more likely to have children outside marriage or outside any partnership
Effects on the Social Fabric
– Increased crime and violence
– Decreased community ties
– A growing ‘divorce culture’
– Cycle of fatherlessness
– Dependence on state welfare
Brilliant! Thanks, George R. I hadn’t seen that report, which should be required reading for all our politicians and all the loonies at the bBBC. It is even stronger for being written by a Marxist!
There is no economic “law” that equates immigration with positive economic value. Like many statistics you can pick and choose the sample, time period, etc, to get the results you want to present. Most recent studies showing the “positive” impact of immigration have been done before the economic downturn of 2008 onwards. I suspect that studies conducted during the downturn will show a negative result.
I suspect it depends on the origin of the immigrants but it is too politically incorrect for any economist or social scientist to say it or even investigate it.
“It seems to me that there probably is a positive economic value of most immigrants who come here to work and often to do jobs that workshy Brits refuse to take, preferring a life on the dole. But the flipside of the economic debate is the cost in infrastructure (healthcare, transport, housing etc) and that is rarely mentioned. Does the former outweigh the latter?”
Hardly when most immigrant groups have a HIGHER not LOWER rate of unemployment than ethnic British.
This isnt entirely surprising as most of those from Third World countries are less well educated, many illiterate even and with very poor English. Even when they have skills or qualifications, employers are rightfully sceptical as to what standards these indicate, and if they are even authentic in bribery cultures where a backhander ensures exam success. Bogus doctors usually turn out to be foreign. I know of a foreign consultant anaesthetist (ye she still is) who was hauled before the GMC for lying about a course he claimed to have done. Guess the ethnicity.
Every time I see the Big Issue sellers in our market towns dressed up in head scarves and long robes and the scrap metal scavengers pushing their bath tubs mounted on a supermarket trolley I think of Nick Clegg’s love of ‘Modern Britain’.
It would be interesting to see a comparison between UK population and GDP over recent years. I guess we will see a big increase in GDP soon, now that prostitution and drug dealing is being included, (how?).
As an aside: A relative of mine is working in the survey business. They are given a list of addresses to call on and get paid for each successful interview. The only person who is ‘on target’ in the team is the driver, who has the fewest hours available to do the actual survey work. Remarkably he also has the largest number of respondents who refuse to give their name. So next time the BBC tells you what ‘we’ think (survey of 1000) bear in mind that 90% of those surveys ‘might’ have been filled in by the survey team, ‘some people say’, ‘I have learned’.
I have noticed that the BBC/liberal left /Matthew Parris faux Conservatives are consoling themselves with the fiction that Ukip and real conservatives are old , stupid, leftover etc.
I suggest they talk to some of our younger English shire people.
Despite the education system pumping lefty propaganda into them many are not at all on message with the elite’s fantasy.
If anything they are harder edged.
Stay in London you liberal dreamers.Stay out of our shires and out of our faces. You are no longer wanted and it is time to end your dreadful reign.
Oh dear what a rant. In the words of that great man and all round economic clown Gordon the Clown. Your just a racist bigot off to Rochdale with you!
Well said Doublethinker about “BBC Delusion.” Summarises what this site is about.
Beautifully put. Just when you need a “Nasty Party” (one who puts Britain first, close borders to diseased and criminal entrants) you get the left-infiltrated mass media demanding…errr.. they don’t know what. Ha ha. Human rights of ebola-infected do-gooders, umm, killing hundreds of health workers… umm.. where does the moral compass point now, leftards?
“I hope that the Tories recognise how much of what UKIP stands for are in fact the original Tory values….”
Over the years, I have sometimes changed the conclusions to which my principles have led me. I have not, however, changed my principles. Despite this, I have apparently moved from the centre-right of the Conservative Party (free market quasi-libertarian sub-set) to somewhere in the middle of UKIP.
Except my views have remained the same.
So far left has the Conservative Party moved, in search of Guardianista bien-pensant votes that will never be delivered, that it has left its core vote homeless and searching for something – anything – that makes sense. UKIP isn’t perfect, but where the hell else can we go?
Holland’s anti-jihad efforts: INBBC plays its socialist-leftist-Muslim cards- (3 min video)-
“Dutch anti-jihad plan made public to combat extremism”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29586746
But also-
Geert Wilders-
“Stop Denying the Obvious: Islam is a Problem”
http://counterjihadreport.com/tag/geert-wilders/
Meanwhile in U.K.
“More than 10,000 UK jihad suspects on security services radar, claims MP”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/more-10000-uk-jihad-suspects-4428658#ixzz3G1KgJnR8
OTish, but as the BBC increases its top floor talent and PR budgets, rather bizarrely apparently to cover costs of extra PR to deny it, there does now seem a trend in the public sector that when in deep doo-doo, don’t address the problem, rather spend cash to hire more unsackable lifers to tell the public often enough that all is well, and if that fails make the thing too big to trim.
http://order-order.com/2014/10/13/cable-doubles-his-spin-team-and-charges-us-120000/
I am not sure this is a strategy that works well short or long term.
More of the obvious, about Islam and Islamic State, which INBBC is still in denial about-
“Islamic State: Taking women as sex slaves ‘firmly established’ Islamic law”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/13/islamic-state-taking-women-as-sex-slaves-firmly-es/?
The above is almost catching up with-
“-Robert Spencer on ‘Trying to Make Islam Un-Islamic'” –
(video clips).
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/robert-spencer-on-trying-to-make-islam-un-islamic-on-the-glazov-gang/
If, like myself, you have an iPhone, you will have figured out how to use it to do the jobs you want to do with it, as well as downloaded the apps that would help you do those tasks easier. If you had any questions on using it then you would have simply entered your question into Google and received a host of helpful information.
Would you have spent £300 for somebody to teach you how to use it?
Well if you’re the BBC, with loads of cash to spend provided they are not concerned with the quality of their output, it’s no problem for them.
Their justification is: A spokesman for the BBC said that iPhones are only issued to staff who need them to do their jobs and they are not simply given out to all workers.
They added: ‘We are harnessing new technologies to train our journalists to use their phones to film, edit and transmit news stories on mobile phones.
Anybody with a smart phone would have used it to film, edit and send. Any apps that would be recommended to make this job easier can be circulated to those with the corporation who need it VIA EMAIL.
BBC blows £220,000 of licence fee payers’ money on training staff how to use an iPhone: Nearly 800 employees sent on course that costs £300 per person
If the bBC were accountable, they would be issuing their staff with a cheaper Android phone (and only if it was really necessary) but no, they know they are assured of our £3.7bn per year. What’s the cost of 800 Iphones, which are then probably updated yearly and no doubt staff allowed to keep the old ones.
Still nothing like a bit of product placement, note Suzi Perry’s Ipad on Formula One.
one public sector organisation purchased 200 IPads for their senior staff just prior to the London Olympics
Ah, that explains why this obscure article from more than 2 years ago has appeared on the BBC website’s “Most Read (sic)” section – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19090195. It was clearly something the 200 iPad recipients looked at when they received their presents and they’ve just powered them up again for the first time since then.
…and no doubt staff allowed to keep the old ones.
Either legally or illegally. This from 18 months ago:
According to figures from the last 3 years, one in every 25 full time staff at the BBC loses or has stolen a laptop, tablet, or mobile phone, at a cost to the licence fee payer of £760,000.
I find it very suspicious, especially considering the statistics: In 2010 only 69 were reported stolen, but last year the figure had almost trebled to 195. Since crime has not trebled in that time, it’s not too far fetched to think that perhaps the staff are seeing that one can easily get away with claiming it was stolen or lost.
I also wonder why the BBC need to pay £1500 for a laptop when a very good one can be purchased for under £500. With the bargaining power the BBC would have for buying in bulk, no doubt it could be less than that.
I would love to sneak a look in any of the BBC staff households who claimed to have had one stolen. Just judging by the mindset and lack of ethics they display on a continual basis, what’s a bit of theft to add to it?
BBC laptop thefts treble
Suzi P was on the screen and you were checking out her tech?
Give yourself a wobble. 😉
Seriously like all government departments they should be on open software and not paying millions to US companies in license fees for buggy software with built in obsolescence.
Or, hire a teenager.
Too soo… old?
On a more serious note, while there is some justification for provision of relevant tech, and even training on key functionality to assist the job, the BBC typically seems to have decided money is no object across the board.
The BBC’s Apple fealty has long been noted and often Rory (hubby of aspiring DG and Trust limpet D. Coyle) was torn a new one for his devotion to the brand on his blog.
And it certainly they seemed to hand over the entire iStore to staff to grab whatever they wanted like sweeties (and by all accounts, keep them, if tales of the last base relocation are anything to go on).
As Paul Mason once said, ‘Standard disclaimer: other products are available!’.
But once you go BBC, the best things in life are free.
Speaking of knowledge-sharing largesse…
http://bbcwatch.org/2014/10/13/bbc-offers-course-on-1919-paris-peace-conference/
It’s free, which is nice. I wonder if there’s an App, too?
‘No prior knowledge required.’
The blanker the canvas, the better, probably. Learning from BBC history can rather doom one, mind. Ask Ms. Nightingale.
‘And you’ll be encouraged to debate many of the issues that have vexed international politics since then.’
I wonder if failure to debate the way they want will see anyone expedited?
I suspect that the BBC is not included in any Public sector wage restraint. As for public sector wages they are still 17% higher than the private sector. here: The fifth largest public sector in the world today is the NHS here: The BBC is perverse in its attitude to big ‘pay awards’ as one Graham Norton (salary £2.6m) attacked size of BBC pay-offs: Chat show host says scandal ‘dragged BBC into disrepute’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2478645/Graham-Norton-salary-2-6m-attacks-size-BBC-pay-offs.html
All the more incredible when you consider Lord (Haw Haw) Hall pledged to reduce the BBC pay awards when he was appointed has saved the taxpayer nothing at all. Perhaps the NHS does deserve more but it should be funded at the BBC expense (cancel all BBC private health care should have been stated by Cameron from the outset).
Philip as you point out the NHS is a massive – a bloated inefficient organisation, the last thing it needs is more cash. Less might help it focus on priorities. Its total nonsense to “ring fence” the NHS and make massive cuts into services such as libraries etc.
Not just the fifth largest public sector, the fifth largest employer in the world. I’m sure that’s what you meant but just want to drive the point home.
I bought a second hand Laptop, and then bought a top of the range hard drive for that amount. The morons with Arts and Drama qualifications employed by the BBC would have spent £2,000, and then needed £1,000 of intensive training in typing, just for starters.
Nothing to do with the BBC but that reminds me of my time with a socialist retail organisation with a hyphenated name who are currently not doing too well.
A new office was being set up and an IT budget was duly allotted. As the office fit out bill went up the IT budget went down. The plan was to give everybody new kit. In the end they could only afford were new quite high spec PCs AND laptops for the bosses. My suggestion that we buy less capable PCs and give them to the workers tied to their desks all day and just give the bosses laptops was met with silence. Then there was uproar, how dare I suggest something like that? These were important persons after all. The poor bloody cubicle trolls ended up with their old faltering kit (which caused other problems) and the bosses got their new kit. Some of it still smelled new when it was replaced three years later and none of it was hardly beaten. Some of the office trolls were still on the kit they brought with them. WE ARE EQUAL; JUST SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS! With lots of public lolly handed to it you can bet the BBC are down right profligate.
Just say the ‘Co-op’ John, there……what a bloody shower, pervs and crooks in charge……
The BBC wastes so much money, yet some years ago one of my complaints was met with the reply that the BBC cannot afford to keep replying to a complaint from a single source – it is a waste of taxpayers money. I wrote to my local MP and the responses (although unsatisfactory) kept coming . Now I hope that so many of you are complaining that they can’t use that excuse anymore !!
I heard that Investigations have revealed the names of almost 500 people employed by the BBC’s complaints system.
I read somewhere that the BBC get around 250,000 complaints a year and only around 12 are upheld.
That means that for the remaining 249,988 cases, they get it ‘just about right’.
Hardly worth bothering with all of those staff, is it?
And those 12 will have been fought to the death until either a sacrificial concession is chosen to avoid the tractor stats looking too dodgy, or they are up against a force they can’t grind down, blow off or threaten (like the Nightingale Society).
One look at the complaints homepage shows how carefully managed any public exposure is. It’s all daft dross about not getting good signal up a hill in Wales or whether Eastenders gave the plot away too soon; no mention ever of meatier fare.
And it is only when the Trust publishes its findings you get an insight into the meatgrinder that faced the few worthy efforts they carefully edit to show the gravitas of their deliberations. Not once have I seen any Trust trougher ask why something so clearly wrong was bounced back at every stage from complaints bots through ECU ‘I believe’ Directors before arriving at them, suitably filtered in and back out in camera.
Why? Do they have something to hide?
Lynette your not alone. The BBC denies that it has any requirement to divulge ‘commercial activity’ despite it the public license (it has argued (OFCOM and Charter 2006 and now 2016) that its operations would be hampered by being called ‘Commercial’ )- and yet it’s obvious (to us) that it is dishonest with public money). Here’s an example of BBC commercial transparency – hidden from view on private ‘salaries’ (FOI request). The same spongers are able to hold funds offshore and pay ‘privately’ out of public scrutiny. Even their ‘rent’ at Salford Quay is paid ‘offshore’ (for tax liability) to those in collusion with the Labour party. Labour corruption exits at a high level and in hidden salaries…
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/49945/response/127911/attach/html/3/RFI20101412%20final%20response.pdf.html
‘reply that the BBC cannot afford to keep replying to a complaint from a single source – it is a waste of taxpayers money’
—
Given what the BBC does waste licence fee payers’ money on there must have been many fingers crossed at that one.
It is also a facile argument; it is the value of the complaint that matters, not its source. Or should be (though clearly anyone from Lenny Henry to Gazan activists can fast-track at whim).
As to volume, only the BBC could try and claim, using its self-created, self-regulating systems, that they need to ban people from complaining because they are fouling up too often to cope.
Great news. On Channel 4 (AKA BBC going the extra mile to the left for BBC types) tonight is a programme about child abuse in Luton!
Wow expect in-depth interviews footage etc. of Asian child grooming gangs in this hotbed of radical Muslims.
Expect police and authorities to admit blame for what has been happening over years, resignations news of prosecution against police and authorities and EVEN against the actual vile culprits. Luton ,the place where for uttering death threats against British soldiers during rallies you might even get a £50.00 fine, as happened once a couple of years ago.
Great news, probably won’t watch it as some awful scheduling by the BBC has Uini Challenge and a programme on BBC 4 about the Universe on at the same time.
Please tell me how the Luton prog goes, or have I possibly been misinformed about child abuse in Luton?
lessons learnt and all that
The BBC thinks its all about Farage worship. Panorama on Farage, is at 8.30pm on BBC 1, The BBC 4 documentaries are all repeats that I have seen, they are about dark things without evidence. That’s one of the main interests that morons have at the BBC, when it comes to Astronomy. Belief in things that have no evidence.
That would be the same ‘Panorama’ news team exposing Rochester paedophile rings, Labour PIE members, BBC inspired Islamic terrorists and the financial acumen of Gordon Brown then (not). I suspect all is not well on the BBC flagship (or Newsnight) from now on.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=61793279
Interesting comments to that.
On top of further insight into the BBC admission or error system.
No real surprise that first out the traps to a valid, researched, quoted critique was a one line ad hom snark from a duty Flokker on station.
I’ll give credit to the source of this quote that sent him down in flames…
‘Which is why it is good scientific practise to have your results peer reviewed and checked for repeatability rather than to produce a single statistic and make a TV program about it with no accountability.’
Not sure ‘good scientific practice’ and the BBC are exactly bedfellows since they ‘settled’ science.
‘Peer review ‘ is not the same thing as send it to your mates, secretly agree and then publish it
Which is now the climate change fanatics work
Strangely all the peer review of their work seems to happen after publication when the internet/blogosphere gets into it
The BBC going big on the NHS staff not getting a pay increase this year. They forget to say that the most NHS staff will get a 3% automatic pay rise this year. Those who do not get this will get the 1%. You can not trust the BBC on anything.
1% in addition to the 3% increment, unless they’re sat at the top of their pay scale.
how much are the plebs at the bbc getting in a pay rise 10-20%.Come on BBC lets us know we pay the bill.Silly me its sensitive info….
FOI it why don’t you?
On second thoughts the BBC refuse to answer FOI’s, the one-sided hypocrites only use them for their own activist purposes.
The NHS and what the BBC spend on private health care: ‘The TaxPayers’ Alliance has uncovered that the BBC and S4C, the Welsh language channel, have spent more than £2.3 million on private health insurance for staff in the last three years… (2008 to 2011) and what’s changes since – nothing much!
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/home/2011/05/research-bbc-s4c-spend-millions-private-healthcare.html
No wish to rain on your parade, but private healthcare is merely to put healthcare on the same footing as everything else in life- I want it now, and I’m willing to pay the cost of having it now. What’s your problem with the BBC buying it? Same happens with every other organisation in the private sector. You buy BP petrol you are paying for BP directors private health care. If their directors worn’t worth it, you would pay more for petrol. Its all kind of logical, if you leave out the politics.
The BBC don`t seem too happy about the Great Hellsman of Albarn(or is that supposed to be Albion?)…Sir Nigel de Farage…getting any kind of platform to debate UKIP at the next election.
I mean…the Greens are EVERY bit as vital with their hegemony in,,err,,,Brighton, and …err for the next few months.
Oh, and Caroline Lickus( or maybe “Like Us” on FB) is JUST the kind of elfin rebel with pixie cut and matching boots ,so loved by the Wimmin who run Chanel 4…radio or telly, same shit Sherlock!
So expect the Greens to demand media space and time to compete for the nut vote…meanwhile the Great Ship UKIP is breaking ice and greatly upsetting the Titans of the media who`d like to surf to safety on the corpses of the poor , the white and the working.
And then hoist the rainbow flag on the gargoyle that is Evan Davis, until the Sharia Sugar Bears choose to man them up.
Sorry Greens, greys and gays…UKIP are coming!
I am sure there is some awfully complex and clever thing behind it all, involving votes, constituencies, retweets and the ability to moisten many a market rate (depending on ratings) knicker, but Mr. F getting a slot seems a good thing.
However, I can’t see why, in terms of support, both electoral and chatterati, the Greens can’t be in too.
At least it gives a chance to put these finely-tuned strategic minds under the spotlight, and also test their ability to actually persuade outside the Westminster bubble.
There will of course be a few hurdles for the UKIP guys to cross, ranging from any BBC organisational involvement (venue, chairman, lighting, camera angles, audience, rigged questions, ya-boo tracks, post-edit omissions, cut-offs etc) to the extent of post match ‘analysis’ a bunch of inept, bent, or ineptly bent so-called political editors twist out and get to squirt to the top of the hour.
Certainly it is an opportunity for UKIP to break away from its one-trick pony reputation (albeit a narrative claimed for them alone by the politico-media establishment at every turn; I have yet to hear Caroline Lucas or leaderine much troubled on mundane matters beyond their uncosted, knee-jerk, populist watermelon obsessions and collapsing constituency as a consequence).
Give them all a truly equal platform.
Then we can ask the Greens about their monetary policy in the light of the fiscal effects of the easing of the money supply. We can ask the Socialists why the cure for excessive borrowing is more borrowing. We can ask the Liberal Democrats why the answer to too much EU legislation is to hand even more power to the EU.
Open debate. If you dare.
Sarah Montague challenged Jeremy Hunt this morning on the NHS pay protests with this absolute gem, in response to Hunt claiming that the automatic increment was worth on average 3% to NHS workers: (paraphrased) ‘But that’s not a pay rise is it? It’s just a means of getting people onto the salary they should be paid for that job’.
This is from a senior presenter on the BBC’s ‘flagship’ news and current affairs programme.
Yet more proof, should you need it, that the BBC is totally out of touch with the real world.
And here was a prominent article in last week’s Telegraph which could have helped Ms Montague and her colleagues frame a pretty basic question to ask of any public sector union spokesperson:
‘The true scale of the gulf in pay that separates private and public sector workers is revealed today in an report that includes the impact of “gold-plated” pensions for the first time.
Workers in the state sector received a fifth more than counterparts at private firms when pensions were factored in, according research published by the Institute of Fiscal Studies.
The think tank said teachers, doctors, nurses and other state employees received an average of £28,000 a year, while private workers received £27,000.
However, generous pensions added £6,000 to public workers’ pay, boosting the total to £34,000 a year. ‘
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/11152840/Public-vs-private-sector-pay-gap-is-5000-or-a-fifth-of-earnings.html
The fact you will never hear that question asked tells you all you need to know about where the BBC’s sympathies lie.
BBC World, where the money tree harvest lasts all year round.
As a public sector entity, it is hard to see how the BBC can report on the public sector without conflict of interest issues being inevitable.
Their inability to make the most basic of objective financial comparisons illustrates this.
Getting union stooges in front of the mic seem about their speed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-29599902
Well I did wonder if the BBC would report this, but fair play to them they have, and not only that but it’s the headline news on the England website:
“More than £250,000 of suspected Islamic State (IS) funds have been seized at Manchester Airport and other north-west ports in the past year, anti-terrorist officers said.”
Let no one be under any illusion, despite all the nonsense from Muslim leaders, there is plenty of support for ISIS, and plenty of people willing to give money and others willing to courier it to them.
How much of that is ‘charitable giving’, so beloved by Imam Khameron:
“People here in Britain are giving what they can to help those in need – especially British Muslims, who are the most giving faith community in this country. This Eid, we will be thinking of those at the mercy of these conflicts and come together to pray for peace.”
Our beloved expert on Islam is proud that he shares the same tradition of sacrifice with the Muslims, who have improved the story by sharing out the sacrificial lamb, (wasn’t it supposed to be a sacrifice to God, not an excuse to party?). Such is his grasp of his own religion that he doesn’t realise that in the Bible it was Issac for the chop [Genesis 22:2] while the Muslims think it was Ishmael in the frame.
Imagine if we had a defender of the faith like HM the Queen or the Archbishop of Canterbury or Baroness Warsi to put him right!
Just got a letter from Colin Tregear (complaints Director) any one here any experience with him, or know of any stories about him?
A month old, but just came across this:
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/1307841/luke-johnson-bbc-licence-fee-soon-scrapped/
‘The vast bulk of what audiences watch on BBC – soaps, reality TV, talent shows, quizzes and the like – cannot possibly be seen as public service output. Neither can Radio 1 and 2, which pull in most of the listeners, and mainly play pop music, which commercial radio does equally well.
The BBC employs the phrase public service broadcasting endlessly to justify the £145.50 regressive tax it calls the TV licence fee.’
Is any of that factually incorrect?
If not, what possible basis does it have to be deemed ‘unique’, especially enough to exclude itself from accountability of vast areas that demand it?
And in other news, I have created a few BBC files of my own to match those they seem to keep too;
Sack of Rats
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/probing.html?
‘the collateral damage potential is high’
Maybe time for Ian to make another hire from the Graun? It’s been, like, weeks.
Commercial-free (bard the, er. commercials) Spokesweasels
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/campaigning-journalism.html?
Newsnight – “Anything can happen”, a BBC spokesperson will say, without irony, especially if a BBC high up looks like being asked a tricky question.
Also… WTF do they think they do others can’t? Besides muppets and daft dances.
Gene Genius
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/stellar.html?
‘a selection of work from her stellar career’
I was going to make this the ‘Tell it often enough’ file, but one rather suspects her outings on The Editors, closing adverse threads, pleading with staff not to be stupid (Hugs), side-stepping, trying to drop Thommo in it, lapses of memory, etc and other highlights will not form the backbone of this ‘stellar’ career homage?
This afternoon I decided to listen to the first episode of the new Radio 4 series of “Digital Human”. It made some interesting points about the perception of risk until half way through we were told that climate change is “a huge, huge, huge threat”. It seems that we have to have an intelligent and thoughtful response to such a risk – so those of us who don’t see it as a problem are less intelligent.
Back to Planet Rock.
Remember ‘Chicken Licken’ where a load of misinformed farmyard animals were told the sky was about to fall in – an allegory for today’s lib dims, greenies and Dave fans.
Thank goodness Intelligence is not yet defined as that broadcast by the BBC as ‘unquestionable fact’. This is usually not based on historical, scientific evidence but mutual group think based on the life and work of Walthur Malthus thoughts of Oxford educated liberals and then broadcast to us ‘lucky’ few listeners as unquestionable unopposed ‘facts’ (usually on a simplified linear curve to imminent apocalypse). I wouldn’t mind so much if they were simply a ‘Liberal fringe Green lobby group’ in Brighton. But as a national state broadcaster on a compulsory state license fee – it is a national disgrace to impose an orthodoxy on ‘Scientific’ debate). Intelligence therefore excludes the BBC. It does not work that way.
ever wondered how to combine the emetic and vomitory?
well read no further.
newsnight does us proud with this synthesis of a killer aussie dee-jay and her victim’s posthumous spokesman in the form of keith vasseline.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29602623
what more could you want for your licence fee?
ps – you wont see this ` satirised` on `mock the weak`
now, just lately there is a term that bbc and radio 5 live presenters have been using on purpose i think since last weeks ukip election success that i find quiet worrying indeed,the term is the (rise of ukip),what do they mean by the (rise of ukip),the word the rise has historical meaning as we al lknow from world war 2 and is quiet a dangerous term in my view,bbc and radio 5 live presenters never use the word the rise of the green party or the liberals so i find it quiet strange but deliberate as a smear by saying the (rise of ukip) every time there have electoral gains.stop using the term the (rise of ukip) bbc and radio 5 live and use the term the (success of ukip).ok.
I noticed that wording, Stuart.
How about requesting a series called ‘New Labour – a warning from history.’
They use it because not one single one of them has any sympathy with UKIP. Not one single one.
UKIP frightens them so they unconciously resort to language which makes UKIP into a threat.
The success of UKIp is something they literally cannot understand.
The BBC is worthless.
“Ukip understands public despair at mass immigration.
“The political establishment is in a state of shock.
Labour and the Conservatives are reeling from the results of the by-elections last week in Clacton and Heywood, which saw their support fall dramatically in the face of Ukip’s advance.”
By Leo McKinstry.
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/522101/Leo-McKinstry-Mass-immigration-of-foreigners
“Ukip offers an exciting era and has Labour on the ropes.
“Two weeks ago Ukip deliberately parked its tanks on Ed Miliband’s front lawn by holding its conference in Doncaster, where he is its MP.”
By Neil Hamilton.
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/neil-hamilton/521742/Ukip-offers-exciting-era-Labour-on-the-ropes
I’m quite surprised no one has posted yet about the fall in income tax receipts which has apparently taken everyone aback, HM treasury not least.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has issued a warning after it too didn’t see the black hole fast approaching.
Funny that because UKIP did ! How many times have they been warning about ‘wage compression’ because of immigration from countries where expectations are much lower, and they are prepared to work shifts and overtime for no more than the minimum wage.
Then there are the zero hours contracts which allow employers to offer just a couple of hours employment a week while the employee is required to be ready to work at a moments notice.
We learned that more people than ever now earn so little that they don’t even earn enough to pay income tax – a figure which has nearly doubled from 20% in 2008 to 35% today.
Unemployment has fallen, meaning the burden on the exchequer has also lessened, but the problem is that people just aren’t earning very much.
So now we can expect that the deficit is not going to be paid down at all, but the Tories get exactly what they want, a cheap flexible Labour force which has no power, and Liebour get what they want, a shed load of foreigners, which they seem to like, for no good reason other than ‘diversity’!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29587711
@stuart,good point mate,the left and the bbc are trying to plant seeds in peoples minds by trying to smear ukip as far right nationalists,
Anyone watching Panorama BBC1 20:00 ‘The Farage Factor’ ?
Looks like a thorough smear job of Farage and UKIP.
The must have been holding this back until they were really shitting themselves.
The more they smear the better. The left behind and old and out of date people are watching and laughing. Stay in London and Manchester beeboids. You will learn nothing there. . Farage needs to watch his back. This vicious ruling class will stop at nothing.
remember Geert Wilders most dangerous man in Europe
… Farage most dangerous man in Britain
BBC shame on them.
file:///C:/Users/Ian/Downloads/Preview%20in%20Browser_files/PhoDE59.jpg
Go Ahead. Make My Day!!
Hi Ian!
Your technical prowess knows no beginning.
I’d love to connect to the user folder on your Pc’s hard disk but I fear that it is impossible. Can you give us your current IP address, turn off your firewall and let us have login name and password for your PC? Cheers!
Farage Factor is a BBC stitch up. But guess what? I don’t believe people are listening any more. It just makes many see the left doing the dirty again and it is self defeating. They just don’t get it.
Just another perfect example of the despicable BBC busy at work digging its own grave.
I am going to keep this short and simple. Mr Macintyres panorama program tonight was not just biased, it was downright offensive!!
think that the bbc have now crossed the line, and something needs to be done. I have never gone about making a complaint about the bbc before, but i would like to know how to. Can someone please tell me how to go about that procedure please?I
Go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complain-online/
It’s a fruitless exercise though.
I heard Nigel likes to set fire to dogs homes. Next week Panorama on why Nick Clegg is so cute . They will show him holding up a puppy with a broken paw and nursing it back to health.
The week after ISIS and there new get back to work scheme which some unenlightened people want to brand as slavery.
Though Clegg does have a bit of form when it comes to setting fire to greenhouses.
You’ll find details about how to complain at the Ofcom site;
http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/complain/tv-and-radio-complaints/a-programme-I-saw-or-heard/
Unfortunately as many here will tell you, the b-BBC is not subject to any oversight by anybody. Their Royal Charter pretty much give them total immunity.
Good luck. Let us know if you have any luck. Copy your MP, if you complain. If you feel the BBC programme has infringed on electoral process also complain to the Electoral Commission.
How the bBC is the propaganda outlet for leftwing idiots:
Russia: Sanctions hit food supply to space station
According to the bBC, because of Western sanctions agaisnt poor little innocent Russian astronauts on the international space station are having to do without food…I quote:
After the demise of the US shuttle programme, Russia’s Soyuz spacecraft are currently the main means of delivering supplies to the ISS. Its current crew consists of a German and two Americans, and as well as three Russians.
and here is a list of space launches to ISS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unmanned_spaceflights_to_the_International_Space_Station
7 launches this year, only 3 are Russian with another 3 on the books of which 1 is Russian. 10 launches in 2014, 4 Russian. Hardly a monopoly
on the revolution will be televised it said on the ticker-tape at the bottom of the screen that an Astronaut admitted to losing the keys to the space-station . I thought that was hilarious. Almost as funny as getting Gordon Brown to sign his new book where they changed the title to Gordon Brown I Fucked the economy
Sorry Waterstones, it’s me that keeps ‘ re-locating ‘ books by New Labour criminals like Blair, Brown in particular, Straw, Blunket et al into the ‘ True Crime’ sections….try it everyone, it is highly satisfying for some reason……
Thanks bendybus. I am really sickened by that panorama program tonight. I just wish that ‘ we’ the license fee payers could actually do something that would bring them to account. Why should we have to pay a tax each year to fund an organization that in my opinion is extremely left wing. And its also allowed day by day allowed to spew out its vile propaganda to the masses, when its supposed to be impartial.
We can. Stop paying the licence fee. I have.
Although I have not yet seen the Panorama programme I can guess the tactics of Al Beeb. They did their best to discredit UKIP during the Euro Elections, but the Al Beeb campaign was very amateur and transparent – most of the British public saw through it.
‘Carry on Al Beeb’, your propaganda doesn’t work any more, in fact its counter productive to your ends. The message for Al Beeb researchers that look at this site is a simple one… “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
Having caught up with the programme and now seen the feeble attempt to discredit UKIP, my comment would be to ask, would Al Beeb attempt a similar episode on the other parties dragging out all their ‘skeletons’ from the cupboard? – the list is endless!
This clip explains how the BBC bias works, from a-z, it is an international media formula that works, it is a textbook formula, promoting a certain narrative, while not reporting facts that contradict their political narrative, just watch the first 5 mins, I guarantee that you will watch it right through to the end. The complete super-antidote to the biased BBC – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alK6dko2EIA
Excellent link. Highly inspirational video. Thank you.
I’m not a great believer in conspiracy theories, but his sudden death is mighty mysterious.
The new series of The Apprentice, starting Tuesday 14 October, will have among its contestants a woman in hijab, judging from the preview video clips.
I suppose that, since sooner or later Muslims will be a majority and sharia will become the law of the country, the BBC is just trying to make us get used to it.
How long (in minutes) before the Islamophobia card gets played?
Does she realise that Lord Sugar is Jewish? Perhaps she is going to issue a fatwa against crappy “hi-fi” systems.
She’ll win. Sugar may be Jewish but he has very left-wing tendancies and the BBC are producing the show.
(If she doesn’t win it will be because she’ll have to resign in tears due to all the hatred (which will be intimated, not seen) against her by the other competitors.)
The BBC have not noticed the arrest of another three muslim extremists yesterday on suspicion of Terrorism.
The Telegraph is perhaps more awake:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11160127/Three-more-held-on-terror-charges.html
But the BBC does cover something pointless:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29603798
Interesting confrontation on last night’s Radio 4 10pm News, between Diane Abbott & Simon Danczuk. The topic was Labour’s inability to talk honestly about mass immigration. Refreshingly, it was allowed to run its course.
Abbott, of course, waffled hopelessly, maintaining the lie that Labour were forever talking to the electorate, & then she began to eulogise the immigrants keeping the NHS going. By this time, an increasingly irritated Danczuk had had enough. He had already highlighted the disgust many Labour voters in the Northern towns felt over the serial ‘grooming’ cases, & how pathetic was Abbott’s typically metropolitan ‘progressive’ policy to ‘re-educate’ the white working classes rather than go to the heart of the problem. Abbott, as expected, whipped out the ‘race card’ & criticised Danczuk for writing a hard-hitting article about Rotherham in the Daily Mail.
Danczuk then made the point, forcefully, that many young indigenous ( yes, he said ‘indigenous’) Britons wanted to train as doctors & nurses but were stymied by a lack of places, & by the long-running policy of importing medical staff from overseas. His irritation, & I would say, contempt, for Abbott, was palpable.
Just for a minute or two, Danczuk reminded me of one of those blunt Old Labour MPs, a politician from another age, the sort of man who would have no time for the evasive spiel of the Islington social-engineers. I don’t know if Danczuk will even survive the next GE, his majority is small, but he spoke as if he was in a very different party to Diane Abbott.
The more I see and hear of Mr Danzcuk the more I am impressed
There are a few Labour backbenchers that could potentially save Labour
Alternatively they might consider joining UKIP and leave Miliband to his metropolitan friends
Universities get more fees for foreign students, so even on over subscribed courses like medicine and dentistry they like to take on foreign students. Plus there seems to be a cap on the total number of doctors being trained in the UK.
BBC News : ‘He made his name with folk rock in the 1970s…’
Donovan? Traffic? Fairport Convention? Steeleye Span? Nick Drake?
No, of course not. Predictably, it’s the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens.
Or “Yusuf”
Well he might be on every i-pod at Broadcasting House but I’m afraid I’m really not that interested. And this is supposed to be the news.
I wonder, what first interested the BBC in the muslim convert Cat Stevens?
I think they may be showing signs of being obsessed with that religion.
this Cat Stevens ,,, does he still “love his dog”
… must have stepped off the “peace train” eh!
http://youtu.be/mYnWtPytvhI
He did record “I’m Gonna Get Me A Gun”. Of course the ROP prefers a sword.
Radio 4 has, as far as I am aware, not reported yet that the British Parliament voted to recognise the Palestinian State last night . http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Watch-British-parliament-holds-symbolic-vote-on-Palestine-status-378787 . Is this because they are preparing for a big and lengthy “discussion” on the news or does someone know another agenda?
Before you hear more from the BBC on this subject See this here.
Given the vote to recognise Palestine in the UK Parliament last night, it seems that a marginal majority of UK MPs (most did not turn up to the vote) now support the Palestinian propaganda narrative against Israel, shovelled out by the Hamas health ministry, and gladly relayed by the BBC and other news agencies, during the recent Gaza conflict.
It was frightening to see echoes of the “old hatred” during the debate where “Palestinian children” were referred to as if they were targeted by Israel. A shining black lie that anti-Israel groups will be thrilled with, and assume has reached the national narrative.
The vast majority of Gazans killed in the conflict were Hamas operatives (typically 20-30 age group, as confirmed by Al jazerra). The Hamas health ministry instructed UNWRA to record each death as a women or child. Of course the 160 children who died digging the Hamas tunnels, or the over 100 tunnel diggers executed by Hamas during the war (many of them children) so as not to reveal the tunnel locations, were never reported by local UK news services. Additionally the 100s of Palestinians who died when Hamas rockets fell short were marked as kills by Israel.
It is also telling how little the MPs that voted for the resolution understand the Israeli mind. Far from “sending a message” and influencing the Israeli government, even if this was desirable, this will make the Israelis hunker down and listen less to the British.
Lastly our belief in the UK upholding the strictest standards of justice have been shattered. This vote directly conflicts with international agreements, not to mention the Oslo framework. It clearly shows Israel that any agreement they sign, even with the promise of international support, will not be upheld by those very countries that promised it.
Do you have link please?
If and when its published .
Israel has endured more worldwide public scrutiny than any other society,(while defending itself against fanatic aggressors)
Israel simply are held to a different standard, (the condemnation levelled is completely out of proportion to anything they have actually done).
Surrounded by fanatic Islamic entities,( that continue lie and obfuscate with absurd Holocaust denial—whilst asserting that they would do it for real if given half a chance).
Whereas what could Israel do to the Palestinians if they wanted? They could do almost anything anyway. Theoretically the Israeli army could kill everyone in Gaza tomorrow. which shows they are not apartheid, not indiscriminate and not targeting children, again they could target as many children as they want, and they DON T.
It is NOT the general intent of Israel. We know the Israel does not want to kill any non-combatant, because they could kill as many as they want, and Israel is NOT doing it.
Question No1 What would the “Palestinians” do to the Jews, all of them in Israel if the power imbalance were reversed?
This so called “Palestinian State” … needs to grabbed screaming and kicking to the table, lose the attitude, and given a f–kin reality check.
… that damned wilful ignorance in Westminister yesterday is jaw dropping, and is preventing the need for the above
Following in boot step with, Camoron, No10 and co
deny/appease, deny/appease, deny/appease
‘Israel simply are held to a different standard, (the condemnation levelled is completely out of proportion to anything they have actually done).’
There’s a lot of it about.
I have no issue with any person or entity being held to a high standard.
However, when the BBC runs a multiple tier operation between those it hates and those it acts as PR agency for, it cannot be trusted.
As for transparency, when the BBC is the only entity that holds the BBC to account, and nearly always finds the BBC perfect, the Beware of the Leopard room stays well and truly locked under farce.
Israel is held to a different standard. See this article
http://bigarticlesoftheweek.blogspot.co.il/2014/10/the-sound-of-media-silence_5.html
‘The BBC presenter replied in some exasperation, saying they are sophisticated, targeted strikes, and are “essential” for fighting terror.
As a friend of mine points out, did it not occur to the BBC news anchor that he sounded exactly like the Israeli government spokesperson who he so furiously attacked only a month ago.
It’s a fair question.
Why does one suspect the BBC’s finest would run behind a spokesperson, redaction or exclusion if caught in the open and asked?
Thanks Lynette. Interesting historical letter on that page worth reproducing: ‘Jordan is a Palestinian state. Palestine was divided by the UN into two states: a Jewish State, Israel, and an Arab State, Jordan. Jordan has never existed in history before 1948. Jews called Palestine their homeland before 1948. When Israel became a state, the arabs called Palestine their state, called themselves Palestinians, thought they have never been Palestinians before. They did not want Israel to exist as a Jewish State. Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. Jordan is the state for the Arabs in Palestine. Palestinians do not was Israel to exist, or any Jews to live in Palestine and Israel. It is not Gaza or the West Bank, or borders back to 1967 … that they want. The 1967 war was for to abolish the state of Israel. They simply do not want Israel to exist. Jordanians do not consider themselves to be Palestinians. According to the Balfour Declaration, Jordan was included in the Jewish homeland’.
I tend to agree with that and against our foolish MP’s who want to attack Israel. They may vote for ISIS recognition next.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04m09wj/house-of-commons-13102014
2hrs 10minutes in
Looks like others have noticed and appear equally impressed with Newsnight’s venture into commercial territory…
http://order-order.com/2014/10/14/who-says-newsnight-is-dumbing-down/
Whatever it cost, it was worth it.
At least we have a good idea of the audience targeted:
‘Anything could happen in the next half hour. Standby for er…. Muppets’
Great! Love Stingray and the acting is much better and more natural than Dr Who
How hideously white, it’d never get made these days
true you would be allowed to use teak or ebony both are in short supply
Gerry Anderson said he modeled Troy Tempest on the actor James Garner.
Contrasting reports on court case:
Islamic jihad threat, and the BLAIRS.
1.) ‘Jihadwatch’:-
“UK: Qur’an-quoting Muslim plotted to murder Tony Blair”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/10/uk-quran-quoting-muslim-plotted-to-murder-tony-blair
2.) INBBC:-
“Terror trial: Suspect ‘had Tony Blair’s address'”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29609660
Islam Not BBC (INBBC)’s “militants”.
INBBC, in its propaganda insists in distorting the truth still about the nature of the barbaric Islamic jihadists of Islamic State, by using the dangerous euphemism of “militants”
(as above in court case report).
A reminder for INBBC on nature of its “militants”-
“Horror of Kobani: Headless corpses left in the street and victims with their eyes ‘cut out’, the savagery of Isis laid bare”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/horror-of-kobani-headless-corpses-left-in-the-street-and-victims-with-their-eyes-cut-out-the-savagery-of-isis-laid-bare-9791199.html
INBBC’s “militants”-
“Jihad massacre: Hundreds of headless bodies lie in the streets.
“Evil jihadi killers were yesterday beheading hundreds of helpless prisoners captured as they over-ran parts of a besieged Syrian town.”
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/404927/Islamic-State-jihadis-behead-prisoners-in-Syria
surely not Islam is the religion of peace don’t you know.
Unless there are supply or manpower issues with population control this does not make military sense.
The opponents have clearly shown they are not terrorised, but if surrender is not an option they will fight to the death as it makes no difference.
The only alternative explanation is some kind of provocation aimed elsewhere, which clearly is working well with the fine minds infesting governments of all the talents and market rate media here in the West.
Cherie Blair is a Human Right Lawyer, they are potential terrorists. They go together like immigrants and TB
Release him, let him get on with it…….
Was that the case for the defence?
In reply to GeorgeR at 12.31. I hadn’t read the follow up comments from others.
Another ‘man’, eh BBC? Anything else relevant you’d like to tell us? No, thought not.
RE BBC Parliament Palestinian State Vote
“As long as the hopelessly compromised and abjectly surrendering Brits are recognizing terror states that do not exist, why don’t they recognize Nazi Germany and Democratic Kampuchea along with “Palestine”?
A “Palestinian” state would not make for a peaceful resolution of the jihad against Israel.
It would simply become a new jihad base for newly virulent attacks against a weakened Israel.
Do the British MPs know this? Probably not.
Would they care if they did? Probably not.
How many times does this have to be done before the political elites get a clue?
Or are they so thoroughly bought and paid for that that will never happen?
The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 was supposed to bring peace. Instead, I and just a few others warned that Gaza would just become a new jihad terror base. ”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/10/uk-parliament-votes-274-12-in-favor-of-recognizing-the-state-of-palestine
So sad to see actors from our pre PC past (back when TV was watchable) appearing in a typically over tokenistic bBC drama like New Tricks.
Did Dennis Waterman really appear in the Sweeney when birds were birds, slags were slags, your boss was an uncompromising bloke, you could smoke your Embassy No.6 at your desk and we didn’t have to feel sorry for the villains.
And is it the same Nick Lyndhurst who appeared in comedies that actually made us laugh and still refer to the corner shop as the P@kki’s?
Was it really that long ago?
Some of the past series of New Tricks highlighted issues. There was one storyline based on a girl who had been abused after Top of the Pop’s – Shame on the BBC who knew exactly what was going on there but it was not PC to talk about it except in fictional drama.
New Tricks is an interesting programme – it almost feels like an endangered species on the BBC schedules and all the more amazing because it’s now into (I think) its 10th series. Somehow. Somehow it has made it all the way to a 10th series without the dead hand of BBC progressive political correctness feeling its collar too heavily.
But it’s clear its days are numbered. Waterman looks increasingly older, less comfortable and more like a spare part in this latest series. One senses which way the wind is blowing on the series; either it will finally succumb to extinction or Waterman will be pensioned off to make way for a further ‘revamp’ no doubt to bring it ‘more into line with current audience expectations’ or some such bullsh*t.
I think this view of the past was the reason that Life On Mars was so popular. One scene that sticks in my mind is two police officers sat in a car in a Manchester street noticing a recently arrived Pakistani couple walk by in full ‘costume’. For one policeman it was his first view of the new arrivals, the second one commented along the lines that he was ‘not to worry, there were only a few of them and they kept to themselves’. I was often surprised how this series ‘got away with’ so much.
I think you’ll find they were expecting Modern Britons to tut loudly at such crude and down right eviiiiiil thought crimes. They didn’t.
It’s called Alf Garnett Syndrome.
The bBBC’s take on Labour’s gerrymandering is obvious by their headline and sub-headings.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29606220
Labour rules out talks on ‘English votes for English laws’
‘Partisan fix’
‘No confidence’
‘No reneging’
When will the bBBC ask Ed Miliband why he thinks that Scottish MPs should rule English voters?
ha ha the police have found Tony Blair’s address in the spectacle case of the terror suspect. We are being told he and his wife may have been potential targets. More likely they had his address so they could contact his wife the renowned human rights lawyer (only when the human rights act came out before then she was a renown labour lawyer) to get them off any charges and to make sure their legal aid was ready. Do you really think Muslim would target the very people who opened the doors not only to mass immigration but unlimited legal aid for terrorists?
Would some Muslims bite the hand that feeds them? Faster than you can say Lateral Incisor.
Sometimes the BBC really do surprise me with their naivety when interviewing.
The government has announced today that people will be able to access lump sums from their pensions tax free.
The cover story for this has been about giving people the freedom to unlock what is essentially their money – this might be true, but most people at this age don’t need the money anyway.
The dark truth of what this is really about, is yet another government raid on peoples pensions.
Those people who have had the ‘wisdom’ to plan for their old age, and to pay part of their wages into a pension fund, will by the age of 55 have managed to build up a nice nest egg. Back in the halcyon days of our parents when jobs were for life this was a good plan
Today things are different, and it is rare for someone to be able to stay in a job for life. Find yourself made redundant, or ill or having to look after someone who is ill and you will need that support net we call the benefits agency.
However once where these benefits would last until pension age now the government will at the age of 55 be able to force people to access their pension pot so the government can avoid paying income support.
People in this position will not be able to spend their own money as they choose, they will be forced to spend it at a rate pre determined by the benefits agency.
It’s an amazingly short sighted policy though, because once the pension money is spent, what should have been a reasonably comfortable old age will require support from the government in the form of pension guarantee, and pensioners get more than any other group in benefits!
In short, having paid your National Insurance, once you have reached the age of 55 and extremely unlikely to get another job you are going to be forced to support yourself through your own savings.
Other people who haven’t made sacrifices and have enjoyed their money rather than saving will be rewarded by receiving state benefits ad infinitum.
The message is clear. Don’t save, don’t plan for the future, don’t get a pension, and the government will reward you. If you do try to save then the government will regard it as their money and steal it, leaving you in a worse position than the one who never bothered !
Thanks Thoughtful. Yes and if anyone has elderly parents (like me) or relatives with any savings expect to pay the going rate for a state ‘care home’ that will consume £800 per week of his/her savings until it is all gone. Only then will the state pay for the ‘care’ they need. This makes mockery out of any savings in old age and is the result of Labour (one size fits all) laws and Conservative contrivance that suits them both. They profit, we bleed.
Despite years of warning about Inheritance planning, my 94 year old father simply could not comprehend that the state could take his house from him to pay for his care. To someone of his age, Navy service all through WW2, and running his own businesses from 1946 to 1990, he is now in a care home to which he pays £2400 per month sitting next to those who paid nothing. By May next year all his savings will be gone and the house will need to go up for sale. But no-one gives a shit because he had a big house and saved up a six-figure sum throughout his life. He is exactly what the political elites have taught us to hate.
Rubbish!
There is no ‘forced’ about it. Under the existing system you were ‘forced’ to take out an annuity, now you will have an option to draw down some of your pension pot.
This change is approved by Ros Altmann who has a track record of common sense and fairness when it comes to pension matters.
Yep. Now the pension that I saved for that was devalued to 25% by Brown is finally accessible. I will now be able to get all my money out rather than have it dribble out at a couple of hundred a year.
Or at least that it what is said to happen, after the next election. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. A bit like Inheritance tax would be abolished after 2010. Yet it is still there at 40% on money that was taxed when it was earned and taxed when it was saved. Triple whammy.
It’s time the British people learned that they are nothing to the state but a means of providing the ready cash for the elites life choices.
BBC spent almost £700,000 on headhunters in 2013
Corporation’s headcount increased over last two years to 22,000 despite pledge to reduce numbers by 2017
Doesn’t surprise me, but is there a link to the source of this data?
Guessing the BBC is about the only outfit who can and will avoid explaining how many on the payroll (the whole tax avoidance issue they got excited and suddenly coy about when the spotlight turned showed that much), but such information must surely exist.
But actual further evidence of what the BBC tells often enough vs. what happens can always chip away at the trust and transparency claims, not to mention the ability to say anything accurate or honest.
As to headhunters, after they paid a fortune to Chris Patten’s best buds to find George of the Fumble (no refunds), their reputation for ethical or wise investment remains suspect.
Daily Mail?
‘Fury at £36k bill to find new BBC Trust chairman as taxpayers’ cash is handed to headhunting firm that employs Director-General Tony Hall’s wife’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2754930/Fury-36k-new-Trust-chairman-headhunting-firm-employs-Director-General-Tony-Hall-s-wife.html
here is the link, a bit of an own goal
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/07/bbc-spent-headhunters-headcount-rise
The Graun, eh? Tx.
Just another BBC-bash from a one of those darn right wing ra… oh.
Comments for this discussion are now closed.
Looking at those they were getting, wise.
It seems that BBC staffing, like pensions, can go up as well as really up.
Also, it would seem the cuts are on further hold until they employ enough people to ‘manage’ the sweet redundancy deals as only the BBC knows how…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/time-for-change.html?
Don’t know about telephone number salaries; they seem to have decided to employ the whole directory.
Waste of money go to Kobane and there are heads all over the place
Given its apparent significance to some, getting a lock on the Palestinian ‘recognition’ has been oddly hard to pin down.
Certainly a lot of folk not, as such, wanting to see it, or their role (one way or another) garnering much profile.
So many will likely have had to rely on the BBC.
http://bbcwatch.org/2014/10/14/bbcs-bowen-promotes-bds-in-analysis-of-commons-vote/
Now I see the words ‘BBC’ and ‘analysis’ together I tend to prepare for the worst, but with Jezza launching the Grads it’s Iron Dome time.
At best he seems again to have engaged in rampant editorial by omission, or worse plain misrepresentation.
For the chief editor of such a febrile beat, that he continues to rattle around unchecked remains bizarre.
I have to presume BBC watch lays out these forensic, mostly factual testimonies to BBC Complaints (The ‘Future of the BBC’ inquiry members should be following each one too), so I look forward to see just how they blow off all these valid critiques, especially those that show they can’t even follow their own guidelines, which are their usual fallback defence lines.
Another Leftie Love-In, Law In Action considers the most significant changes to UK law in the last thirty years.
The Great and The Good consider that Equality, Human Rights and Constitutional Change are top of the pile. No-one questions whether any of these have actually been good for the people, (that is clearly a given). Isn’t there a fundamental right in a democracy for the people to get to choose the systems and laws that they live under? Not in these people’s cosy world.
Shock horror though, there is just a suggestion that a very few people, (we have your names). aren’t too bothered if aliens get shipped back home to potentially face torture. We also get a little dig that our utopia of universal rights is threatened by cut backs in legal aid. The obvious solution to that is to cut back on legal costs, such as judges salaries, though that probably offends against Equality, Human Rights and Constitutional change!
UK law is deeply flawed and undemocratic as it allows a single unelected unaccountable individual to change the law as (usually) he sees fit.
Alternatively 12 people who form a jury, who can sometimes be very easily manipulated can set the law.
Under the continental system this system does not apply and courts need take no notice of the findings in previous cases.
I hope you are not being serious. Go and read the Bill of Rights of 1689. Look at Magna Carta and look closely at the word freedom and the word liberty. They are not the same thing.
Freedom is an Anglo Saxon root word and describes the natural state of an Englishman. Free by virtue of his birth. Read William Cobbett and Tom Paine and read the American Constitution , Bill of rights and Declaration of Independence.
Liberty is a Latin root word and describes the granting of rights and liberties by a king or a prince or a power.
Completely different.
Continental law is always a route to tyranny. in the wrong hands.
The rights for all Englishman were already defined by the Magna Carta. It had its 800th Anniversary last week and it’s what made England unique and more democratic accountable than the French. As of 1st November we can expect Napoleonic (EU) law to reign supreme from now on. In effect we will have no rights until granted by the French communists in a Strasbourg ruling. The BBC will ensure you bow down before the EU and they will claim the ‘right’ to call you a dangerous ‘heretic’ and arrange for state punishment should you disagree. Its worth remembering that our simple bill of rights was far superior to the so called EU ‘Human rights industry’ which the French have developed on artificial steroids to pull the rings of power. It will now be remembered as a ‘quaint’ English artifact of no EU value.
The King (in context) now called the EU is free to take back the rights from the commoners who now have ‘no right’ but rights as they are observed by the French legal beureaucrat.
http://magnacarta800th.com/
or
http://www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.htm
It seems Beeboids will continue to politically campaign for English rights and freedoms to be superseded by E.U law, and thereafter, by Sharia law.
Yeah because the Magna Carta really did lay down some relevant laws !
Here’s what’s currently on the statute book remaining:
Clause 1, the freedom of the English Church.
Clause 9 (clause 13 in the 1215 charter), the “ancient liberties” of the City of London.
Clause 39 (clause 39 in the 1215 charter), a right to due process:
“No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor shall we go against him or send against him, unless by legal judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land.”
In reality Magna Carta contained much more about the kings relationship to the barons than it did for the common man.
Precedent law supposedly means that a commonality of judgement is applied to cases with similar issues, but the reality is that no two cases are alike and it is never relevant.
Perhaps you will recall several years ago the ‘New Age Travellers’ and the law brought in by the democratically elected government – aggravated trespass. You never hear of it now because a left wing unelected unaccountable judge decided she didn’t like it and would render it unworkable.
When the case came to court, with a council asking for judgement, she asked ” have you asked them if they have any educational medical or social needs?” So now until every single one has been asked an order cannot be granted. They of course know all about this and make sure that there are always a few not on the site, and hence the law is wrecked.
Under the Napoleonic system the judge would not have this power and the democratic will of Parliament would not have been frustrated.
All in all the Napoleonic system would work better in a country with such a historic class system and vested interests where a disproportionate number of highly privileged individuals are in the higher echelons of the judiciary.
In the USA where this is not the case Judges are elected by the people, and if they make stupid or unpopular decisions they can be removed. This is how the system should work.
This is why we find ourselves in conflict so often with the ECtHR because they make one off decisions which our law then tries to apply in perpetuity to UK law. No other country does this.
So we either have to change to the Napoleonic system, which is a better one than we currently have, or our system attempts to cope with something which it cannot do, and will eventually break under the strain.
Vested interest will ensure that no threat is made to the position of higher judges through any kind of accountability, and I believe conflict and problems are inevitable.
Under Napolonic Law – you are Guilty until you have proved yourself innocent (opposite of current English law ‘Habeus Corpus’ under Magna Carta). If you read ‘Democracy in a Federalised Europe’ (ebook here) is really chilling reading -. ‘within the EU, Corpus Juris (literally: The body of the Law) which will allow no defence of ignorance of the Law, will require that each EU Citizen becomes liable for any breach of those 111,000 (and counting) even though no ordinary person could reasonably be expected to be aware of all or any of them.’
This is all very different to the ‘Magna Carta’. Just think ‘hate crime’ what is it? And how the left will get mileage out of accusing the ‘right’ that (we) are all bigots (therefore guilty). Patriots = Bigots = Guilt. This makes us all ‘guilty’ as we are all patriots. The list of ‘offenses’ designed by the left are massive. Most of which we have absolutely no hope of appeal (there is no appeal process). There is no vote (QMV) being installed on 1st November makes UK voting a thing of the past for the English electorate.
The cast list for “Law In Action” was even worse than Jim makes out. A current senior judge, a retired senior judge, and a retired senior legal officer who is now a prospective Labour parliamentary candidate – who began by scoring political points against the Tories. Off switch.
Do the BBC think that we don’t notice their biased selection criteria? Rhetorical question – they don’t care whether we notice or not.
They would only begin to take notice if they were flooded with complaints!
And in other news…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/something-funny-in-salford-water.html?
That first one… not sure if it is quite funny as more sack of rats cougar-class pissing contest winner.
And young Tim may have to stay after school to write out Ms. Boaden’s name a few times. Should have stuck with Hugs.
Twitter, eh? Got to love it.
Remember Beeboids… don’t write anything stupid!
The BBC tend to take a stern line in terms of race and gender epithets used on Twitter.
Oddly the BBC are somewhat tentative in the case of Rio Ferdinand
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29622338
‘QPR defender Rio Ferdinand has been charged with misconduct by the Football Association over social media comments.
“It is alleged the comment posted on his Twitter account was abusive and/or indecent and/or insulting and/or improper,” an FA statement read.
It was not immediately clear which comment the charge related to although the FA revealed there was a reference to gender.
The former England international, 35, has until 21 October to respond.
Ferdinand, who made the last of his 81 appearances for England in June 2011, is a member of FA chairman Greg Dyke’s commission looking at how to improve English football.
The ex-Manchester United centre-back has sent more than 14,000 tweets since joining the social networking site in 2010.’
And that’s all the BBC want to say. Should we the general public wish to judge for ourselves we need to go elsewhere for detail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2792797/rio-ferdinand-charged-fa-misconduct-following-qpr-defender-s-tweet.html
‘It read: ‘@ManCunian56: @rioferdy5 @matiousmarston Maybe QPR will sign a good CB they need one’ @ get ya mum in, plays the field well son! #sket’ ‘
For those of us not up on the patois….
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sket
‘Short for Sketel. Caribbean term for Super Ho.’
For once, the BBC is shielding us from the full flavour of the diverse multicultural vibrancy.
Oh yes Rio, brother to Anton the man who alleged John Terry made racist remarks. John Terry the man standing in the way of Rios doomed captaincy of England. Funny that and a complete coincidence I’m sure.
Sense that the BBC have plans to promote Rio into something ethnic and cool…a successful “name” unlike that other black bloke who plied his trade in the lower leagues…Clarke is it?
Something big in the PFA these days…that`s Rio`s career trajectory.
Ran a mile from the drugs tests as I recall…the kind of guy that the BBC seem to favour.
Poor sod can hardly run from the drugs now-which is what all those BBC runners and interns are employed for, I`d imagine.
The BBC must have spent along time reading up on another of their favoured sons…Quentin Hepplethwaite III…better known as Peel of the Manor.
Yet they must be confident that no dirt exists that Saviles landfill can`t handle…hence the ostentatious “Ostenburg” lecture from Professa Pop, the ole Blue Plaque an `all.
Peel went to Shrewsbury Prep, but found a Ringo impression could bed Texan totty at the younger end of the age range…most of the music that he churned out with Walters was utter unlistenable crap…and I don`t think he ever declared that Mushroom biryani to HRMC that Billy Bragg used to launch what passes for a Lefty career in the arts…Bark Rebellion in Barking-get a country pile in the West Country before the Army find out that you crashed a tank.
Hence,,Peel was described on the BBC just now as an “on-air rebel”.
ON-AIR REBEL?,,,does the BBC allow any other kind of Poujadiste ponce to grab the joystick and crash the whole shebang into Saviles landfill?
Just the kind of safe, posh privileged, pretentious lollard and dilettante that the BBC reckon will lead we greys and beiges into the Occupy yurt, whilst throwing sesame seed ciabatta rills down from the Savoy.
Viva Mugabe…viva Chaves… anybody got Owen Jones gym shoes fragrantly aired for QT later?
Scoot ye Beeb…hypocrites and spineless bastards all to quote Mozza of the Moss!
Beware the fellow travels of Saviles, me Suffolk suppurators!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-29613448
Trojan horse schools not improved, sheesh welcome to reality BBC
the very same that spouted “I wouldn t believe it” in one of its headers … well … believe it!
In fact awareness of discrimination against gays was met with a lynch mob … and that s just the parents!
One has to enquire, just Like “Rotherham” which should have never happened, been an abhorrent anomaly
… we find out it is, in fact “the norm” …
In Islamic majority schools is behaviour like that now
… “the norm” ?
Lee Rigby s terrible murder the manner of it, was hideous
now we see it every couple of weeks, shocked yes we should be
as its Brit nationals doing it, and has been since Daniel Pearl
… is that now … “the norm”?
That’s what happens when good people just sit back and do nothing and accept it as “the norm”.
The bBC, and how it never reports the racist side of Muslims (ever seen a racist Muslim article?)
Terror trial: Suspect ‘had Tony Blair’s address’
A terror suspect was considering an indiscriminate Mumbai-style attack and had an address for Tony Blair and his wife, Cherie, the Old Bailey has heard. Erol Incedal plotted to attack a “significant individual” or killings similar to the 2008 Mumbai attacks, which left 174 dead, prosecutors said.He also had a phone containing material supporting Islamic State, they added. Mr Incedal, 26, from London, denies preparing for acts of terrorism. He is being tried partly in secret.
And here is what the bBC left out of the above puff piece for Allah:
A listening device was placed in the car after the search, and Incedal was subsequently recorded to tell his wife that he hated white people,
I wonder why the bBC which is so quick to post incidents of white on non-white racist hate crimes , left the above snippet from a follower of the religion of peace out?
So I came home late tonight and I had the ITV news on the stories were
Police covered up grooming in Manchester
Ebola screening at Heathrow
The above terrorist court case
6 Muslims arrested on terrorism charges