Here you go and as requested, a new open thread. Detail the bias here please!
MID WEEK OPEN THREAD….
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
BBC-NUJ: still campaigning for Islamising Turkey.
BBC-NUJ serves Erdogan’s Islamising Turkey with its ‘Turkey Service’
E.g.
“Turkey weighs risk of military role against Islamic State”
By Selin Girit
BBC Turkish Service.
Ms Girit, of course, makes no critical comment on Muslim Erdogan’s fallacious assertion:
“Mr Erdogan warned against Islamophobia and said: ‘We strongly condemn coupling Islam, which means peace, with terrorism. It is indeed very offensive that Islam and terror are used together.'”
The above statement is factually incorrect on two counts:-
1. Islam does NOT mean ‘peace.’
2. It is NOT to be irrationally opposed to Islam to oppose Islamic jihad and sharia law.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29368925
But Islamophilic BBC-NUJ has a deep, unswerving political commitment to continue to campaign to get 80 million Turks into European Union. And British licencepayers pay for this dangerous propaganda!
Some recent ‘Jihadwatch’ reports on TURKEY-
http://www.jihadwatch.org/category/turkey
Where are, e.g.:-
The BBC Australian service? The BBC Canadian service?
Erdogan:
No one is addressing the causes of terrorism,
but they “have nothing to do with Islam” … sheesh!
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/europe/14420-erdogan-no-one-is-addressing-the-causes-of-terrorism
He ll fit right in with , Camoron, Hammond, May, Brokenshire, the BBC and Ch4.
The one difference, he s wilfully and deliberately lying. to further Islam.
BBC, Ch4, Camoron, and co, are just inconceivably
“ignorant” ? of the facts, and their dangerous implications.
… ( hmmm we assume )
As simultaneously 4.5 % UK Population is Islamic, but 95% have to live under a terrorist threat that is “severe”, the second highest possible?.
Then from that 4.5% only a ‘few bad apples’ are apparently to blame as nearly all muslims reject ‘extremism’, so over 99% of the population is under severe terrorist threat from what exactly Mr Cameron?
the erm …
“tiny minority of extremists”, that have …
“have nothing to do with islam”, as it is a
“religion of peace”?
… got it? 😀
Islamic adherents in the UK :-
33% Britain immoral/decadent Islam should strive to end it
30% want UK to be a fundamentalist state
40% want Sharia areas
25% have “sympathises with 7/7 bombers
50% believe 9/11 western conspiracy.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06
glad we got that straight.
Have you noticed that the families of the Western beheading victims all dress up in Muslim garb and using Muslim language whilst begging for their son’s life? How does that work if ‘this is nothing to do with Islam’ ?
Two weeks ago in The Times Letters page when the the US (CIA) claimed they had found the name of Jihad John (the executioner in the ISIS videos). The Times letter writer made this (still) valid point.
‘If this Muslim had family here in London, why is it his Muslim Mother or close family has not come forward to identity him from his distinctive London accent?’ Every Mother knows her son’s voice so why had nobody come forward to identify him?
Would that be the ‘non-moderate’ Erdoğan ?
“Speaking at Kanal D TV’s Arena program, PM Erdoğan commented on the term “moderate Islam”, often used in the West to describe AKP and said, ‘These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”
Source: Milliyet, Turkey, August 21, 2007
Turkey needs to decide if it is going to be a Muslim nation aspiring to leadership of the ME or follow Attaturk and try to accept the secular mode of Europe.
I don’t think it is easy for them. Because of this it would be foolish to admit Turkey to the EU not because the EU is a worthwhile project but because Turkey is so undecided and might resent the EU much as we do to the detriment of both parties..
An interesting people with an interesting history. Turkey is going to be important in how the future of Europe pans out. Whatever it decides.
Just so people know what it does mean. Islam means ‘Submission’ not ‘peace’.
As for Islam and terror, I think the Qur’an tells us all we need to know:
3:151
“When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast TERROR into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”
8:12
“I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”
Bukhari (52:220)
Allah’s Apostle said… ‘I have been made victorious with terror’
I think the holy books of Islam can speak for themselves !
hey …
Cmon guys, let Turkey in, fully support Hamasistan
… problem, what problem?.
… what could go wrong
http://youtu.be/6MERJSuSr8o
@LeoHickman: News at 10 item on Paterson by @davidshukmanbbc gently mocks his record in office and says speech unlikely to make difference
—
What else could reasonably be expected?
Pure Alinsky: smear, diminish, destroy the individual, never address the issue, never look at the facts.
£145.50 a year or go to jail, astonishingly good value. A cess-pit of labour-leaning tossers.
I’m curious as to why the immigrants on the Empire Windrush supposedly faced such a hostile reception In the London of 1948.
Curious because, watching Episode 2 of Peaky Blinders [16:44], thirty years before the streets of London are filled with mixed-race, mixed-sex couples, (possibly a mixed-race, same-sex couple too!). Perhaps these 1920s ‘Britons’ were descendants of Roman centurions and they would naturally resent the laid-back attitude of the Caribs compared to their own Roman military-derived leadership!
Despite the fantasies of the BBC and other race hustlers, the reality is that the total black population of Britain at the outbreak of WWII was around 10,000. Nearly all of these lived in a handful of locations, usually adjacent to port areas (Bristol, Cardiff, Liverpool, London). Most Britons, unless they had served abroad in the armed forces or other instruments of empire, would have gone through their entire lives without ever seeing a live black person.
“This winter many poorer people & families will be faced with a choice between heating or eating.”
Heard that phrase going around recently? It seems to be a left wing collective, where numerous people (common purpose?) speak out in regional media and the odd sympathetic national.
But not on the BBC
This week gas prices fell yet again to a new low, and the price has been pretty low for months.
Again normally there would be story after story about greedy utility companies profiteering, and how life would be a garden of Eden if only they were re-nationalised.
Except there are non of these stories on the BBC.
And there’s a reason for that !
Ed Millibands promise to force energy companies to peg their prices mean that they are unwilling or unable to pass the savings onto consumers from a low price which realistically has only one way it can go.
So when you hear the phrase that people will have a choice between heating and eating, just remember that this iniquity is being forced on them by the idiotic policies of Ed Milliband and his gang of clowns who are costing the average UK family an extra £150 this winter in artificially inflated utility prices
Britain’s Foreign Aid budget soared to £11.4 billion in 2013. Tens of thousands of pensioners die from hypothermia in this country each year – that £11.4 billion would pay for the heating bills of all of Britain’s pensioners. Incidentally, according to the BBC’s in-house newspaper, that foreign aid money included such necessities as bringing North Korean officials to Britain on a jolly (see http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/apr/03/uk-meets-foreign-aid-target).
Al Beeb reports that ‘UK unemployment falls below 2 Million’ Good? But hang on, it negatively adds that ‘wage growth remained stubbornly below the current 1.2% inflation rate.
Immigrants and cheap labour driving down wages perhaps?
The BBC really should come with a Public Health Warning.
Day after day it’s nothing but hyped-up, doom and gloom negative non-stories.
I realised tonight that I haven’t actually looked or paid much attention to the BBC webpage this week and I literally feel better for it.
Should the BBC just come out and call itself the American Broadcasting Corporation? It’s obsessed with the US.
Lead story on the BBC website “Obama: Ebola risk very low in US”. That’s news? Thousands dying in Africa (incidentally it’s odd how the reported death toll has stuck at 4 500 for over a week now – where do these figures come from?), the UK threatened, but the BBC is more concerned that President Obama says the risk to the US is low as 2 (count ’em) US nurses are infected.
You think any US news outlet is concerned with what our Prime Minister says about the threat to the UK?
The Today program on Radio 4 treated us to a love in for the NHS as a fully command based system which is able to respond to issues like Ebola, with every hospital having all the right equipment and all the right procedures in place
They contrast this will the economically free and independent US health system of individual hospitals which the government can’t control, as being hopelessly shambolic as they don’t all have the right equipment and the same procedures in place.
I mean poor Barak Obama has had to give up campaigning to come back to Washington to sort them all out !
Might be better sorting out stupid health systems which told one person they were OK to fly with a raised temperature despite knowing she had been nursing Ebola patients, and airlines which aren’t taking peoples temperature before they board.
Yes, I caught the plug for a US version of the NHS, with military metaphors. Can I assume that the new North America Editor has the same loyalty to the One as did my former student, Mardell?
“The Today program on Radio 4 treated us to a love in for the NHS as a fully command based system which is able to respond to issues like Ebola,”
Like this?
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/13/Ebola-Lewisham-Causes-Chaos
Ah, but, it was a different time.
Not the same NHS that’s presiding over the screening shambles at Heathrow, surely?
‘Travellers arriving at Heathrow’s Terminal 1 from West Africa were surprised to discover that screening for Ebola is optional.
It comes after Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt announced on Monday that there would be screening at Heathrow for all people travelling from West Africa.
Clive Patterson, a documentary maker who had just returned from filming in Liberia, said that he was asked whether he would like to go for screening.
“I did find it slightly odd that it is optional measure. I would have thought if you’re coming from a country like Liberia that you just have to be screened. It just makes more sense.”
Journalist Sorious Samura said he was surprised travellers were given a choice about screening and said that most people did not take part. ‘
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/ebola/11161996/Ebola-screening-passengers-surprised-at-optional-Ebola-checks.html
New euphemism alert. The phrase “Rotherham-style abuse” seems to be insinuating itself into the media. Put like that, the rape of white children by gangs of Muslim men doesn’t sound, well, quite so bad.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29639374
You know as soon as there’s evidence of non-Muslims being active in the organised paedophile rape gangs the BBC will say that, and loudly and often. Until then you can safely assume it’s more of the same as we’ve got used to.
Aussies get their wrists slapped again, this time for the heinous crime of misogyny.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-29639887
Surely a ‘sexist’ question would be something like: “Name a job that women are excluded from doing because they are women”.
But no, the BBC uses a couple of objectionable tweets as a vehicle in which to drive it’s narrative in this non-story, which is item no.8 on the main page, such is its importance.
There seems to me to be a rising fashion for portraying Australians as racist, sexist, bigots on the BBC. It’s all you ever hear about.
The BBC has a lot of staff with a lot of space to fill.
Combine that with JonDon rattling around looking for anything to kick and the output from that region is seldom of value even if vaguely newsworthy.
Mind you, here they seemed excited by an inflatable crocodile, so it seems dumb or trivial is a base pan-global requirement, onto which selective agenda can be applied.
The Marxist bbc bastards will go into overdrive to slag of any Anglo – Saxon country that has,a Conservative Government , Australia , Canada ,& NZ for starters. I don`t hear any bad things said, of Pres. Holland of France ,who has a 12% approval rating by the evil bbc .
Funny we should have been talking about Rudyard Kipling yesterday and the BBC not mentioning him, because this morning Melvyn Bragg is featuring him on ‘In Our Time’ on radio 4.
It will be interesting to see what angle the program decides to take.
Having had to sit through the Apprentice last night (she who must be obeyed likes it) it became apparent just why last nights ‘girls’ Project Manager (Nurun) is there, because it certainly isn’t her talent, ability or business acumen.
Someone above mentioned Peaky Blinders, to understand the BBC’s take on this, one needs to read the BBC’s/Diane Abbot’s view of British history “The myth of a pure society”. I don’t watch it, but I’m guessing its set in the 1920’s and completely inaccurate, most of Britain was untouched by immigration until the 1970’s. I started school in 1973 and my school was even then 100% white.
Link to Diane Abbots BBC History article, which in its own way is racist.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/dabbott_01.shtml
she’s there for the same reason as all the rest of the contestants – she’s a deluded idiot with a huge overestimation of her own abilities. The Beeb worked out after Series 1 that that makes for more popular telly than recruiting anyone vaguely competent. Aunty likes to decry populist telly but has no problem with producing it itself
It still amazes me how complicit other media and Westminster is in propagating the notion that this programme has anything to do with sensibly aspirational business practice, or Dragon’s Den with the complex routes to market of IPSecure innovation with motivated, skilled VC support.
If further evidence were needed (which it isn’t) that Abbot is a know-nothing waste of space, that article has it in spades.
“The earliest blacks in Britain were probably black Roman centurions that came over hundreds of years before Christ.”
What utter, utter twaddle. If there were any ‘blacks’ in Britain in Roman times, they would far more likely be slaves brought over once the colony had been properly established after Claudius’ invasion in AD 43, about a decade after Christ’s death.
Agree! They would have had quite a job to come over here “hundreds of years before Christ”!
Even if you take the earlier date of the first Roman invasion in 54 B.C., rather than the later one of 43 A.D., it cannot possibly be read as described by the ignorant racist Abbot.
And the BBC is happy to accommodate this laughable pile of socialist historical revisionism on its acclaimed History website. What was that about justifying the licence fee again?
The BBC and its socialist chums – way, way beyond the frontiers of parody.
Excellent observation!
It doesn’t help that there is a lot of misunderstand, some of it I’m sure is deliberate, of how the Roman Army was organised – even amongst the ‘experts’. IANA Historian etc, and what follows is from memory, but for what it is worth the simple version is:
1. The Roman Army was split into two main parts; the Legions and the Auxiliaries. The Legions were made up of citizens and the Auxiliaries were ‘local’ levies.
2. A citizen was some one who was born within Rome and its Italian possessions or someone who had earned citizenship, usually through service as an auxiliary.
3. A ‘local’ levy was someone who joined the Roman Army and who was not a citizen. They joined units that were filled with people from the same local area, Syria, Egypt, Gaul etc. Their reward, apart from pay, was citizenship and a plot of land after service of 25 years. Their children would automatically become citizens.
4. The Legions/Auxiliary units that served in Britain are not fully known but AFAIK non of the Auxiliaries were African and the vast majority of those that are known were from Gaul or Belgium.
Given this it is quite possible for the IX Hispana or the XIV Gemina legions (or others) who served in Britannia to have legionaries who were the descendants of auxiliaries but as far as I know there are no attested sources which prove this one way or the other.
There is the biography of Septimus Severus which states that Severus flew into a rage, due to some superstition, on meeting an Ethiopian in Britain. If that is taken as ‘proof’, and it is only weak proof, then it would suggest that the existence of Ethiopians/blacks in Britannia was rare enough to cause comment. NB it is not stated whether or not the Ethiopian was a Legionary or an Auxiliary.
So, basically no one knows but if there were blacks in Britannia they were few and far between unless there was a Numidian or Ethiopian auxiliary unit that there is no evidence for.
Just to confuse things further I remembered something thing else.
Claudius used Numidian led war elephants in the invasion of Britannia and the suppression thereafter.
However the Numidians are often portrayed as black due to some weird Hollywood nonsense but they were actually the ancestors of the modern Berbers, who are a light brown, IIRC. Given the PC nature of the BBC that probably counts as black, just don’t tell the Berbers that …
I personally don’t remember seeing a non white person until the late 1960s when my family moved to Southampton. Again I left school in 1977 a school which was completely white.
Owen Paterson’s speech this morning.
Firstly, in the Today headlines at 06:00 there was a distinctive note of scorn when the item about this was read – particularly where Owen has suggested dumping the Climate Change Act. (Inciidentally, ‘dumping’ became ‘cancelling’, which became ‘suspending’ at various times throughout the programme).
Adair Turner shouted down Humphrys at every opportunity, and told a lot of porkies about the success of wind and solar, particularly in Denmark and Germany. Now, as I recall, the wind farms in Denmark have become recognised, largely, as failures, and Germany is building new coal-fired stations. He also said that renewables would become much cheaper. Really?
We were then informed that they would be interviewing Owen Paterson at “ten to eight”. In fact, they wheeled him in much earlier. I wonder if that was deliberate?
Then we eventually heard Paterson being hammered and interrupted the whole time. I have to say, I was disappointed with his performance – he seems very weak, and still thinks that “emissions” of CO2 cause “warming”, and that we should “decarbonise” (whatever that’s supposed to mean). No mention of the 18 years of non-warming (yet that was mentioned in the headlines), and nothing on the faulty, over-exaggerated “science” of a changing climate (which was also mentioned in the headlines).
Altogether disappointing, I think – no doubt everyone in the Today studios were giving each other high-fives.
Although believing for some time that Paterson might be an asset to UKIP should he jump ship, I now have my doubts, and hope he stays put. What a wimp.
Another (apparent) climate realist meekly surrendering in the face of political pressure and BBC bullying.
At the moment there seems little hope that anyone can wake the country from its sleepwalk into eco-driven oblivion.
I did notice Mishal Hussein making the point to Owen Paterson that he is not a scientist.
This point was not made to Adair Turner earlier in the broadcast.
He could have politely pointed out that she is not a politician.
The Freud story kicked off at PMQs yesterday. At first it looked bad for Freud. But very quickly, the alternative media – NOT the BBC – started to give some of the fuller context. For instance – that Miliband had misrepresented what Freud actually said. By yesterday evening it was abundantly clear that Freud was actually referring to a small segment of potential workers – and that there was previous agreement that the minimum-wage legislation should not apply to what was in essence a social activity rather than normal employment.
More particularly, I had seen at Guido Fawkes an refernece to the idea being supported by Labour itself back in 2003 – with “pay” as low as £4 for a whole day ! :
http://order-order.com/2014/10/15/labour-backed-4-a-day-pay-for-mentally-disabled/
And this morning I see that Mencap had put out a paper back in 2000 that argued in detail for relaxation of the minimum-wage rules to assist certain segments of the disabled :
http://order-order.com/2014/10/16/mencap-called-for-disabled-to-be-exempt-from-minimum-wage/
Naturally I expected the BBC Today programme to give us all that context – if Guido can get it, so can the biggest news organisation in the world with its research staff working through the night.
I did not hear a squak of context this morning. It was simply one long hatchet job on Freud and the Nasty Party.
Sickening way to treat a very serious and sensitive issue.
What Guido hasn’t picked up on is that the one constant running through this is Freud himself.
He was an advisor to the BLiar government in 2006 hence the policy of the Liebour party Guido picked up on, and he then became a minister in the Tory government in 2010. Unsurprisingly he took his ideas with him!
No wonder people are exasperated with mainstream politics saying they’re all the same when the same people making policy switch between what ever party is in government and continue with their policy ideas.
This is not an issue with any political party except in respect of the criticism above, it is an issue with one man who has had issues in the past with his clumsy use of language.
Owen Paterson was “interviewed” by Mishal this morning on Today. I write “interviewed” because I don’t recall Owen getting more than 20 words out before being interrupted/talked over by Mishal (compare Sarah’s respectful discussion with Dr Goebbels from Greenpeace yesterday).
OTOH Mishal did expose Owen’s rather nuanced scepticism. For instance, I was disappointed at Owen’s partial resiling from his call to scrap the Climate Change Act – he’s now happy to “suspend” it and see what happens. Worse – much worse – he’s also is an advocate of “demand management” which, in the real world, is simply rationing under another name and which would allow our rulers to turn off energy supplies house by house as they see fit. Mishal IIRC steadfastly avoided launching her indignation rockets at this part of Owen’s proposals.
You see Owen is a “safe” sceptic at the BBC. He’s certainly not frightening the horses and, as a fully paid up (although sometimes “difficult”) member of the political class seeks to balance the nonsense of CAGW science and its politics with the maintenance of the power over our lives of his buddies (in all parties).
In all, the best that can be said is that this was the tapping of a small chisel on the fragile wall of greenism. Welcome, certainly, but hardly the sledgehammer that wall requires.
The problem with demand management or ‘rationing’ is that it requires a smart meter to be installed and the jury is still out on the safety of these things as well as the cost to the consumer. Also it seems that the meters that will be imposed on us are already old tech and therefore obsolete. There is also a dimension of Big Brother to these meters as it can inform the utility company just what appliances you use and when.
Surely the energy company will only know what one is using if that equipment can communicate with the company via a signal on the supply.
I do not know of any equipment that has this ability, except PCs and similar. Even then it would require a connection to your telephone line or via WIFI (if you have it) My WIFI is switched off except for when I am using it to download a Kindle book.
Does anyone know any more about this?
I’d be keen to know too.
‘would require a connection to your telephone line or via WIFI ‘
In passing, it may be noted that the front runner for securing the next in perpetuity unaccountable unique funding for the nation’s least trusted propaganda tool is a levy on internet services.
A link re the privacy issue http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/17/is-your-home-energy-meter-spying-on/
Paterson knows the story, as his mate Christopher Booker explains:
‘Their declared aim, at an estimated cost of £1.1 trillion, is the almost complete “decarbonisation” of our economy. Astonishingly, this means that, before 2030, the Government plans to eliminate almost all use of the fossil fuels we currently use to generate 70 per cent of our electricity, to cook and heat our homes and workplaces, and to power virtually all our transport. They want all our existing coal- and gas-fired power stations to close………
Mr Paterson will then show how any hope of achieving those Decc targets hidden away in a mass of opaque documents is, in practical terms, just pure make-believe. The EU would have us provide 60GW of electricity from wind turbines, which, thanks to the wind’s intermittency, would require a total capacity of 180GW. We would thus have to spend £360 billion on some 90,000 giant wind turbines, 85,000 more than we have at present, covering an area the size of Scotland.
To meet our 2050 target would require building 2,500 new windmills every year for 36 years, a rate eight times greater than we have managed in the past decade.’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11155315/Global-warming-Can-Owen-Paterson-save-us-from-an-unimaginable-energy-disaster.html
I reckon he’s been greenballed by Cameron.
Radio 4 From our own Correspondent takes the trouble to make sure that all the BBCs left wing liberal angst is aired. So we have a report from the poor foraging on a rubbish tip in Rio. Then a report from “Shaimaa Khalil investigates the upsurge in violence on the India/Pakistan border in Kashmir”
followed by “Julia Macfarlane accompanies a group of British doctors who’ve gone to help out Palestinian medics in Gaza” and you can guess the level of anti Israeli bias in it.
penultimatley there’s “the historic city of Timbuktu recovered from a brutal period of conflict and occupation by Islamic extremists”
So a majority of trouble causing Muslims from all over the world, but of course it’s never their fault, and the impact of their religion on their situations is completely ignored!
This morning dose of propaganda called Today. No doubt the presenters think we are impressed.
Of all the BBC’s output it is the most obviously designed to set an agenda suitable for force feeding us liberal twaddle.
Rarely listen as I find it objectionable. Stop listening to it. Go for a walk even if it is raining.
For decades the Today prog was required listening.
I now listen about once a week.
You brave man! {:o)}
I gave up several years ago.
‘Thought for the Day’: when will we ever get an opinion piece that is even vaguely right of centre?
Wishywashy lefty platitude for the day with added unsubstantiated, supernatural woo-woo.
A rapid – albeit completely unsatisfactory – response to a complaint to the BBC.
The Complaint: (slightly abridged): Complaint Summary: Reporting union demo appeared as staged for camera
BBC tv news just after 8 o’clock: Front and centre of the news is the healthworkers strike. BBC brings me a set peice demo from Manchester with female ‘midwives’ cheerfully waving union flags and banners. But wait, who is that middle aged man just caught by the camera indicating which nurse the BBC reporter should speak to? The first woman interviewed seemed confused as to the correct message to give when the microphone was pushed under her nose. So the mysteryman hiding in the background nudges the BBC reporter toward a second women who is properly on message and clued up. Then the man (union coordinator?) quickly dodges out of view behind the line of healthworker ladies. Clearly the union bloke only wanted plenty of ‘Call the Midwives’ on camera and was embarrassed to be caught on screen. Now I’m really doubting this is a spontaneous demo – it looks staged especially for the BBC. This appears not to be news reporting but the BBC and unions agreeing a pre-plannned and scripted, staged, casted and costumed camera opportunity – in effect a political broadcast on behalf of the unions. Putting their case in the best possible light with BBC collusion. This is not ‘news’ as viewers would understand it.It is biased. One public sector group idealogically supporting the case of another by presenting them in the most camera-friendly way?
BBC Reply (unabridged) : Thank you for contacting us regarding the
BBC One programme ‘Breakfast’ on 13 October.
I understand you feel that a report on the NHS industrial action was staged for the camera .
We are well aware of our commitment to impartial reporting. We seek to provide the information which will enable viewers to make up their own minds; to show the political reality and provide the forum for debate, giving full opportunity for all viewpoints to be heard.
However, it is not always possible or practical to reflect all the different opinions on a subject within individual programmes. Editors are charged to ensure that over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant views, opinions and trends in their subject area. The BBC does not seek to denigrate any view or to promote any view.
Our senior editorial staff, the Executive Committee and the BBC Trust keeps a close watch on programmes to ensure that standards of impartiality are maintained. We strive hard to be accurate, balanced and fair. Audience research suggests that most people who use BBC services greatly appreciate those efforts. The BBC aims to report what’s actually happening over a period of time so the audience is in a better position to make up their own minds about what’s going on.
I can also assure you that your complaint has been recorded and sent to the relevant teams. All complaints are also sent to senior management and the Executive Board – we have included your points in this overnight report. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC and this ensures that your complaint has been seen by the right people quickly. This keeps people informed about audience feedback and how we can respond in our coverage in future.
Once again, thanks for getting in touch.
Kind Regards
Anna Sweeney
BBC Complaints
NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.
In other words, I say the report of a demo looked staged for the camera, the BBC says, ok you think that but let us remind you that we are not biased – at all.
‘BBC says, ok you think that but let us remind you that we are not biased – at all.’
An evident unshakeable belief of theirs.
However, back to answering your complaint specifically… they seem to have pulled a Miliband.
In fact, beyond a summary line telling you what your complaint was, she seems to have only cut and pasted the BBC default weasel waffle, or Waffle SS (for ‘same same’) and not answered it.
Nice one Anna. But people might notice.
ps: rapidity usually means they are very rattled. Escalate & demand answers to the key points.
Good try AsISeeIt.
And the repose to your specific complaint (essentially one of manipulation) is what exactly?
I’ve read the response three times and am f****d if I know.
It’s up to you, but I’d escalate it if I were you.
For what it’s worth I complained again, adding that my initial complaint was not actually addressed.
It’s worth a lot, as the complaint warranted a sensible answer.
Collusion between media and parties or activist groups to create stories rather than report them seems relevant and newsworthy ((c) A. Newsroom Tealady.
At the very least they need to explain the evident astounding uncuriosity pervading every level of the corporation. In news teams that might be deemed a real handicap.
So no attempt by the BBC to re-visit the footage and attempt to find out who the mystery man was let alone get an explanation from the reporter at the scene.
Lazy, arrogant, complacent, ignorant – they managed to cover all the usual bases in the course of one reply. That’s some achievement, even by their standards.
“However, it is not always possible or practical to reflect all the different opinions on a subject within individual programmes. Editors are charged to ensure that over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant views, opinions and trends in their subject area. The BBC does not seek to denigrate any view or to promote any view”. Bingo! – I’ve had that reply as noted on this blog in the past….more than once I do intend to ask where the balance over time has been achieved I also note they have failed to reply to my question as to when BBc considers an illegal immigrant to be an illegal immigrant.
Norman Smith back on the BBC News again…telling us all about Cameron’s difficulties.
Par for the course. As does, it seems, his red tie.
Stormin’ Norm ‘LabourSez’ Smiff?
Shocked I tell you, shocked!
So the BBC reports that there has been a big increase in rapes esp at knifepoint. It would be nice if they would give us a breakdown of the statistics re ethnicity because I find it hard to believe that the indigenous population have suddenly gone in for rape big time. I have a feeling that our celebrated cultural enrichment has a lot to do with the problem.
You beat me to it, Maturecheese! I listened to the appropriately abbreviated TWATO today on Radio 4, from 13:00 to 13:45, and was struck by the usual BBC bias at so many points.
We were told that crime in general has been falling since the mid-1990s but rape and fraud are on the increase. As regards rape, the explanation was offered that, in the light of the Jimmy Savile and other ‘Yewtree’ cases, more women were now coming forward with reports of rape, which was not itself necessarily more common. This was undermined immediately by another assertion that about three quarters of the crimes alleged were NOT historical … therefore current.
There was no mention of immigration at all, though prima facie people might wonder if mass immigration had anything to do with increased knife-carrying and rape at knifepoint. No mention of Muslims or Pakistan, or even the official Alexis Jay report into Rotherham (period 1997-2013). Surely the latter report, with its estimate of a minimum of 1,400 girls abused, and others like it from earlier scandals such as Oxford, might have encouraged girls who had feared not being believed, to come forward.
So, once again, the focus is if anything on historical abuse by white celebrities (not always rape and, in any case, never at knifepoint) rather than on the far more numerous, violent and serious cases of Muslim grooming, pimping and gang-rape. The BBC simply cannot be trusted to report properly or even to reason with a degree of consistency on these social issues.
Thats just like adding 2 and 2 and coming up with some ridiculous figure like 4.
Fed up reading between the fucking lines with the so-called british broadcasting corporation.
Maybe Sweden is very different but just guess why rape cases have exploded in that benighted country.
Those ‘men’, again!
A pattern emerges.
Yesterday BBC News featured a disability campaigner on the subject of the recent comments of a Tory Minister. BBC News anchor Tim Wilcox was very sympathetic to her arguments. Putting one slightly challenging point to her he framed his question this way: “You and I may think this, but there may be those who say….”
In other words : The BBC, and I – Tim Wilcox, personally – are in full agreement with what you say.
Today BBC News covers some statistics concerning rape. Focusing singularly on male-on-female rape, BBC News anchor Ben Brown interviews a female lawyer. He is most accommodating to her point of view. His one concern seems to be that the scales be tipped a little further in favour of the complainants in male-on-female rape allegations. He says “Everything you say is positive, but does this go far enough…”
In other words: The BBC, and I – Ben Brown, personally – are in full agreement with what you say. But, perhaps, the BBC, and I – Ben Brown – would like to push you a little further in campaigning on this issue.
Now we know the BBC likes to talk about left-of-centre campaign issues. But are the presenters supposed to openly support each of those campaigns?
Some might say… the BBC sees itself more as a campaigning organisation than an objective reporter of news.
This would of course be a fundamental breach of the Charter, but really that was always more an Editorial Guideline, and we all know how those can be interpreted as events dictate.
This doesn’t surprise me one bit – feminist issues are almost a constant on Radio 4 and are always covered sympathetically. You never hear a discussion about anonymity for the accused until they are proven guilty, staggering really in the light of how many reputations have been trashed by false rape allegations in recent years.
Rotherham et al , not a mention !!!
Just caught the end of R4’s Film Programme, where Frances Stonor Saunders was doing a piece on Animal Farm, specifically how it was funded by the CIA as an anti-Soviet propaganda piece in the early days of The Cold War. The tone was ‘How very dare they! Typical dirty tricks from the CIA…’
Now call me picky, but wasn’t that Joe Stalin the CIA were up against (the Left’s top poster boy for some 40 years) who exterminated 30 million of his own citizens? Granted, I came into the piece part way through so she may well have covered this vital little detail, however somehow I doubt it as her parting shot was to inform us that Orwell intended his novelette as a satire against capitalism as much as against communism.
Well, we live and learn, eh? ‘All animals are created equal’ – capitalism to a tee, what?. Why did I never see that before? So bloody obvious, too! Tsk.
And by the way Ms Saunders is an ex-assistant editor of The New Statesman.
The BBC – educating and informing us in a style that can only be called ‘unique’.
The BBC has of late been jumping up and down about how other people and/or organisations conduct themselves, often getting excited about transparency (Donal & UKIP) power needs to be held to account upon, or backroom deals (usually Tory toffs or banksters) the public has a right to know about.
Hold these thoughts. Because then there is what the BBC, having spoken, does…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/transparency.html?
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/way-out.html?
Along with demanding people answer them when they default at the drop of a lawyer’s fee to an anonymous spokesperson saying they got it about right and that’s yer lot, they really seem to feel they are not like other people.
They just have more of our money.
BBC seems to be going quite big, one might almost say campaigning for the ‘Rooney rule’ in football coaching, which is basically positive discrimination in favour of non whites.
This is getting a lot of airplay on both sportsdesk slots and main bulletins.
Maybe we should also look at positively discriminating in favour of non-blacks on the field of play? They are likely to be over represented given their percentage of the population.
I actually think we should leave well alone and do no such thing, but can you imagine the howls of wayciissm if this were to be suggested?
BBc running the liebour scheme to give first time house buyers priority when buying a property. As according to Zoopla the average asking price in UK: £367,142. Flats here apparently average £96K How all these first time buyers are going to get a deposit and a mortgage, unless Liebour intends a return to the reckless days of irresponsible lending. As realistic as Cameroon restricting EU immigration without leaving the EU
We have certainly covered plenty of observations of how the BBC has skewed reports on Egypt since the ousting of Mubarak and the beginning of the ‘Arab Spring’ 🙄 related to the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood. With so many vile deeds perpetrated by MB it was great when the Egyptian military decided to intervene and put an end to these Islamic scum.
So when reading this article today: Carter Center shuts Egypt office over rights concerns, which the BBC felt important enough to list as second most important on their MidEast webpage, I could immediately smell a rat.
I’d never heard of this organisation before, but reading of their concerns about the present administration in Egypt while lauding the previous Muslim Brotherhood, I knew there had to be more to this story than the BBC were telling.
Much like the Al Jazeera journalists who were imprisoned for their biased support of MB, which the BBC avoided mentioning how so many other Al Jazeera journalists had resigned long before these were arrested precisely because of this bias.
So a short search on Google brings me to the Wikipedia page for the Carter Center wherein I read:
Controversy[edit]
Alleged funding-based bias[edit]
The Carter Center’s funding by Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries has been criticized.[39] Alan Dershowitz alleges that the Carter Center’s consistent criticism of Israel, while calling the United Arab Emirates “almost completely free and open” has been influenced by the fact that some of the Center’s funding comes from Middle Eastern sources.[40] One of the initial contributors to the Center was Bank of Commerce and Credit International founder Agha Hasan Abedi, who donated $500,000. Abedi and BCCI also donated $8 million to Carter’s Global 2000 project.[41]
Now when you read the way this group is presented in the BBC article, you will understand why the BBC thought it better not to mention that.
‘Now when you read the way this group is presented in the BBC article’
Probably has a TellMama ‘Keep up the good work’ card stuck on the wall, and a BIJ (sources vetted)-produced corporate video running on the lobby LCDs.
You can see why the BBC would fast-track ’em.
Carter Center? As in Jimmy?
Good grief. Possibly the most annoying US President of all time, sanctimonious, right-on re. the ishoos and totally useless.
And in other news…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/what-was-question-again.html?
I had quite hopes for this inquiry, but it at best soared without trace, and has mostly involved a succession of club members invited in to debate just how much the BBC can be wangled, how this can be ensured without anyone refusing to pay, and how it can blow this largesse with even less accountability.
A lot therefore hinges on the next and final outing.
Trouble is, Ms. Fairhead seems to have been persuaded that the best hands to the pump are safe ones, and Mr. Javid, whilst happy to fire the odd shot across sacred bows, appears well aware of how political meddling with the Opposition’s pet PR agency will be plastered across the BBC’s entire media estate, if only quoting the Graun, New Statesman, countless Gordon quangos… and Paul Mason.
‘how low can we make the licence fee without upsetting Middle Britain ?’
So far, despite Angie Bray’s best, usually curtailed efforts, all about the gilding of the spigot rather than any question of how poisonous the flow.
I could care less how diverse or ageist the committee or oral witnessess were or are, only the calibre of argument.
‘Let’s hope that Whittingdale’s sherpas can concoct some interesting lines out of the written submissions – there’s little in the oral evidence so far that looks like fresh thinking’
There were some interesting written submissions; a shame they didn’t get aired more in the committee. Most were from actual members on the public less concerned with keeping Mark Byford’s pension golden, and more whether the BBC was still fit for purpose, often with potent factual reasons why not that committee and chums didn’t go near or plain lied their way through (Mr. Steve ‘I don’t know much about 28Gate but i know the BBC is objective’ Hewlett).
We’ll see. But the faint whiff of stitch-up already wafts down those whispering, astoundingly-uncurious, market rate, selectively-forgetful, bottle strewn sack-of-rats corridors.
Can you imagine somebody interviewing Jacqueline Kennedy after the assassination of her husband John with a question like ‘Apart from that Mrs. K. how was the ride’?
It would be pretty bad taste, and fair to assume the interviewer wouldn’t last very long in their job.
So what about a known paedophile who worked within the BBC for many years, yet because the BBC feel he contributed so much they decide to ignore his abuse and honour him by dedicating a wing of Broadcasting House to him?
For me the irony of this personifies so much that is rotten and evil within the Corporation.
A cancer on our society, who really don’t understand right from wrong, and never will.
By honouring a sex predator like John Peel the BBC shows it’s learnt nothing from Jimmy Savile
To be fair to the BBC…that Blue Plaque must have cost £100 , now the Blue Peter fairy factory was shut down in 2009 with the loss of…well, no jobs actually…but that`s not the point!
Your round license fee muggles!
Cost of Bonnie Greer to lick the back of the plaque?…£15,000 plus VAT.
So-the BBC clearly obtaining “value for the license fee payer”…whoever SHE still is…the rest of us are outsourcing to Al Jazz where the truth DOES shine once in a while!
Giles Fraser was your prophets voice this morning…and was sandwiched between a few Eton Rifles story re “how far should a fat kid have to go to get his state-sponsored “burger experience”…and some sex-change Capital Radio geezerbird who-funnily enough_was unable to say anything due to a gagging order or three…but who`s listening?(except for the teachers and union monks, NHS managers and cheridee suckups?…certainly not Humphrys who shouted over the weather forecaster about storms..which up north we`d call “good drying weather”. Worrayobbo…and well taught by Owen J!
No 1 for comedy the BBC as they say…but all the funnies and comix stop being funny after 6pm,,,why so Be -Leavers ?
Not so much a comment on bias but just posing the question: is there a more hateful presenter than BBC luvvie and ex Daily Mirror hack, Ann Robinson? For some reason I have subjected myself to a few minutes of Watchdog – or Watching a Dog, according to Joe Royle – just to remind myself how nauseating some of the BBC stalwarts really are. No doubt I will wake up tomorrow morning to Polly Toynbee as the independent voice of reason on the latest social issue being investigated by R4 ,,,
Bloody good question…and one that is yet to make Question Time or Any Questions.
Two franchises…Dimbo and Sons!…with a mullah-lite tip of the niqab to Mr Stevens.
Can I recommend Libby”Bloody” Purview? Lolly Taylor?…Michael Rosie…with a “differently-abled ” Special award(we still able to use that word?” to the smug sanctimonious prig that is Peter White?
Down the lower orders..Shaun Keavney on Radio 6 is a plinth…with Phil (Interesting!) Neville to get the Sporting Spud Award…it`s a different lingo down there!
This has been the Portchester Vote…bon jovi London!
K.D Boyle and the `Ampshire Armee!¬
Here we go again. Crime Watch is now reporting on how the Bill are “fighting” Islamic extremism in Britain and discussing what happens when those who have been radicalised to join Isis, return to Britain. And what’s the first point the report makes? That the Muslim community in the UK roundly condemn what’s going on, blah blah. For sure some will. But the the essential take out the BBC wants us to remember is that it has nothing to do with Islam. Really? I think if you went and spoke with the Isis Commanders, as you Anuntie Beeb referred to them the other day, they would tell you its very much in the name of Allah. Apologists, again.
It is foolish in the extreme to obscure the motivation of Isis. On about every level you can think of.
But it is the way liberalism works. Coping with reality is impossible so the liberal creates a narrative that he is comfortable with.
It puts us all at a disadvantage.This absurd refusal to admit that the Isis fighters are committed to offensive Jihad because they believe the creation of a Caliphate allows them to do so is a flight from reality that threatens us all. The use of terror as an offensive weapon is likewise quite deliberate and part of it. We need clear sight and clear heads not liberals with moss for brains.
The pseudo-vox pop’ QUESTION TIME on BBC1 continues to remind me why I seldom watch it nowadays. It matters little where it’s from (UKIP’s Clacton or non-socialist Newbury) because the audience is largely the same, loudly cheering their own future marginalisation from mass immigration while failing to make a link between this and pressures on the blessed NHS. The panel are mostly Left-wingers or, at best, moderate Right-wingers. I thought Jeremy Hunt did fairly well, calmly putting the government’s case, but it’s hard when the questions are always coming from the Left. Angela Eagle was allowed to get away with murder, as ever, about Labour’s dreadful record on immigration, which the BBC knows it needs to hide ahead of the election in 2015. Giles Fraser was appalling and Ming Campbell almost as bad: they are completely out of touch.
R5L’s ‘after show party’ was just as bad, Nolan actually made the comment that whenever immigration features on the program the switchboards light up. But just as on QT they struggled to find anyone disagreeing with the colonisation of the UK from this multitude of callers, instead preffering to fill the bulk of the program with other subjects discussed.
I love that comparison always used by the left when discussing European freedom of movement and used tonight by that old tosser Campbell, that of our old going to live in Spain. A comparison that is never questioned by the BBC.
They conveniently forget to tell you that 1) They take their wealth with them and are independent of the state 2) Spain has a population density of 93 people per square kilometer, England = 411 ppkm2.
It is a stupid argument whatever the situation is with Brits in Spain.
If the BBC want to point out that ex-Pat Brits don’t assimilate then they must be in favour of that not against it, given their love of multiculturalism.
So are they saying immigrants to the UK are right or wrong not to assimilate with the indigenous population?
If they are using ex-pats as an example of British hypocrisy then they are assuming that the ex-pats hold the same views as all those they left behind. In which case the BBC is promoting multiculturalism against the wishes of the rest of the population.
So much for representing the UK!
I find the Journalists on Russia Today vastly superior in intelligence to those on the BBC, they feel comfortable talking to intellectuals without the constant need to interrupt. But then after Lord Lawson, the BBC now only invites over promoted left-wing students, on the same intellectual level as Russell Brand, a level that the journalists feel safe talking too, and they interrupt them if they fear they are going off message and into areas under BBC censorship.
Although Russia Today does have an anti-American bias, it does point out the current anti-democratic tendencies in the Western establishment, and reports on wars, revolutions and unrest in places like the Ukraine, Syria, Hong Kong and Iraq. While the BBC reports on moronic subjects such as a state of emergency being declared because of a politically incorrect statement about poor pay for a disabled South African athlete who seems to have killed more people than Ebola has killed in Britain. Also Cameron is producing a shower of not very cast-iron promises of action on Immigration, that will be put in the bin after the by-Election.
BBC News is manufactured by Politicians and left-wing Journalists to drown out the reality of wars, social collapse and massacres by the friends of the lefties, caused by the failure of the foreign and economic policy of a moronic left-wing politically correct ideology called Liberal Fascism.
I watched a very good doco, ironically on iPlayer, called ‘Cosmonauts’.
It made the point clearly that the West underestimated the capabilities of the Russians big time.
Certainly their intellectual power seems enviable, if on occasion misdirected. Ironic that their Journos seem chosen for smarts and toeing party lines, vs. the BBC’s chosen for diversity and toeing the BBC party line.
As an aside, in the Cosmonaut doco, I was truly won over by the dignity, humour and fairness of these grizzled Cold War warriors.
Trouble with Cold War vets on the Russian side is similar to those from WW2. When I see these ‘grizzled warriors’ with their puffed out chests weighed down with medals I wonder whether they were the men in front with 5 bullets and no rifle or the men behind in the NKVD trenches waiting with machine guns for those taking one step back. I suspect they are the latter, given the weight of ironmongery on their chests.
Similar applies to Germans from that era. I always wonder what they were doing to who during the war.
In this case I’m erring on benefit of the doubt.
These guys were sitting on top of tons of high explosive fuel with a one in not many chance of it going boom. Mostly interviewed in their cardies. Medals deserved.
One old boy was an engineer who had a wicked sense of humour, but going up once they’d reduced the number of scraping mates off the back bulkhead to a reasonable level took some cojones. Seems the Russians had just as many upper echelon guys prepared for them to take the risks under political pressure as NASA’s management. No side-stepping if it went pear-shape for these guys.
He was the one who conceded the Yanks took over when it came to Apollo and fair play to them. And him for saying so. Seems that while there was rivalry there was respect.
The only area not covered was who of these grizzled vets was piloting a MiG over Korea when he really had no business doing so. Another story.
I enjoyed the new footage and sensed no real agenda. Hence my bouquet.
The BBC website reports on the decision by a Pakistani court to uphold the death sentence against a Christian woman convicted of blasphemy. More evidence, if any were needed, of the medieval barbarity of the Pakistani state. Of course, the BBC can’t resist telling us at the end of the piece that “Muslims constitute a majority of those prosecuted” under Pakistan’s draconian blasphemy laws. That’s right, following the inverted logic of the BBC’s ever-vigilant, Islamic apologists, Muslims are just as much victims of their own self-inflicted stupidity as everyone else; a bit like Gaza really.
The BBC does seem to be able to accommodate two wrongs when it suits with ease.
No excuse of course, but using intra-faith barbarity to try and excuse its abuse targeted to others is plain propaganda.
Again it at least reports it, but if only tucked away on a website vs. entire staff in the courtyard of W1A waving suitable props, or #hashtag cards plastered across every broadcast report, one might feel they are less keen on making an issue of this one.
Which is censorship.
Given the BBC propensity to campaign against the death sentence in the USA, even when the perp is guilty by their own admission of some of the most hateful crimes, one has to wonder at their restraint with respect to Pakistan.
It seems moral relativism only applies outside of the West. What pesky racists they are!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29652764
“I got to the till and could sense there was an uncomfortable atmosphere then the man behind the till started shouting ‘no pets allowed’,” she said.
“I said it’s a guide dog and I’m registered blind, but his two other cashiers joined in the shouting match. It was very upsetting in terms of the language and the tone.
Something is missing from this report. Is it possibly conceivable that there are people who don’t know that guide dogs are allowed in shops The shouting reported seems well out of character too. Will the BBC tell me whose these people are?
tumbleweed
Three, all shouting? At least one male?
Maybe they were cat lovers.
Seems odd the BBC covered it at all.
Odder still to stop short of what may have led to this.
Tesco is of course the UKIP of retail so Top Trumps apply.
But after Marks & Sparks had certain issues with certain products with certain staff, one may have imagined lessons were being taught, having been learned.
Dilemmas now abound as guide dogs and blind customers are a bit of a national treasure compared to other priorities, so it’s possible yet further segregated aisles may be needed if the option of putting up or shutting up with accepted practices is no longer an option for staff.
You can come in covered from head to toe (security issue),but you cant bring a guide dog into a shop.Sue the shop or even the manager and staff,for discrimination.
Lets have a bet nothing will be done,its their beliefs so move along nothing to see.
Perhaps I should add a word for my local supermarket in France. The notice outside clearly says that dogs are not allowed. But inside you can buy one of those little baskets that fits in your trolley for the dog to sit in. Large dogs are usually tethered to the trolleys. Perhaps that is the way to treat stupid regulations: put the required sign up, and ignore it.
There are very good reasons why dogs are not allowed in food shops. That must be obvious to even the weakest of minds.
However a Guide Dog is unlikely to cock its leg over the vegetable aisle and even if it did allowances should be made.
One does wonder why Tesco and other retailers don’t detail a member of staff to guide blind people around the shop and have the dog tied up outside? Problem solved and Brownie Points earned.
Our local Tesco moves it aisles around regularly, according to the latest theory on shoppingology, no doubt. So how does the blind woman expect to find anything beyond the obvious? Also, given Tesco does not provide braille guides in its shops how does a blind person know they have picked up a tin of dog food rather than one of mushy peas? Does the dog signal a correct choice?
Perhaps this story is another campaign led set-up aided by the BBC?
We do not know who these people are, although in the absence of such information and if only to avoid suspicion it would be helpful to do so, as there have been incidents before (e.g. see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1295749/Muslim-bus-drivers-refuse-let-guide-dogs-board.html or http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/3775993/Blind-mans-guide-dog-barred-from-restaurant-for-offending-Muslims.html). However, a solution may be at hand – blind people could be more culturally sensitive and go shopping with their horses instead (see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1329398/Blind-woman-buys-guide-HORSE-strict-Muslim-parents-consider-dogs-unclean.html). Just be careful the supermarkets don’t nab it for making burgers, though!
Back to the original report, it seems that since moving to London it’s a common occurrence, a quote from a local paper..
“Everywhere I turn I’m being refused access with my guide dog since I’ve moved down to London,” she wrote. “What’s wrong with you people?”
I think we can all answer her question and I’m sure she can, just wouldn’t fit in with the NUJ’s rules?
Slightly OT, but in that link it said (I paraphrase) “Tesco says it has reminded colleagues…”. This seems to be the standard PC word replacing “Staff”.
What the hell is wrong with the word staff? I hear it on the tannoys in supermarkets, when it should be “a member of staff”. How can the managing director be a colleague of a till worker in, say, the Outer Hebrides! Or someone that works in a store in Neasden be a colleague of one in Port Talbot !
However, they are all members of staff, including the Managing Director. To me it just sounds patronising.
‘We do not know who these people are’
They are Londoners, from Londonistan. Draw your own inference
Radio 4 Today program asked the mind numbingly stupid left wing question, why are we sending an RFA hospital ship for the treatment of foreign aid workers and not letting Africans use it?
The reasoned response comes back that it’s for foreign aid workers so they and their families can feel secure that they will be given the best treatment possible away from the field.
Yes but comes the response that’s a 100 bed hospital which could be used for Africans.
Again remaining calm in the face of sixth form common room ignorance. By taking medics into the field we have tripled the number of hospital beds.
It’s just not enough to satisfy the demands of the comfortable leftie in the interviewers chair who wouldn’t dream of even setting foot on the ship, let alone on the African shore. Criticise everyone for not giving everything they have to a favourite ethnic group, whilst doing nothing yourself – typical socialist !
Maybe they should have invited Fiona Bruce and a bevy of BBC makeup artists on board…. Seems that would have nipped such lines of questioning in the bud.
Apart from the obvious stupidity of Bruce’s remarks I wonder why she hasn’t faced censure for this?
Just imagine if Clarkson had said he didn’t want to share a make up artist with someone who had recently come from Africa. He’d be accused of the World’s Most Heinous Crime: racism and hounded until he was sacked.
I heard that, too. I couldn’t believe my ears. Stupid, stupid BBC woman.
Donors gathered in Egypt last weekend to promise $5.4 Billion to Gaza/ Hamas. Swiss banks must be rubbing their hands with glee in expectation.
Must be great knowing that when you start a war and know you are going to take a big hit that someone else is going to come and replace it all so you can do it again.
It has never dawned on these stupid people that the shithole that has been created might be a motivation to start understanding that peace will only be achieved through compromise.
There was an iconic Star Trek episode that addressed this very issue.
Cue my old joke again……’ Why are there no arabs in Star Trek? ‘…….’ It’s set in the future ‘……i thank you.
And the Gazan Rolls Royce dealer……………..
‘BBC BAMEs’ [?]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ariel/29569062
‘Brainy BAMEs learn broadcaster tricks By Cathy Loughran’
[BAMEs….?]
‘…black, Asian and minority ethnic…’
[Oh, I see]
‘The BBC has some form in finding new broadcast experts this way. Six previous Expert Women’s Day events in London, Salford, Glasgow, Cardiff and Belfast – aimed at combating the lack of expert women on air – attracted 2,500 applicants…’
[So the BBC is keen to redress some perceived imbalances in broadcasting – I’m not sure there has been a full public debate and concensus on this issue but ok, fair enough]
‘The 24 at the BAME talent day had been whittled down from 400 applicants for the scheme, jointly funded by BBC News and Television and designed to discover a more diverse range of faces and voices, for the benefit of the whole industry’
[They mean funded by the Licence Payer – remember the BBC doesn’t print its own money]
For the London day, the targeted subject areas were cultural commentary, history, science, health and medicine, finance and statistics, food and nutrition. Upcoming Expert Voices days for BAME talent are planned in Birmingham, Bristol, Salford and Glasgow.
[So when you hear the BBC bleat that it’s strapped for cash….]
BBC FIND CURE FOR EBOLA – SOCIALISM
BBC News 24 yesterday questioned how the richest country on earth (USA) seemed to have have ‘problems’ containing ebola. Was it due to human error in following procedures? Was it due to to letting someone get on an airliner, having just returned from west Africa with a fever? No, apparently it is all because the USA is not socialist enough, and apparently the US health system lacks the excellent “command and control systems” of the the NHS in Britain. In other news, a CQC report has just found 4 out of 5 UK hospitals unsafe – how will Britain’s collapsing NHS cope with the impending arrival of ebola in the UK one wonders.
Good point. You may wish to read my newest article too.
I do not intend to sound to pompous yet I’m sure you will find it intriguing.
Best,
Allan