The BBC doesn’t like criticism, it likes to hand it out but doesn’t like it when the tables are turned.
Last year it started to operate a new policy of attempting to charge down any criticism it received in the Press…
Contact right! BBC’s rapid rebuttal unit goes into action against the Sun
The Guardian told us to…
Dig your foxholes good and deep, people – it’s going to be a long war …
And so it seems…the BBC has once again struck out at the Sun for their report on payments to MPs who appear on the BBC…as ‘Retweeted’ by the Mail (It’s free!)..
BBC pays out £200,000 of taxpayers’ cash in fees to MPs who appear on shows with Labour’s Diane Abbott and Alan Johnson pocketing the most
But is the BBC’s reply the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
The reply in brief, and more readable…
SUN ATTACK: THE BBC’S RESPONSE
The BBC claimed stories about appearance fees paid to MPs are run on a “regular cycle” by various newspapers. It pointed out that MPs only get paid when they appear in a capacity beyond their role as a politician, such as on Have I Got News For You.
So “MPs only get paid when they appear in a capacity beyond their role as a politician, such as on Have I Got News For You.”
Really?
How about Diane Abbot?
In 2012 the BBC were caught out…
BBC payments to MP Diane Abbott ‘breached guidelines’
And yet Guido said in December last year…
Diane has raked in a six figure sum from Auntie Beeb for her appearance fees since April 2007. Despite the BBC Trust admitting two years ago that Abbott was overpaid. You can see the full breakdown of her BBC cash via the BanTheBBC blog here. That means Diane has trousered nearly £600,000 from the British public in the last seven years…
Abbot appears on the political programme ‘This Week’…and of course is there precisely because of her role as an MP…as is Portillo….hardly ‘appearing in a capacity beyond her role as an MP’ then. And yet she is getting paid.
Labour stalwart Alan Johnson, MP, is also a favourite of the BBC, no doubt employed to keep the Red Flag flying in the hearts and minds by presenting us with the friendly and avuncular socialist Al….’political’ but under the radar (as Jack Straw might say).
The BBC also employs the likes of Rory Stewart and will claim he is appearing in the role of presenter. But that isn’t true. He’s there on the BBC because he has been carefully selected in light of his well known views on the wars in Iraq and Aghanistan…in essence he is against them, which of course chimes with the BBC’s mindset and so he is presenting programmes that are highly political despite being labelled ‘history’. Like Portillo he is a Tory wet and unlikely to rock the BBC boat but is a suitable stooge that makes it as if the BBC has attempted some balance by giving airtime to a Tory. He is the ‘goto’ guy for the BBC if they want some adverse comment about the Wars.
The Guardian reveals the true narrative of one of his programmes on the invasions of Afghanistan…
I think I know how it goes. Muskets and bayonets will be replaced by tanks and Kalashnikovs, then by drones and IEDs.
But the story will be the same – one of defeat, or uncertain victory, and heavy casualties. It’s as if that past 175 has been one long warning about the dangers of getting involved there, but a warning ignored.
Ah, how stupid to get involved in Afghanistan.
Here he is again, this time on the subject of the Middle East talking about Lawrence of Arabia…associated with the creation of the much hated, by the BBC, nation states in that region…
Rory Stewart examines the writings of Lawrence of Arabia, and learns that the warrior hero himself later questioned the very nature of his intervention in the Middle East.
In these two films, he examines the legacy of Britain’s First World War campaign in the Middle East, and draws parallels with British and American interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan today.
He concludes, ‘Looking at Iraq and Afghanistan today, I believe very strongly that Lawrence’s message would not have been do it better, do it more sensitively, but don’t do it at all.’
But that’s not true…Lawrence thought that the outcome was the best that could be achieved and thought it, in the end, quite good all things considered…
In March 1921, Lawrence travelled to Cairo with Churchill, to create a new settlement. With the Arabs they created a new order. Feisal, recently banished from Syria, received the throne of Iraq and British troops were removed.
Feisal’s brother, Abdullah, received the throne of Transjordan. Lawrence was convinced this settlement gave the Arabs all Britain had ever promised.
Finally, his long war was over. ‘
Lawrence himself said in letters to trusted friends…..
‘The settlement which Winston (mainly because my advocacy supplied him with all the technical advice and arguments necessary) put through in 1921 and 1922 was, I think, the best possible settlement which Great Britain, alone, could achieve at the time.’
‘As I get further and further away from things the more completely do I feel that our efforts during the war have justified themselves and are proving happier and better than I’d ever hoped.’
Doesn’t really chime with Stewart’s claim that ‘the warrior hero himself later questioned the very nature of his intervention in the Middle East.’
Even Stewart’s jaunts around Britain exploring its past are supposed to have a political resonance with us today, teaching us lessons that are meant to alter our perceptions of the world and our beliefs and subsequent actions….here he is outlining his opposition to borders….in a documentary ostensibly just about the area surrounding Hadrian’s Wall…but really about so much more….
Rory, who considers the building of Hadrian’s Wall to be one of the single-most important events in Britain’s history, will investigate the issues of identity and culture in a region divided by a fabricated border.
Drawing on memories from his experience in war-torn Iraq and Afghanistan, and from the years spent walking the lands either side of Hadrian’s Wall, Rory hopes to shed some light on the region before the Roman soldiers divided families and communities, the impact of the Roman occupation on the region, and how the area changed once they had left. Rory suggests that the Middleland – sometimes completely autonomous, sometimes ignored, and sometimes a lawless debatable land – was transformed from a meeting point between different cultures into a borderland.
In reality Stewart is advocating open borders, the free movement of people, and no nation states defined and limited by national borders…all ideas close to the heart of any good BBCer.
The BBC is slipping in propaganda dressed up as history. And it has employed a well known figure, an MP, to do its work knowing that he is in fact both promoting their ideas and his own, also knowing that such a ‘respectable’ figure will carry some weight with the audience and therefore so will his arguments and opinions….all backed up by the ‘trust and respect’ they have for Aunty.
So, again, just as with Abbot, Stewart is appearing in a political role, his role disguised but all the same, there….and getting paid for it.
So the Sun is right and the BBC is telling porkies.
i say, who cares hows the BBC spends its money so long as it keeps producing first class television and radio. You people have to remember that a lot of the BBCs work is done without you ever knowing it was there. It combats far right extremism, promotes such wonderful things like environmentalism, diversity and multiculturalism that all contribute to making society a much more enjoyable, peaceful and tolerant place to live.
But more needs to be done. Theres still too many white middle aged men appearing on the BBC, and more minorities have to be included in all aspects of its television and radio in order to better reflect multicultural Britain
Like our Prime Minister said, Its Britain that needs to adopt the Asian (muslim) way of life not the other way round, and only the BBC can help achieve this.
Do you mean peaceful and tolerant in the way they refused to report mass child rape in the name of multiculturism?
Harriet darling! How simply DIVINE to see you here again! You are SO right about those horrid, Daily-Mail-reading proles: if it were not for our dear BBC, that horrible fat chappy, can’t recall his name – Dick Griffiths or something like that? – and his fascists would be in power and we would have an EVEN more Nazi government than the current one. We need more immigration to bury this threat once and for all.
See you at the Henley Regatta dearest. Gulls’ eggs and champers sound nice?
Yes there is so much still to be done. My favourite project is to relocate the entire residents of Hampstead and sundry Cotswold weekend villages to more vibrant parts of Britain.
Suggestions are welcome.
But in reality why stop at Britain . Relocate them to where their talents and needs are best served. Somalia sounds ideal.
Perhaps the BBC could take a lead here and relocate Salford to Mogadishu.
Hate the nile on the head, once again, Harriet my dear. Toodle-pip.
Like our Prime Minister said, Its Britain that needs to adopt the Asian (muslim) way of life not the other way round, and only the BBC can help achieve this.
Quite.
The boy band craze has come and gone, like new wave, disco, and the Second British Invasion led by Duran Duran.
http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/quran-quran-glam-band-puts-a-face-to-the-muslim-invasion-t15936.html
Right on the nail delineating the “project” to make us accept the modern world. Well the only one we are allowed to know of. The BBC, they can read the future because they write their favourite history and they are the 800lb gorilla in the culture and political engine room with who have the medium to control the message. We pay for the political machine to shape us – sorry, educate us – so that we know where to not put our crosses. And we pay handsomely – watching and listening to the BBC is like looking through the window at a gaudy grandiose party full of happy and content people. The concerns of ordinary people seem to be such a bore to the New Establishment. I’m impressed with the joining of a consistent ideological message combined with a multi-platform machine. Somebody should do a story on this. Any new Orwells out there?
Who could begrudge Diane a few hundred thousand pounds from the BBC? She has had to struggle on her paltry Westminster wage to find private school fees for her son. Comprehensive education is the best mind you, for other people’s children, rather than your own, of course.
Unbelievable, and is it any surprise that the odious bag of bigoted wind abbot is a main beneficiary from our coffers…paid for, by us, to spout her white hating garbage. I despise the woman.
There was a typical example of liebour’s love for the bbc on today’s news. liebour MP Tom Watson was invited on to give his views on the Rifkind resignation (no mention of Straw though), he slated the media’s involvement in reporting such affairs…”except the bbc, of course”…because we all know the beeb is totally impartial and whiter than white! (if I can use that term).
The bbc has to be done away with, they piss our money up the wall better than any alcoholic benefit scrounger could.
Alan. I’ll offer my thoughts.
I find Rory Stewart sincere. Whether you agree with his conclusions and his, shall we say pacifist tendencies or not, he is diligent, honest, intelligent, well read, considered and informative.
On the specific matter of the ‘anarchic’ trading zone between Scotland and England, Rory Stewart is exposing lesser known English history. That of the ‘Border Reivers’ operating in what was recently ‘Cumberland’ but now lies in Cumbria. The region was effectively bandit country, void of any formal government. Their blood still runs in the veins of many Englishmen and Scotsmen including my offspring. Fascinating history, of which, shamefully, I am sketchy at best in my knowledge.
I think it is a bit of a stretch to suggest that Rory Stewart “……… is advocating open borders, the free movement of people, and no nation states defined and limited by national borders…”
Lawrence of Arabia is a subject which I am not well read in. However, the principle ‘we shouldn’t “get involved” [in Afghanistan/Iraq], whilst cannot be argued as a truism, at any point in history, it does represent the ethically preferable ‘holding position’. No doubt LoA would have considered this after the events perhaps taking his conclusions to the grave. Again I’m not well read in this historical period, but know more now than I did yesterday so thanks for that.
I feel you are overcritical of Rory Stewart, and he earned his money rather than getting paid a fee for being seen and gassing.
Fatbot and the Postman are troughing though. Fees for gassing. But them private schools do cost!
I think he was implying that England and Scotland should exchange Cumbria for Lothian, for historical reasons. As Cumbria once belonged to Strathclyde, and Lothian once belonged to Northumbria.
But this would turn the Border even more to the anti-clockwise position as with regards Hadrian’s Wall, and place Edinburgh in England.
But I was puzzled by the vague and inaccurate name he gave for the Kingdom of Northumbria.
IIRC large parts of Strathclyde were part of an Anglo-Saxon and then Danish client kingdom. The Scots/Gaels/Picts didn’t regain full control until after the Norman conquest by which time Cumbria was fully part of England.
So surely those bits should belong to England following your logic?
Mr. Stewart, on “Today” this morning seemed to be advocating ‘boots on the ground’ (or nearby) in the Ukraine, though. I have had quite a lot of respect for him over the years, but now, I’m not quite so sure…
I would recommend ‘The steel Bonnets’ by George MacDonald Fraser for a history of the borders.
The mention of Abbott caused me to wonder how much Owen Jones collects from the state organ.
They must surely utilise this character simply to stuff it to us.
“We are impregnable, fully funded, weighed in and we will put Owen up to you whenever it suits”
Now pay up or we’ll be round your door with Buster Bloodvessel.
I notice that as I type ‘Harriet’ at comment 1 has 29 ‘likes’. I am sure I have read that the BBC has a large PR department. I think it was at the time that Susannah Reid was reaching the finals of Come Dancing and there was mention of the PR person she had been assigned by the BBC to place her story. When I see so many ‘likes’ for Harriet above I can imagine the comment being written by one of the bright young things working at the Beeb putting out an email with a link to this site and a request to ‘like’.
my dear, you need to join us, support the BBC, burn your bra and #standuptoukip
Harriets a firm supporter (unlike her bra) of all things left wing especially diversity and multiculty stuff and loves travelling to london town and seeing multiculturalism in action because her village in the shires is hideously white, middle class and english
id love to stay and chat about Susannah Reid, but im organising a tea and scones afternoon to raise money for wool so we can knit balaclavas for our local youth group the UAF, it must be terribly cold when they go out and fight the fash, so i’ll leave you with this video instead.
Come, come, Deborah, Harriet’s just a silly old fun-loving chumpette and she’s only having a bit of a blithesome chuckle. Or should that be cackle. Ha, ha, ha!
Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s inquiry into the Future of the BBC:
Biased BBC: “there is a perception that the whole structure of the industry is biased towards a self-perpetuating, middle class urban elite rather than being open to all on the basis of their talent” Several respondents commented that the BBC’s output was biased. “Everything apart from their news department is fine. BBC news is trash. Biased towards certain views and will do so subtly by using selective language in certain instances, reporting one side of an argument more than the other or leaving opposing opinions either as footnote at the bottom of an article, tucked away or not reporting it at all. It gets away with this due to its reputation for being unbiased with regards to political affiliation that people somehow think extends to other issues.”
Complaints: We recommend that Ofcom become the final arbiter of complaints over BBC content including matters concerning impartiality and accuracy. In 2013/14 the BBC received 192,459 complaints, the complaints were sent to a team of about 400 people in Belfast, of which 485 complaints went on to a team of about 30 people in the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit in London, and then 277 of these complainants appealed to the Trust for a third-tier review. Ofcom dealt with 12,774 complaints, 1,012 complaints raised substantial issues that warranted further investigation.
Only a handful of complaints where upheld by the BBC. I have seen the exact number somewhere, but could not find the number upheld, for this article.
With 444 comments, a new Open Thread is due. So will post this on the next one.
‘With 444 comments, a new Open Thread is due’
True.
Will await further news/developments with interest.
OFCOM needs a bit of a seeing to if it is not going to be ‘Trust Mk 2’.
I know he’s off soon, but having James Purnell’s BFF and ex-Labour strategist Ed at its helm was about as reassuring as Chris Smiff Lording it (presumably with enobled exemptions to being held to account too) over the EA, or ASA, or anywhere.
On the latter, as a bolt-on, here’s an interesting link:
http://cap.org.uk/News-reports/Media-Centre/2015/Political-advertising.aspx?
Of course, this is for commercial use. No mention of the BBC acting as a £4B Labour freebie.
“Biased towards certain views and will do so subtly by using selective language in certain instances, reporting one side of an argument more than the other or leaving opposing opinions either as footnote at the bottom of an article, tucked away or not reporting it at all. It gets away with this due to its reputation for being unbiased with regards to political affiliation that people somehow think extends to other issues.”
“Several respondents commented that the BBC’s output was biased. “Everything apart from their news department is fine. BBC news is trash. ”
Now, I am not a member of MENSA but I can still see a few flaws here:
* Several respondents – not a lot then.
* The BBC’s output is biased, but then again everything is fine apart from the news – bit contradictory is it not.
“A new Open Thread is due. So will post this on the next one.” – why bother wasting your time repeating the same flawed argument!!
Would “some respondents say” do? I believe that wording is accepted at the Beeb without further question.
Maybe if ‘BBBC has learned from sources close to things they are close to’ was used?
Also straight out of the ‘Guidelines’ too.
Interesting what prises the bunker-whelks out these days.
“Interesting what prises the bunker-whelks out these days.”
Maybe some of us have other things to do in our lives apart from being on here almost 24/7 as some self appointed hall monitor!!
Do nae fash yoursen, Albaman, it’ll all come out in the wash.
‘some of us have other things to do in our lives’
That went better than hoped.
Glad to see you volunteer to stand so nicely next to your designation.
I am here a lot, true. Not 24/7. Mornings, coffee breaks, early evenings, bed time, wet weekends. The day-long honour currently goes to Men With Capitals And Spaces ornot.
Then, mostly at weekends, the blessing whose name should not be spoken. Or… you.
It’s a forum about BBC Bias. Which interests me. I like it here. Some interesting stuff. Bright folk.
Or chaps like you, who provide the laughs.
You don’t like it here. Yet come on an awful lot to say so. Which is odd. And you seldom address BBC Bias, which is less odd.
As to hall monitorism, I do confess to being prone to teasing some. But you may have noticed I tend only to do so with those who react poorly, by virtue of having zero sense of humour and much too much self-importance. Also epic levels of irony-unappreciating hypocrisy, with a nifty dose of colleague-sideswiping dodgy precedent.
And boy can it deliver entertaining results.
QED.
The terminology was approved by Labour members of the Committee. Also you could watch BBC Parliament (Freeview Channel 131) from 9.30am tomorrow (Thursday) morning.
If it was that is a surprise.
Guys like Ben Bradshaw were critical in places, but not much.
He was a big OFCOM advocate as I recall, along with the Chair.
Maybe seeing writing on walls elsewhere, deals were done to buy time and try and swing a soft landing in friendly territory?
Better than a wipe out, or white wash, which would have seen serious challenge from powerful lobbies.
Can’t watch Freeview as no licence. Ironically an exemption I may soon not get to exercise. I’ll await the committee page link when it goes up as catch-up.