You may have noticed the prominence the BBC gave on Saturday to Labour’s statements on the NHS….or rather statements to come, for Labour were supposed to be making those statements today. The BBC chose to highlight Miliband’s future statements in preference to the Tories’ actual launch of its election campaign….oh for sure the BBC paid that some attention….delighting in telling us that the Tory poster was dishonest….using an article in the Spectator to inform us about this ‘porkie’ on the Deficit.
Will the BBC be similarly rigorous in their research and make headline news out of the latest from the Spectator:
And now a porkie from Labour: spending is not (really) heading back to 1930s levels
But to the real point of this post…another article from the Spectator:
How the NHS silenced a whistleblowing doctor
And in the Mail:
Demonising of a decent man: His sin? Expressing concerns about the NHS in the Mail. But the venom, bile and hatred this provoked from his fellow doctors will stagger many readers …
Not a sign of interest from the BBC so far.
Curious really when they have paid attention to what the good doctor has said before…if only to dismiss it out of hand taking his critic’s side…..
‘…a line picked up by the BBC’s health correspondent Nick Triggle. Writing on the Corporation’s website, he said: ‘GPs have already made it clear they will not be “border guards”, and without a simple system to check eligibility there is a risk the crackdown will cost more than it saves.’
He also claimed: ‘Those working in the NHS are much less exercised about the health tourism “problem” than politicians.’ Note those quotation marks around the word ‘problem’, and the implication that it is far from established that there is any such thing as health tourism.
When BBC presenter Sarah Montague interviewed Jeremy Hunt, she gave the word ‘problem’ particular emphasis, employing the spoken equivalent of quotation marks.’
A ‘whistle-blowing’ surgeon is silenced by the NHS and abused by GPs who started a campaign of vilification against him and the BBC prefers to spend a day asking if Steven Gerrard was a great footballer on Friday.
Always interesting what the BBC decides is a story worth investigating.
The Today programme this morning is giving Labour two large bites of the cherry on its election campaign…that’s of course after an already very large bite of that cherry over the weekend:
Labour has moved to place the health service at the centre of its general election campaign with a warning that the NHS would not survive in its current form under another five years of David Cameron. In what is being described as a “start of the race” memorandum to activists, the party’s election strategy chief Douglas Alexander has called for a four-month campaign to “save the NHS” in the run-up to polling day on May 7 (see 0710). Andy Burnham is the Shadow Health Secretary. Nick Robinson is our political editor.
Wonder how challenging will the interview be…will the Welsh NHS get a mention?
BBC and Leftist Twitterati – 1 : Oldham Athletic – 0
(Ched Evens sent off in the first minute)
If his appeal is successful and his conviction overturned, how many of those determined to deny him a livelihood will be joining the queue to apologise?
Interesting that the Ministry of Justice was quoted on the BBC on Saturday as saying that Ched Evans will not be allowed to pursue his career overseas (following possible interest from a club in Malta). So much for freedom of movement in the EU, then, as they have no problem with foreign rapists (and murderers, fraudsters and terrorists) coming here to “pursue their careers”.
Ah, but this is the right sort of rape. White footballer. Hence more beeboid coverage than the wrong sort of rape, like Rotheram.
If ex-cons are now officially unemployable according to the Beeb that’s going to make rehabilitation rather difficult.
Presumably they’ll be firing Stephen Fry from QI immediately and apologising for having a presenter found guilty of credit card fraud and imprisoned in their youth.
Indeed.
I too was intrigued by the notion of a media-mob essentially rendering anyone unemployable and hence unable to sustain themselves, for life.
And lo, the ‘law’ of unintended consequences has quietly been enacted again.
Be interesting how those ‘influencers’ most vocal will extricate themselves and those they have dragged along from the corner they have painted the entire justice system into.
And I don’t think it can take too many more ‘uniques’ or exemptions to accommodate their selective outrage criteria.
The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is specifically designed to allow criminals with spent convictions to return to society and employment; it could be argued that some of the campaign against Mr Evans is or borders on illegality. It is a painful example, as the emotional blackmail is of the “if-you-are-not-against-this-rapist-then-you-must-be-for-him” variety, which is illogical but who wants to support a convicted rapist? Roll ahead only a very few short years and this extra-judicial approach will be extended to many areas:
“I’m afraid you’ve been unsuccessful in your application, Mr Smith. It says on Twitter that you voted UKIP in the 2015 General Election. I’m sorry, but there would be a furore if the store employed somebody who might have anti-immigration views.”
They probably won’t have gulags in future Britain, but they will stop you being able to earn a living.
If the liberal elite is to stay on top then it wll have to resort to force. All elites do in the end. Twitter is but the first stage of turning a person into a non person. Once that is done then it is relatively easy to make that person vanish.
I do not think our nice empathetic liberal wants this sort of state but that is what will happen once the rule of law becomes subject to a mob.
Ian, you may be closer to the truth than you imagine. This was from 2002.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2264846.stm
And to prove that point. NHS Midwifes (of all people) are now required to provide NHS abortions. This is because those liberals out there don’t want to see any conscientious objection – like we had in world war 2. Any objection to the new ruling aristocracy is an admission of being guilty of a crime. In the EU you are guilty until proved innocent. So UK Nurses can be dismissed arbitrarily on suspicion of being a ‘….’ (anything the BBC disagrees with and the new ruling elite). The errors in Sweden are being repeated here in the UK. As 40% of all UK jobs are public sector you are now required to be silent.
http://citizengo.org/en/15066-write-ellinor-swedish-midwife-who-does-not-perform-abortions?tc=gm
or:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-30514054
Ed Miliband enjoys a very soft interview on BBC Breakfast this morning.
As, in her friendly way, BBC sofa warmer Naga Munchetty lobbed a few easy questions ‘without getting bogged down in the numbers’
Highly paid BBC journalists do not use the National Health Service, so they do not care if it is any good or not. What they do care about is getting in another Labour government – so they can carry on affording to go private using the cash extracted from people who do use the NHS.
They have the same attitude to education. Do you think for one moment that John Simpson, for example, sent his kid to a State sector school?
You should have a listen to John Humphries attacking Ed Balls on the Today Program this morning at around 8.00 am.
He certainly didn’t give Balls an easy ride, pointing out to him that the 1930s was a time when the UK didn’t have an NHS, and challenging him that the implication of their advert is that the Tories were planning to put an end to the NHS !
Balls started going on about private firms taking NHS work, and Humphries quickly reminded him that it was the previous Labour government which started the private sector involvement to reduce queuing times.
Definitely worth a listen to as it was so different to the usual bBC / Labour interview. Balls was made to look a bit silly to say the least.
The one I heard was with Andy Burnham 🙂 and for once I had to say that Humphries did an excellent job
Sorry I must have missed the interviewee, they all seem the same to me !
To be fair, the Burnham creature sounds like, and has all the mannerisms of Ed Balls – even referring to the interviewer (in this case Humphrys) by his Christian name whenever he could – typical Balls (and Labour) strategy, as if trying to add impetus to the lies he was spouting. So an easy mistake to make.
John Humphries did an excellent interview with Burnham, full marks.
If so, good for Mr. Humphrys… this time.
I look forward to hearing it.
Maybe the elephant in the room was a tad too big for even the BBC to avoid, and clearly Jon is facing the joys of NHS (or, maybe, not) sooner than some.
Still a sprightlier talent seems to have also discovered that the hand that feeds does not take well to straying even the merest bit, and trying to maintain even a modicum of professional integrity cannot be tolerated:
http://order-order.com/2015/01/05/labour-room-meat-turn-on-pillock-norman-smith/
Toss up whether his tweets will be ‘what more can I do for these ingrates?’ frustration, or ‘see… balance’ delusion whilst being kicked.
Certainly the Labour stage managing PR appears at usual competence.
Didn’t hear the interview but I’m betting the words ‘Liverpool’ ‘pensioner’, ‘pathway’ and ‘murder’ didn’t make an appearance.
How the BBC can call it self unbiased when it won’t go after that genocidal maniac Burnham God only knows.
And in the big 08:10 slot, Andy Burnham rode totally roughshod over the top of the BBC Today presenter, completely refusing to really address any of the questions being put to him, even having the cheek to say “…if you’d give me a chance, I’d answer. your question…..”
Ah well, an apparently tough question, a half-hearted second attempt to get an answer to the question, and when the Labour guy just keeps on going with the party rhetoric, abandonment of any attempt to get an answer. ‘Plus ça change…..’ at the BBC. Compare and contrast this to the BBC’s standard approach to any Conservative minister (I was going to say any minister, but then I remembered the utterly easy ride usually given to any Lib Dem minister).
To be fair though, I think Humphries did a good job putting some real questions to him.
He did not let him get away with just saying the Tories were “massively increasing privatisation of the NHS”, but pointed out it had been 5% when Labour left office and was only 6% now.
The fact that Andy Burnham did not really answer anything showed him for the slime-ball he really is, not due to the lack of questions.
I think he was somewhat taken aback at the questioning style – he had not been expecting a ‘real’ interview.
Perhaps Humphries will be sent off for re-education.
Isn’t it funny how some of us thought it was a good interview, while others thought not.
It seems that in this case bias is in the eye of the beholder.
Yes, I suppose it is not possible to remove all bias from an observer.
The best I think that could be done would be to come up with some sort of interview metrics, that could quantify some aspects of an interview. The ideal would be that all observers would agree on the counts for a particular interview.
# questions asked
# interviewer interrupted interviewee
# interviewee interrupted interviewer
# seconds speaking for each party
# positive ‘challenge’ points put by interviewer in response to what interviewee said
That sort of thing. I’ve seen some good analysis of some interviews a bit like this somewhere. The trouble is it takes an awful lot of time to do and the BBC couldn’t care less anyway.
Perhaps there should be a role for a regulator here, though I can just imagine that becoming another pointless paper exercise so could not really trust anyone to do it with proper purpose.
‘I’ve seen some good analysis of some interviews a bit like this somewhere’
Craig used to do so here.
Now here (as with this latest post):
http://isthebbcbiased.blogspot.com/2015/01/new-year-same-old-bias.html
Where BBCWatch is forensic on detail and source material, he adds another level to quantifying bias, which is no mean feat, as the BBC knows it is subjective and you’d have more luck nailing jelly to a wall.
At the very least a complaint founders immediately on ‘the BBC believes the BBC has got it about right’. Any attempt to garner data to argue that will be met with a BBc ‘purposes of’ stonewall, so it’s stitched up neatly.
Beeb Bias Craig used to do this most expertly. Maybe he could be persuaded to do something in the run up to the coming general election.
It was Burnham
Burnham-on-Sea or Burnham at Sea ?
Burnham under the sea would be preferable
Burnham is a close 2nd to the loathsome Balls for punchability.
What the BBC and the political parties allied to them never say is that the Lisbon Treaty and our membership of the World Trade Organisation commit the country to open up the NHS and other public services to the private market. As per the reference above, this process began under the previous Labour regime, but is fully supported by the Conservatives and Lib Dems as well. This is why, for instance, the Conservatives always talk about the NHS remaining “free at the point of delivery”. Even if the provision of the entire service is privatised, as long as people don’t actually pay to visit a doctor or hospital then it is a “free NHS” in their parlance.
Remember who is the primary source of finance to Labour and whose members do the constituency grind for Labour: it’s the public sector unions. Accordingly, Labour’s policies are skewed in favour of hobbling the private sector wherever it can, re-nationalising the railways and reducing private supply to the NHS. Of course, neither Humphrys (who, admittedly, was rather more aggressive than usual towards Burnham this morning) nor Robinson went near that one: it’s toxic for Labour and thus for the BBC.
We mustn’t eat any more sugar – the university-based “expert” said so – you, know the “expert” who is one of a growing number of “we’ll-tell-you-government-wallahs-anything-(and-everything)-you-want-to-hear-for-increased-and-continuing-funding-so-that-the-“evidence”-fits-the-desired-result”.
And another “Today” morning where a large number of sentences began with either “so” or “absolutely”. I am so tired of so and absolutely…
Come on, be fair: this is the first time the BBC have promoted the anti-sugar campaign THIS YEAR. I’ve checked my BBC Editor’s calendar 2015 and fellow travellers Action On Sugar have been allocated four slots this year. However, both Pepsi and Coca Cola are rumoured to be preparing new sugar free drinks so additional supportive propoganda may be needed. (Cynical? Research the people behind Action On Sugar and see who has financed them).
P.S. Readers with a longish memory may recall a near identical article run by the BBC on January 9th last year, supported by a slot on the Today programme. So, 4 days early this year!
I suppose it makes a difference from touting the ’80’s lie about Coke Cola assassinating trade unionists in South America …
Plus ca change indeed.
Wholeheartedly ( not ‘absolutely’, you will note) agree on your latter point, Old Goat. Starting a sentence with the word ‘so’ just grates on me. Anyone can substitute ‘therefore’ for ‘so’ and see if the sentence/response/whatever still makes sense. If not, then drop the ‘so’. In 99% of cases these days, the word is used completely superfluously.
I first noticed the use of this phraseology in interviews with academics some time ago, but it’s now becoming a common usage item. I am glad someone else agrees enough to post about it.
P.S. It was particularly galling to look back, the other day, at one of my previous posts, only to find that I had inadvertantly dropped into the same ‘so’ vernacular….and that grates on me even more !
BBC pro-Labour bias in the last few days, in the selection, presentation and content of news items and programmes has been relentless, and no doubt we haven’t seen anything yet!
The Labour Party are moaning that the Tories will outspend them in campaigning this election year- happily forgetting to mention the countless ‘charities’, quangos, and public sector interest groups – including the jolly old BBC – who are firmly on their side and will be campaigning like mad.
They don’t need to spend as much as the Conservatives. Everything the Conservatives produce for campaign purposes will be taken up by the BBC who will invite spokespersons from the Labour Party to rubbish it, (and probably pay them £700 a time for doing so) providing their Lefty mates with free access to millions of voters. (And of course they will have an unlimited supply of ‘experts’ and ‘professors’ to denigrate and question all aspects of the Conservative campaign.)
Its worth remembering that Gordon Brown invented over 2,000 left wing (all publically funded NGO’s) charties + websites (designed to wage war in opposition). This deliberate ploy made the Conservatives respond immediately with the UK Lobbying Act which came into force to prevent Browns followers from lobbying during election time. It includes prevention to prevent Bribery (Bribery Act 2010). It does not however prevent the BBC (as they are publically exempt). So called ‘other’ NGO Charities cannot party lobby during election time but by crikey they will have a go. Its called Transparency of lobbyings now and was updated in 2014 after complaints that it discriminated against Labour or its satellites (or words to that effect). Gordon Browns ‘secret Army’ lies in wait’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9633379/Gordon-Browns-secret-army-could-defeat-the-Coalitions-welfare-and-education-reforms.html
Burnham on yet again.
As a number of people have pointed out previously, there is a growing trend where a Labour front bencher allowed BBC time, without a balancing Tory interview. Where was Hunt? Why wasn’t he allowed the right of reply to Burnham’s accusations about Tory intentions?
We need to keep an eye on this blatant lack of balance.
This has to be quantifiable, vs. other semantic weasels the BBC can try about the same another time or elsewhere, or invited but didn’t attend.
Of course the only source of such information across the BBC media estate will be the BBC, and I suspect asking for such data as who appeared when alone (fact… irrespective of any other factors such as questions asked, not asked, tonality, interruptions, etc) will be another set tricky to tease from behind Aunty’s ‘purposes of not ‘fessing up’ excuse mill.
BBC Radio 2 News at 3 pm today.
Item 1. Coalition Report states that proposed Labour spending has no funding. Wheel on Ed Balls who pours damnation and scorn for twenty seconds on the report yet without referring to a single fact. No opposition view.
Item 2. Ched Evans the ‘rapist’ who will now not get a job as a footballer with Oldham. Online petition mentioned and also that sponsor withdrawing support for Oldham if he plays.
Item 3. I will never know as I switched over.
Bringing us back to the main topic of the thread…..
The NHS is staffed by doctors who in the past few years have shown every sign of being front line Common Purpose footsoldiers on a mission to bring ‘social justice’ to every corner of the world, but especially to the UK if it means enticing more ‘vulnerable people’ from the Third World to enjoy free healthcare at taxpayers’ expense – in fact, not even at taxpayers’ expense, but at the expense of an even bigger national debt because we are having to fund any extra spending on the NHS through more borrowing. (By the way, the same national debt we are increasing year on year with billions of foreign aid.) The language they use e.g. refusing to act as ‘border guards’ or ‘tax collectors’ is about as subtle as a bag of snot and gives their true agenda away: a bunch of lefties with their own agenda who don’t give a stuff for the NHS and even less for the taxpayer. Ditto pharmacists and their recent refusal to use a system for guarding against prescription fraud.
“After Mid Staffs, Labour’s NHS lies won’t fool voters”
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/5498/after_mid_staffs_labour_s_nhs_lies_won_t_fool_voters
Sadly, I fear – with the BBCs help – voters will easily forget Mid Staffs as I bet it hardly gets a mention.
What really does annoy me though, is the brainless one-upmanship where all the parties are competing to spend the most on the NHS.
As if simply Spending money is the key. I seem to remember that New Labour spent loads on the NHS and it all went to providing a new layer of middle management who managed all the queues and funding with no benefit for the patients.
Of course, this lot make sure they are never the victim of all the ‘cuts’. Much better a few patients die than the public sector loses access to the public teat.
The feminists and faux male feminists are out in force with their bile directed at Ched Evans. Not so vociferous on the lack of justice for actual rape victims at the hands of Muslims in Rotherham and other parts of the country.