This should tide you over until the next open thread appears…..
Bank Holiday Open Thread
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- non-licence payer Dec 30, 16:55
Start the Week 30th December 2024
digg, no it will be bonuses all round because they have done better than expected. This profile of decline offers… - tomo Dec 30, 16:43
Start the Week 30th December 2024
He gets to be “Sir” after midnight https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gPfFqc_j3k £45 to £135 per person – is it run by a subsidiary… - moggiemoo Dec 30, 16:33
Start the Week 30th December 2024
It is, they were expecting over a million fewer viewers. - Up2snuff Dec 30, 16:30
Start the Week 30th December 2024
Lucy, forgot to add may God bless you and yours richly through 2025 and beyond. - digg Dec 30, 16:28
Start the Week 30th December 2024
I came across this data showing how the BBC UK audience figures have been going for the past eight years.… - Sluff Dec 30, 16:27
Start the Week 30th December 2024
Eddy Your quote They don’t mention in this “romance” that a minor in UAE can’t give consent. You may be… - Sluff Dec 30, 16:17
Start the Week 30th December 2024
But to be fair, you do get that sweaty feet/ popcorn combo that is very hard to emulate elsewhere. - tomo Dec 30, 16:14
Start the Week 30th December 2024
[img]https://i.ibb.co/0Vq8Mbd/chrome-X7-ZSxl-Sr-Cm.png[/img] - Sluff Dec 30, 16:14
Start the Week 30th December 2024
I gritted my teeth and watched Countryfile the other night, as there was to be coverage of the Cairngorms and…
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
Islamic jihad: it’s only a game to Beeboids:-
“BBC bosses blasted for making Syrian Journey computer game about refugees fleeing the war-torn country.
“BBC makes online game about Syrian refugees trying to escape to Europe.
“‘Sickening’ game often ends with migrants drowning in the Mediterranean.
“Other outcomes see women refugees sold to militia or abandoned in Libya.
“BBC slammed for turning the suffering of millions into a ‘children’s game.'”
By OLLIE GILLMAN
FOR MAILONLINE.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3027174/BBC-bosses-blasted-making-computer-game-called-Syria-Journey-refugees-fleeing-war-torn-country.html#ixzz3WW6ODOvF
I guess this is the BBC’s way of encouraging the Islamic invasion of the UK.
But I can’t believe that such an offensive game would have been sanctioned at senior level.
If so, the BBC really has lost the plot.
… game often ends with migrants drowning in the Mediterranean.
What better way to demonstrate that Africans are suffering and dying because of our refusal to properly open the doors and practise ‘fairness’?
What I don’t get is we’re being told they pay up to $30,000 to escape ‘poverty’
Well I suppose they’ll recoup that after a few months skimming the British taxpayer.
‘Comedy editor reveals BBC is now so touchy gags sometimes even have to get rubber stamped by the Director General.’
A few ‘gags’ about Labour and Islam must have previously slipped through the net then.
Do all players get to respawn, a lot, even if they do make it unscathed?
“How many layers of bureaucracy does it take to write a joke?
“Comedy editor reveals BBC is now so touchy gags sometimes even have to get rubber stamped by the Director General .
“Chris Sussman said particular jokes must go through ‘a lot of layers.’
“Cautiousness comes after a ‘difficult few years’ at the BBC, he added.
“Made the comments at a Bafta event on free speech and television.”
By LYDIA WILLGRESS
FOR MAILONLINE.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3026660/Chris-Sussman-reveals-BBC-touchy-gags-rubber-stamped-Director-General.html#ixzz3WWATD8KV
That’s why BBC comedy isn’t comedy anymore.
Who actually makes the decision?
This is a problem with most organisations with multi-layers of management, and where approval for something “is not within my paygrade”. At some point the decision making process becomes blurred… for instance, if a manager refers something upwards for approval, does the recommendation effectively constitute a decision? After all, presumably not everything gets referred upwards?
Decision making on anything within the BBC must be a nightmare.
I thought this was well illustrated in the comedy series W1A, which was actually funny, I thought, when a chap brought along his script and we saw it go through layers of mid ranking bureaucrats with the humour and originality being squeezed out. The author was no doubt writing from experience.
The BBC itself is the joke.
The bureaucracy could try this one:
What do you call 10 BBC ‘journalists’ at the bottom of the sea?
A good start.
(er, sorry).
What do you call a busload of BBC journalists being driven over a cliff with an empty seat?
A waste of an empty seat.
A boat capsized and two BBC executives swam for the shore. One made it easily but the other (not such a good swimmer) fell behind.
To the horror of the good swimmer, the other was surrounded by sharks. Prepared for the worst (and recording the incident on their free i-phone which had surprised) the survivor was amazed as the sharks let the poor swimmer survive and reach land.
“How on earth did you survive?”
“Well I did think that my time had come, but then I had a brainwave. I shouted “The BBC Is Apolitical. The BBC is unbiased” And not even those sharks could swallow that.
BBC comedy is a joke.
But “It’s the Tories that put the N in cuts” was approved for broadcast as part of the “Chairman’s script” in the News Quiz broadcast between 18.30 and 19.00.
The joke was then recycled to re-appear in a late night television “edgy comedy” show.
But removed from the BBC discussion board at the time because it broke “House rules”
Can’t wait for upcoming Boyle & Hall Show.
“You can’t see the join, you c***”
Sorry folks, not BBC related but still relevant to the bigger picture of Left-wing treachery and ideological agendas in our education system.
In truth I wasn’t the least bit surprised to find this crap in the Guardian. It would seem that the only values that teachers do not want to see discussed are those of the British. In reality, the vile and hypocritical Left don’t seem to have any problem with Islamic extremism in school; which is what this pathetic article below is about I presume. However, if a British patriot were to express views in the class it would be WW3.
The teaching unions are completely controlled by the left; this means that all views are acceptable apart from British or English nationalism.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/apr/06/teachers-fear-having-to-report-pupils-for-expressing-views-about-extremism
Surely if a pupil , or anyone for that matter is committing a crime or treason, its their duty as upstanding members of the community to behave like good citizens and to report any incidents like those to the police ?
Yes, of course. But let me tell you this: the only extremists who seem to be banned from the classroom are those from the British Nationalist Party; and, personally, I don’t view British patriots as ‘extremist’ – desperate to love their country and want it back from Marxist control, but not extremist. When was the last time you heard of anyone from the BNP going off to fight for an army that beheads and crucifies like those so-called jihadi brides? As the Trojan Horse plot and the Jihadi Brides indicate, Islamic extremists infest our education system but the Left welcome it, and actually respond by saying it’s all just Right-wing paranoia and Islamaphobia. However, you get a teacher discussing the wonders of the British Empire and trust me, the Left would go bananas. Oh, it;s okay for Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalists to spout their vile garbage as well. And, simply put, this is all the evidence we need to deduce that it is yet again another example of how the Mrxist Left have infiltrated our education system. The whole sodding public sector is controlled by Leftists.
Some interesting points there. I have also pondered over the seemingly two-tier nature of banning extremism in the classroom. I remember hearing about a member of the BNP, I think it might have been the new chairman, being banned from teaching. The media reported this with a certain smug glee. But, when it came to the Trojan Horse plot, as you mention above, we had lefty intellectuals from the Guardian and Independent claiming there was no evidence for such a plot and that it was a construct of the far-Right etc. There were also claims that to stifle such cultural discourses would be a mistake as it would close down debate – CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS? It seems that the Left are selective over which ‘discourses’ they wish to regulate.
I would also agree with your point that the far-Left have a grip on the teaching unions and that they want to see discussion of British nationalism banned. The nature of their debate is basic undergraduate textbook Marxism: Minority = good and oppressed. Majority = Bad and hegemonist.
It’s a fair point about ‘nationalists’. We hear a good deal about Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalists, but God forbid anyone should want to speak up for English nationalism.
Simply not allowed. That, and of course ‘waaaycist!’
Evan Davis interviewed Nigel Farage about 8 months ago on BBC R4 news morning show “Today”.
Davis used the words and they seem unscripted “…raises the fear of English nationalism…” His words exactly. Nigel didn’t bite thankfully.
But it shows the mindset at the BBC. Scottish? Irish? Welsh? BBC seems to have no problems with their nationalism. But English got to be a fearful.
On the topic of good Aussies, and the point Nigel Farage makes about our true friends in the wider world. Compare and contrast with the BBC’s love of all things EU.
OUR FLAG – THE POEM
Our Flag wears the stars that blaze at night,
In our Southern skies of blue,
And a little old flag in the corner,
That’s part of our heritage too.
It’s for the English, the Scots and the Irish,
Who were sent to the ends of the earth,
The rogues and schemers, the doers and dreamers,
Who gave modern Australia its birth.
And you, who are shouting to change it,
You don’t seem to understand,
It’s the flag of our laws and our language,
Not the flag of a faraway land.
Though there are plenty of people who’ll tell you,
How when Europe was plunged into night,
That little old flag in the corner,
Was their symbol of freedom and light.
It doesn’t mean we owe allegiance,
To a forgotten imperial dream,
We’ve the stars to show where we’re going,
And the old flag to show where we’ve been.
It’s only an old piece of bunting,
It’s only an old piece of rag,
But there are thousands who’ve died for its honour,
And shed of their blood for OUR FLAG.
Robin Northover
These people without doubt are our true friends and brothers.
Quite correct MB; you only have to look back to the Falklands War to see who our friends in the world are: the U.S., Australia and New Zealand all supported us; the French? They sent technicians to modify the surface to air Exocets, which the Argies had, into the air to air version, of which they’d run out. It was one of these adapted missiles which sank the Atlantic Conveyor, en route to the islands, a ship the size of an aircraft carrier.
Britain’s true allies are all in the Anglosphere – nowhere else.
But then, sadly, are many of the Islamist fifth column from the worst of the Commonwealth, namely Pakistan, Bangladesh and northern Nigeria.
The Anglosphere will remain vulnerable to the deadly duo of PC appeasement and Islamist aggression while the Gramscians are entrenched in the likes of the broadcast media and education.
Fantastic poem. Patriotic but not jingoistic.
Yeah wow, super awesome!
My sarc detector went into overdrive. Why?
Great poem. My old Dad, with many thousands of others, came half way round the world from Melbourne to fight in the First War. His lineage was Scottish – his father was a ship captain from Rothsey who sailed clippers to Oz in the nineteenth century, and then settled in Melbourne in its gold-rush heyday. They weren’t all transported criminals and Fenians !
And I have found similar strong Scottish heritage in New Zealand, especially in the south of South Island where the whalers settled. Likewise, there is strong Scottish heritage in Canada.
When Republicanism starts again in OZ – I am not taking bets on the slant Jon Donnison will put on the debate.
And I have found similar respect for the ideals of the Commonwealth in places like Fiji and the Cook Islands, where there was a strong Welsh influence dating back to the missionaries. But our leftie World Service seldom reflects their feelings and interests either.
NBC – UK: Two teens arrested for …. something.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/two-teens-suspected-preparing-acts-terrorism-arrested-england-n336031
BBC – is better, even more obfuscation
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32189850
“Police said the arrests were not linked to the detention of nine people from Rochdale on the Turkey-Syria border”
… oh … that’s a load off, that’s alright then?
“Typical of media coverage of jihad activity. These two teens were arrested on suspicion of preparing for acts of terrorism.
What kind of terrorism? ….. No telling?
R Spencer
Its not only here
“Norway town produces many jihadis, authorities baffled”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/world/europe/a-norway-town-and-its-pipeline-to-jihad-in-syria.html?_r=0
No one, of course, has bothered to check what is being taught in the local mosque … just might provide a clue?.
R Spencer.
How bad, is the deliberate, wilful, political blindness here ?
“Attacks on Muslims will become specific hate crime, say Tories
In bid to establish full extent of Islamophobia in Britain”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3026015/Attacks-Muslims-specific-hate-crime-say-Tories-bid-establish-extent-Islamophobia-Britain.html
“Tell Mama is thrilled — you remember Tell Mama?.
That’s the “hate crimes watchdog group” that fabricated evidence of a “wave of attacks on Muslims”
“The Muslim Council of Britain has also welcomed the proposal. Iqbal, Sacranie, the group’s former Secretary-General, said:
… That Iqbal, (Rushdie – death is too good for him) Sacranie?
‘This change will bring parity between Muslim and Jewish groups.’”
But … it won’t, really, because Jews don’t use hate crimes (and alleged hate crimes) to try to gain special accommodation, and deflection of attention away from terror”
R Spencer
http://www.jihadwatch.org/
Sky News report was simply confusing yesterday. Four arrested in Dover and held until Friday under terrorism laws in Birmingham where houses were being searched. However, the announcer said the public is to be reassured this is nothing to do with the police activity in north west England. What was going on ? We were none the wiser . Surely a news report should give us the news!!
Noggin.
“Attacks on Muslims will become specific hate crime, say Tories
In bid to establish full extent of Islamophobia in Britain”
The Tories are winning.
Make no mistake – see the protests by UK’s Pegida and the EDL and patriotic groups in Oxford and London over the weekend heavily outnumbered by pro Islamic UAF, Hope not Hate street gangs. To think that a protest against child rape gangs and cover ups is out numbered by those opposing it.
The fascists of “UAF” and the haters of “Hope not Hate” prove that they actually support the widescale abuse of children as they always march to defend the perpetrators. The left are pure evil, fascists and so full of Hate.
Not “winning”, make no mistake, they are complicit, up as far as they can get, including the TV media, and the press
I hope “Islamic finance capital” Davey, and his collection of No10 short term money grabbing muppets, think that all that petrodollar backhander is worth it.
Just what does constitute a “hate crime” against Muslims or Islam ?
Telling a Muslim that Koranic science is a load of old cobblers ?
Telling a Muslim that Sharia law is barbaric, an affront to democratic society, and has no legal standing here ?
Telling a Muslim a joke about their religion ?
Drawing an image of The Prophet Muhammad ?
If all these were to be classed as hate crimes, then the courts would grind to a halt given the likely numbers of such incidents.
Mind you, I can see the courts pursuing alleged hate crimes against Islam far more zealously than real hate crimes by the followers of Islam.
Just what does constitute a “hate crime” against Muslims or Islam ?
Telling the truth is offensive, and might qualify as a hate crime, especially if your outrage against the murder of Lee Rigby, the rape of children in many of our cities, and the atrocities against Christians is expressed emotively on Twitter. Even quoting Churchill has drawn the attention of the plod.
If we were actually living in a country where sanity, rather than lunacy, was the norm, then there would be no such thing as a hate crime; the very term is ludicrous. Either someone commits a crime, such as burglary or physical assault etc; or they don’t. Allowing a bunch of inbreds the luxury of deciding if a crime has been committed against them just because they are upset at what someone has said (generally by speaking the truth), shouldn’t even be given any credence let alone legal backing. But then while the communists have the upper hand, this will be pushed to its logical conclusion, for these people never know when (and even if they do, they are unable to) to stop their evil machinations.
It is simple …
that is “Sharia”, note that the unbelievably incompetent No10 crowd, have just taken on the
Islamic narrative this stupid term, “hate”, or “haters”, people who don t want Islam, getting overly powerful, are bloody realists, and with good cause.
Offence, offensive … that s not a rebuttal, I get offended all the time … GET OVER IT, again “Sharia”
giving Islam special or protected class.
Worst of all, ” Islamofauxbia” anyone using or giving that trope credence , as if its a real term, instead of the construct used to silence justified critique, deserves no respect at all.
Not in Australia it wasn’t.
If she does not Moslems to be offended, perhaps Teresa May should wear a burka.
Beeboids, and continual daily illegal immigration into Britain.
Given their predilection for open-door, mass immigration,
Beeboids don’t seem to have interest in reporting, e.g. this-
“Forty illegal immigrants being held every day as squads target restaurants, petrol stations and car washes in crackdown ”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3027002/Forty-illegal-immigrants-held-day-squads-target-restaurants-petrol-stations-car-washes-crackdown.html#ixzz3WWM7YYZe
Or this:-
“Greece plan to release 3,500 immigrants from asylum centres sets it on a collision course with Europe”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/greece-plan-to-release-3500-illegal-immigrants-from-asylum-centres-sets-it-on-a-collision-course-with-europe-10157380.html
Or this:
‘Cameron needs to come to Calais’ Furious French accuse Britain of ignoring migrant crisis
“A new cross-Channel row has erupted after France sensationally accused Britain of disrespecting the entente cordiale by ignoring the migrant crisis blighting Calais.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/568027/Calais-migrant-camp-French-Britain-migrant-crisis
Immigration is the most important issue for the British public during the forthcoming election …..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30981134
Which party is the only political party offering to tackle it ?
Calais is nothing to do with Britain and hasn’t been since Henry VIII’s day. It is a French problem and they must deal with it but not by sending them to us.
They are trying to get to the U.K. from Calais, we need to stop this country being so attractive as the final destination for illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, refugees etc etc. This country needs to be seen as one of the worst for those people to come to; in that way they wouldn’t travel the length of Europe to attempt to enter here.
No its our problem too. Its question of attractive left wing ‘benefits’ that are ‘discrimination free’ and is ‘responsibility free’ and makes no sense as it has zero ‘public benefit’ in the ghettos it produces. It falls in line with EU doctrine. It ignores patriotic values and that is the point of its media ‘enforcement’ to dilute our identity (The Guardian and BBC are keen on imposing this as a ‘hate’ crime at some point), Proving left wing credentials count more than ‘conservative’ (small c) values is the point they make. Its in line with Common Purpose objectives.
Add to that, the free health service, ie treatment for sickness such as TB, HIV and childbirth etc.
The biggest concerns of the majority of the British public is unfettered immigration and not one major party is listening or doing anything about it.
THE TORIES PLAN TO STARVE THE ELDERLY TO DEATH !
Well surprisingly not a headline on the BBC but unbelievably this is Tory party policy which they intend to implement in the law change on pensions today. It could also be called the government having their cake and eating it !
From today you will legally be able to cash in your pension pot for a lump sum. If you do this, then you will be subject to tax at up to 40%
When it comes to the time you claim your pension the government will then take your pension pot into account as if you actually had an income from it, and will either reduce or refuse a claim for benefits accordingly.
They will completely ignore the 40% tax they have already taken from you & thus they will both have their cake & eat it.
But what happens if you have no other income and the government refuses you a claim on the grounds you drew down your pension pot early? Well quite simply you are expected to continue in that fine Nu Tory ‘we’re not at all like Labour’ tradition, of being able to live on fresh air alone !
This is short termism at its very worst! Osborne wants t get his grasping fingers on the tax money NOW! The caveat of not being able to claim will be left for someone else to sort out in the future.
Our society is divided in two, those who save for their future, and keep solvent into old age, and those who spend everything they have and borrow to spend more as well! They end up being carried by the ones who save in a completely unfair manner.
This is exactly what is going to happen with the pension draw down. The terminally feckless spend thrifts will want a new car, ‘better’ holiday, new kitchen etc etc, and spend without a thought to tomorrow.
Anyone here reckon a future government will have the spine to refuse to allow any pension to those fools who have spent theirs and are now starving ?
Come now … you re not surprised … surely
Short term Tory bods, will be hoping it gives the illusion of ..
erm “growth” … so they can doctor the figures again.
As I understand it, it does not matter when you take money out of your private pension pot (unless you take out an annuity), you are taxed on 75% of this income at your marginal rate of tax, whatever that is The other 25% is regarded as tax-free. If you are foolish enough to take, say £50,0000 or more, out of your private pension pot in one year, then you are, in effect getting an income of £37.5K+ that year, untaxed at source, and on this, plus any other taxable income you may have, you will pay tax accordingly – i.e. at 40% only on any total income above the current level of around £42,000 – i.e. just the same as it already is for anyone in this country (otherwise it will be taxed at basic rate, or counted as part of a tax-free allowance).
Further, (and this doesn’t appear in many places – one of the reasons why people who think about doing this really do need to take advice) if you do nothing about it, the taxman will potentially assume you will have the same income without tax deducted each year from then on, and ask you to pay tax accordingly (i.e. some payment of tax in advance). It’s easily enough stopped.
The ‘terminally feckless’ (as you describe them) are unlikely to have private pension scheme pots worth any great deal, and are therefore likely to be unaffected by any of this. But they would do well to take advice before they take money out of their pensions. Any private pension pot is, however, their money – and who are we to tell them what to do with it. For many years now, anyone with what is termed a ‘trivial’ pension pot has been able to do the same thing.
Anyone below state pension age who takes a large pension pot will have it taxed as income, most certainly. And why not – it was originally untaxed when it was earned, and was basically a tax avoidance scheme (although no-one will call it that) invested without paying taxes on the payments into it, or on any capital growth of the fund created ! So, if anyone ends up with assets worth more than a certain amount (I think it might be currently around £16,000) it will be counted as part of your assets – and just like everyone else in the country, any means-tested benefits you get may be affected by the amount of assets you have.
This is being bandied about as if all sorts of things are going to change – they are not, and the BBC is at the forefront of the scaremongering going on about it. Only one single thing is changing – you can take your money out of your pension pot, but if you do not use it to buy an annuity, you will be subject to the same rules on income and assets as exist for everyone else. It’s not that hard to understand.
Basically, there will be two main possible effects. If you have any means-tested benefits, and you then take money out of your pension pot and stick it in anything like a savings account, it might affect your means-tested benefits. If you take (basically untaxed to this point) cash out of any pension pot, then it’s an income subject to the same income tax laws as for everyone else.
Finally, I came to your comment along the lines of …if you take a lump sum out of your pension fund, when it comes to the time to take your pension, the government will assess the situation as if you had not taken any lump sum out of your pot, assign a notional value to the income you might have had, and treat you accordingly. That’s one I just have not heard, and it does not make any sense at all. Would you care to point me towards an authoritative document that explains what you say, please. Thank you.
… when it comes to the time to take your pension, the government will assess the situation as if you had not taken any lump sum out of your pot, assign a notional value to the income you might have had, and treat you accordingly. That’s one I just have not heard, and it does not make any sense at all. Would you care to point me towards an authoritative document…
Thoughtful said:
When it comes to the time you claim your pension the government will then take your pension pot into account as if you actually had an income from it, and will either reduce or refuse a claim for benefits accordingly.
I think the caution is that you could lose benefits, not pension. Don’t know if you’d call the DM ‘authoritative’:
People on benefits warned to take care when cashing in pension savings or risk losing state support
There are two ways people on benefits might lose the benefit income.
One is if it is drawn down prior to retirement and it exceeds the tiny amount of savings the government stipulates, the other is post retirement when it is treated in much the same way as the loss of capital prior to a claim for help with care in old age – deliberate impoverishment.
My information came from moneybox live not the Daily Mail!
The draw down provision is not just for private pensions as Richard seems to think, as it is also possible to draw down from a final salary scheme as well.
If it were possible to reduce a small pension to nothing and have that loss made up by the state, then everyone would be doing it !
Right – it would appear that, as I said, basically nothing is changing at all, other than the fact that you can now withdraw part or all of your pension pots, and you will be subject to precisely the same rules as everyone else is now. And, above all else, you need to be careful, and take advice before you do it.
I guess intentional impoverishment hasn’t changed either, and is a fraud prevention measure, and not a result of the new Act.
(By the way, I was not seeking to define private pensions as anything other than non-state-provided pensions.)
Intentional impoverishment was not (to the best of my knowledge) a clause prior to this reform, because the pension had to be used to buy an annuity, and there could be no intentional impoverishment.
I understand, and thanks for the references previously.
However, it may be a new title, in new circumstances, but ‘Deprivation of Assets’, i.e. giving away, selling at low price, or otherwise disposing of assets in order to deliberately self-impoverish with the intent of claiming a benefit, services or support (e.g. care home fee avoidance) has been around for some time, and what you describe, i.e. ascribing a notional value to the disposed asset and acting as though it still existed, is not at all new in the UK.
I still believe this ‘hoo-ha’ from the left is basic scaremongering and complexity-creation (and boy, is ‘Moneybox’ left-leaning and complexity-creating a lot of the time) put about to discredit what should be a useful plan.
Although the BBC is undoubtedly left leaning, I never thought of Martin Lewis from Money Saving Expert as being a leftie, in fact he seems more right than most of them!
I listen to ‘Moneybox’ and ‘Moneybox Live’ regularly, (if not religiously) even downloading the podcasts whilst I am out of the country, and Martin Lewis definitely (at least in my opinion) leans towards memes like ‘Big Business is terrible’,’ Banks and Bankers are just con-men’, ‘Insurance Companies are completely unfair to their customers’, and, ‘all consumers are innocent, so it must be the fault of….(insert your own favourite company name)’, when it is blatantly obvious the consumer in question really hasn’t got a logical leg to stand on.
But don’t get me wrong – it’s easy to see straight through that, and quite often, there is a salient point to be discerned from such segments, so I guess I’ll keep on listening, and discerning.
I quite like the ‘Moneybox Live’ sessions, though, since, in amongst all the campaigners the programme gives airtime to, they get some real experts on who have no political axe to grind, and a reputation to maintain.
Each to his own view, I guess, Thoughtful
Who goes on his website and buys those products that he recommends (he says he doesn’t recommend them – otherwise he would have to be registered with the FCA – but you have to look carefully to find that out)? Big business? No! Punters? Yes.
He knows which side his bread is buttered.
His site is all about the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Brown saved his arse, it was him who recommend we all invest in Icelandic banks, regularly on the bBC Jeremy Vine Show.
The State Pension will be paid in full regardless of any second pension or draw-downs.
Pensions are, for the time being, not considered benefits but this may change after the election of a Labour Government.
The only person who has cast doubt upon the future payment of the State Pension is your friend Foghorn Reeves, who told Andrew Neil that Labour would include the State Pension in the Benefit Cap.
Capping pensions is Labour Policy NOT Tory one.
So, correcting your contrived headline, it now reads:
LABOUR PLAN TO STARVE THE ELDERLY TO DEATH.
Fixed it for you (as they say).
The headline post was deliberately attention grabbing, but it does refer to a situation which could arise if the circumstances are right.
The policy is undoubtedly short termist, the policy of deliberate impoverishment is in there, so if you are going to take issue with the headline as it stands then tell me where I’ve got it wrong ?
The state pension will only be paid in full so long as you have one. People from back in the day were able to opt out of it, and the self employed if memory serves weren’t included either !
Well, as I understand it, you could not opt out of the state pension totally, you could only opt out of additional things like SERPS (an earnings-related second pension) or S2p (State Second Pension). In both cases, thisopt-out was carried out to allow both the pension-saver, and their employer, to use the money as part of an employer pension scheme, and to better the state pension payout. So you couldn’t really opt out of the basic pension scheme if you were employed – you paid through National Insurance contributions. In addition, if I recall correctly, you were given credits for the time when you might have been out of work, but seeking to work. As for women, if they hadn’t paid pension contributions, they gathered credits based on their husband’s contributions. If you were self-employed, there was an option (if I recall correctly from my own self-employment days) to pay state pension contributions – class 4 contributions, as I remember – but it wasn’t compulsory.
For years, people have been warned not to ignore their pensions, and increasing longevity. So I don’t think there’s anything in the way of ‘deliberate impoverishment’ by the current government, more that people chose how to live, and if they worked, they were at least ‘compelled’ to contribute to their state pensions.
Those who chose not to contribute really don’t have any room to complain if they haven’t built up as much in the way of of state pension entitlements.
I also remember that the entitlement to full State Pension used to depend on attaining 44 years of sufficient contributions (but you automatically qualified for state pension credits if you were over 60) – that was reduced to 30 years credits, so a great many people had over-contributed, had perhaps bought credits to cover any years of missed payments (none of which can be recovered), and to cap it all, anyone retiring recently, having contributed 39 years (44-5 ‘free years’) National Insurance payments, will wind up with less in the way of a State Pension than those from today forward, whose necessary contibutions will be 9 years less than they paid.
So, thanks to the last Labour government, there has certainly been some ‘impoverishment’ of those who paid fully into the system all their lives, relative to those who didn’t.
Ha, Ha Money Box Live, a BBC production , says it all . The Bbc empoyee`s all work for, & are part of The Bbc Money Box, in which they suck £ 4 Billion from the public every year . Mr T is in fantasy world again , if people are prudent enough to save for a pension in the 1st place , they are hardly going to blow it all , on the National, or a new yacht . Get real ,you are behaving like the “Nanny State” , which Labour /SNP / BBC/Guardian all love ,maybe Mr T is really a socialist too .
BBC interviewed one such this evening. He was withdrawing his pension pot to pay for repairs to the village hall and to take an expensive cruise with his wife.
People aren’t necessarily prudent, they were most often compelled to save in a work pension scheme which before today they couldn’t get their hands on until retirement gave them a lump sum & a pension.
I don’t want to be forced to finance a group of people which Cameron has ring fenced from austerity because they have blown all their pension savings. If that’s left wing thinking then I think I must be !
As far as I ever knew & defined by the blessed Margaret Socialism only works until you run out of other peoples money ! Why do you feel the right to pick my pocket to pay for feckless fools who will need it to survive, and in doing so, tell me I’m a Socialist ?
That truly beggars belief !
You make your bed you lie in it, don’t expect others to bail you out !
Maggie allowed the teaching unions to set aside decades of rigorous exams in favour of ‘coursework’ marked by…. teachers. Major set aside a contempt of gambling in favour of the lottery; now few think it is noble to work for a living and everyone wants a big ‘win’. When the odds don’t work out, there’s always an insurance dodge. Cameron allows foreigners open access to the goodies the UK built up over generations. There was a pattern. Now people are almost encouraged to blow their pensions. They’ll surely get benefits eventually, but some other Prime Minister can worry about that as long as this lot can get some quick money today.
Pension money is their money. Who are you to presume to tell them how to spend it. They worked for it and that is enough. You sound like the worst of lefty do gooders- I know best what is best for you. Are you sure you are not a closet lefty?
Freedom is a real thing not just a word.
That is a rightist Utopian dream. Much of what we all take for granted is good about this country is organised by the state. Do you want to remove the state from health? Or from education? I don’t. I got a good education which enriched my life and which I hope I used to repay my ‘debt’. Maybe your parents would have educated you without the state. Mine wouldn’t.
It’s fine saying ‘It’s their money’ provided ‘they’ take it and that’s that. But they’ll be back in a year or two saying ‘I’m ill, and the missus has mental health issues, and the dog has pups…. give me some cash.’ Can’t say I blame them; they look at the feckless doing better than themselves and think ‘I’ll have some of that.’ But where does it end? In the past, careful behaviour by the older generation was a lesson to the young. They see less and less common sense these days.
‘Do you want to remove the state from health? Or from education?’
YES PLEASE…and from broadcasting while we’re at it.
You have a typically elitest opinion of the ordinary folk. Trusting the people is the only real way to run a country long term. . Most people i know are sober citizens. They are not about to blow their pensions. But then I live in the old shires. We do things differently here.
“Much of what we all take for granted is good about this country is organised by the state. Do you want to remove the state from health? Or from education? I don’t.”
I do:
People killed on a scale any terrorist organisation would be proud of. Disgraceful cancer survival rates.
20-something international rankings in Reading, Maths and Science.
No politician seems brave enough to lift the dead weight of state bureaucracy and union interference from health and education.
“I got a good education which enriched my life and which I hope I used to repay my ‘debt’. ”
Now would that have been during the early years of comprehensivation? The era when political dogma intervened and wrecked the chances of many.
You may be among those bemoaning that those at “the top” nowadays were privately educated. That should actually be no surprise. Those who would have gone to grammar schools in the 1970s would now have be en competing for the “top jobs”, but they were consigned to the local one size fits all comprehensive where all had to have prizes, which real life has hopefully shown you does not happen in real life, only socialist fantasies!
Now would that have been during the early years of comprehensivation?
Definitely not! Grammar school. At home, I remember no electricity and no running water. Hand-me-down school books, years old, taped together. But principles of physics don’t change, so it never occurred to me that was a problem. The school was state run; I never felt at a disadvantage compared with, what we called then, snobs.
The problem today is the Common Purpose culture; not that the state runs schools. I can see an argument for private suppliers, as long as the provision is free to the child. But I hate the thought that any child’s education should depend on the interest of its parents. Too many would lose out.
So you, like myself from the council estate, benefitted from a meritocratic education provided by the state. The council where I lived even bought 20 scholarships a year for the top 11 plus candidates to the local private boys and girls schools.
But what do parents get now. NUT dominated producer led, you’ll have what we give you, get back to the council estate and vote Labour for life in too many areas of the country.
No hope for your social mobility there then under a socialist regime let alone a Tory one.
Tell you what, Thoughtful, you could make a career out of being a headline writer on the BBC News website. I hate the modern Tory Party under Cameron but your hatred for them seems visceral. Yet you repeatedly claim you aren’t left wing, but some of your posts could have been written by Owen Jones himself.
I don’t have a visceral hatred for the Tories as such, but can you name any Policy that they have which you believe is good and wouldn’t have been implemented by another party ?
I see a bunch of Eton toffs dedicated to hanging onto what they have and enriching themselves still further.
They lied about immigration, lied about taxation, and appear wholly in the pockets of Sunni Islamic leaders. They supported ISIS when it suited and have promoted Islam through the 5 years they have been in power.
They have changed tax law to benefit whose who have wealth at the expense of those who work hard and try to get on. Social mobility is a big no no for these posh boys! And that’s the opposite to what Margaret Thatcher stood for !
Smooth the way for those who want to work hard and get ahead and tax those who rely on the wealth of their forebears and do little to deserve it.
Meritocracy is I’m afraid my brand of Conservatism, and this posh boy has taken the Tory party to a different place I don’t recognise, and only benefits a handful. They have done this with a callousness and casual cruelty which was never there under Margaret Thatcher.
Not exactly left wing at all !
Vote f***ing Labour then Mr T. & all your socialist wet dreams will come true . Then you will be living in a hard left Marxist State supported by the SNP & BBC.
Tell you what Essex Man, you vote Tory, and nothing will change! The oppression will get worse, as Theresa the Appeaser imposes more pro Muslim laws, there will be no referendum on Europe because it’s a lie, and taxes on ordinary people will probably go up to find tax cuts for the very rich. Immigration will stay at record levels with the vast majority of jobs going to migrants.
Tory Fib Dems or Labour, doesn’t matter which you vote for, because all of them are the same ! Only UKIP is offering an alternative.
Now there’s a thought, a hard line left Marxist UKIP !
I make that: Thoughtful 7; Essex Man 0
We’ll get what Douglas Carswell calls a ‘pretenderendum’ though, because no-principles Dave wants his ‘legacy’ to be that he locked the Tory party into the EU for ever. It will be funny when he succeeds and then the whole lot collapses in a few years. Just like Iraq went wrong for Blair.
The last one in 1975 was a “Yes” stitch-up between Wilson, Heath and Thorpe, with Woy and Shirl thrown in for good measure.
The “No” camp was a bit of a coalition of strange bedfellows, starring Powell, Foot and Benn.
Yes and no individual under the age of 58 has ever had a say in their country’s loss of sovereignty to the EU, which incidentally was not what those that voted ‘yes’ actually voted for!
We had the European Economic Community (EEC) back then, and not the bloated federalist union it would become under Delors et al.
The EEC was still far from perfect, with the Common Agricultural Policy giving us butter mountains and wine lakes.
Mr T ,totally bonkers . you gotta be on something, I guess you thought the moon landings are a fake too . All shot in Area 51 was it ? Foggy you definitely not seeing clearly . Maybe a dose of 5 years Millipeed /SNP Socialism will bring you to your senses , but I doubt it somehow , even when the kippers have gone ,you will probably think its all the Tories fault , just like the hard left you say you hate .
I really wish I could vote Tory, personally I just don’t see any real big difference between 2010 and now. That is unless you want to believe in the ‘pseudo recovery’ and and the ever increasing amount of foreign accents you hear in nearly every street of the UK aren’t real and the months wait for a GP appointment is a figment of ones imagination….
Time for a change UKIP X
I take your point, Thoughtful, but I think you may have fallen for the Labour spin about the party being ” of the few, not the many” Don’t forget the 50p tax rate was only introduced by Labour at the very end of their time in government. It was an act of class war spite and a carefully prepared piece of low politics, knowing the tax hike wouldn’t bring in much revenue and would be reversed by an incoming government. It would also give Labour a chance of repeat their mantra of ” the Tories cutting taxes for their rich friends” which is what Brown intended all along. The 50p tax rate was more valuable as an anti-Tory propaganda tool than any minimal rise in revenue for the Treasury. However, I must agree with almost everything else you said in your reply.
I think if you are going to come out with these assertions then you should back them up with evidence. Perhaps with reference to the percentiles actually affected and maybe throw in the Laffer curve for good measure.
This is you chance to show why the rich should get progressively richer and the poor poorer with what seems to be a singularly prevalent theme of ‘British Culture’ along with race hatred this site serves to promote.
Ah, there you are MOCO – I’ve been keeping an eye out for you, since you obviously haven’t been around or had time to respond to my repeated request – I’ll re-post the query for you…
“Twice recently you have referred to a book titled ‘Is the BBC in trouble ?’; claiming its publisher goes by the name of Abramhis in one of your references, but no author citation.
I have tried to find this publication, but to no avail, neither the book nor the publisher searches have yielded any information – it doesn’t appear to exist – but perhaps it’s an in-house BBC publication, who knows ?
Care to point us in the direction of a reliable source which would allow anyone to at least check out a precis of the book you cite as an authority on the BBC’s position, and also the author’s credentials/abilities/source of funding for the book ?”
How about capping benefits, which has strangely led to a reduction in the number of children living in homes where no-one works.
Social mobility is an interestingly vague concept. Please expand on how you believe people become socially mobile.
Does a footballer on £100,000 a week who can hardly string two words together automatically move up your scale.
When grammar schools existed there was a reasonably clear route for the brightest from the council estate to become socially mobile, but then they got sent to the egalitarian local comprehensive which should ensure you have little chance of breaking out of your birth inheritance. So lets add “Free Schools” to the list, where parents can escape the levelling down that such as the NUT long for where the producer decides what you get rather than the consumer!
You obviously missed the Turkey shoot but actually child poverty is on the rise. And its to those parents that are in work.
There is evidence that by the age of 3 and certainly by 5 your life chances are pretty much fixed. From the 50’s it was established that the home and the school were very much entwined with social/class outcomes.
This has been bourne out by a relatively recent study showing that children born to relatively wealthy parents have at 5 (or thereabouts) a reading age 30 months beyond those children born to poor parents. Moreover, that relative difference has a cumulative impact throughout the childs education.
In respect of Grammar schools , these were identified by the Plowdon Report as not fit for purpose. It wasnt a case of being egalitarian but more of raising the standards across the board to enable everyone to contribute to the then emerging industries. It was also found that age 11 was an entirely arbitrary cut off point in terms of educational attaintment or assessment. Under these circumstances it is entirely illogical to tip out potential talent into the societal trash can. The reason individuals hark back to the good ol Grammar schools is they were elitist and as a result could almost guarantee a continuity of aspiration amongst the middle classes.
Not so good if your parents flip burgers for a living irrespective of your IQ.
… actually child poverty is on the rise.
You mean as defined by Brown using percentage of national income, so that it can never be cleared unless we adopt pure communism?
… by the age of 3 and certainly by 5 your life chances are pretty much fixed.
Total nonsense. At 5 I was ill and didn’t start school until near 6. Never held me back at all. I’ve scoffed at the nonsense you quote for years; then this appeared in the Torygraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9266592/Bright-children-should-start-school-at-six-says-academic.html
I was hoping it would see the end of the rubbish you quote… but no chance…. too many vested interests in the bloated nursery sector. Of course, it mentions bright children, so all the more reason for the left to suppress it in the interests of ‘fairness’.
The reason individuals hark back to the good ol Grammar schools is they were elitist and as a result could almost guarantee a continuity of aspiration amongst the middle classes.
Er.. no. Rather, they were a path to a good education for bright children who had nothing else going for them.
“Er.. no. Rather, they were a path to a good education for bright children who had nothing else going for them.”
And virtually the only route to upward social mobility that many (such as “Thoughtful”) seemingly blame politicians for not waving a magic wand and achieving.
Strangely one major party has (or seemingly possibly had, as they seem to be losing much of their working class vote) a vested interest in levelling everyone down in that they can be counted on not to get above their station and realise socialism is actually the problem rather than the solution.
“It wasnt (sic) a case of being egalitarian (comma?) but more of raising the standards across the board to enable everyone to contribute to the then emerging industries.”
So it spectacularly failed then! As far from the bright ones raising the standard of the less bright, the mixed ability classes, prizes for all, one size fits all, producer led (NUT et al) system ruined the life chances of a whole generation who should now be competing for the “top jobs” with those privately educated at that time.
Facts are facts. You assume that because you don’t like the facts that that state of affairs can be changed. The facts you state are almost certainly universal in time and place. To change these facts would require massive state intervention. Of course, you haven’t stated how much you want to change, what proportions would be acceptable to you. I would mention Pareto Optimum and appreciate we don’t know the proportion. Glibly throwing facts anf implying policy that would transform the liberties of our society, is a bit lazy.
Not sure if it has popped up in the comments but the new universal pension will not necessarily be paid in full to everybody with the 35 qualifying years.
Those who have worked in the public sector for most of their lives will not get it all to reflect the reduced NI contributions paid by themselves and their employers for running final salary schemes.
You may have missed an aside from the NUT(t conference about cost increases to education from April 2016 when the employers 2% NI rebate is to be abolished to help pay for the new pension, but those in final salary schemes will start to build up full entitlement years to the new pension in return for losing their personal 1% rebate.
Once again we see the BBC asking the important questions over Easter…This time “what is it like to be a Muslim in Cuba”…
Their beloved Cuba is embracing Islam, and all is well in the world, other than the disgusting ideologies of Capitalism and Christianity..
Reminds me of a PhotoShop picture I saw yesterday of a typical Question Time panel – David Dimbleby was shown sitting with a panel consisting of Fidel Castro, Mao, Joe Stalin, Karl Marx and the nutter from North Korea.
Or the opening to The Naked Gun, featuring Idi Amin, Gaddafi, Khomeini and Gorbachev lookalikes.
And……? It looks like the normal balance of a QT panel.
That was ain reply to John Anderson but could have fitted the Naked Gun sequence too, with Gorbachev as the nominal right-winger..
I like the way they cover their ears when they pay homage to the Moon God.
They must be fed up with that monotonous drone day in day out as well.
Those ever-forensic, complementary fine folk over at ITBB have shared a couple that show the BBC is having a good (or bad, if you happen to value honesty & integrity) Easter, especially on twitter, that ‘views my own, not saying anything stupid’ medium of choice for the young Pulitzer aspirant… well, until they need to block any who question them, or erase recent histories…
http://isthebbcbiased.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/more-twitter-related-shenanigans.html
‘Something like this always seems to happen during elections… even more (if I may presume to add).
Seems Jasmine is not alone on the doorstep, stripping away those personal prejudices before starting work.
Meanwhile, in a land far, far away…
http://isthebbcbiased.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/understanding-al-shabaab.html
I’d say Mary, Mary, Contrary to Reality, is destined to join Orla, Lyse, Babs etc as the kind of lady those disenfranchised mass murderers can do business with, and indeed keep on speed-dial for those tricky times when the PR is looking iffy post-atrocity.
I am very glad I am not picking up her salary.
‘Something like this always seems to happen during elections. BBC reporters just can’t stop themselves.‘
It’s that Lefty Tourette’s.
Again.
I am avoiding the BBC over Easter… its the radio 4 – false ‘ha-ha’- comedy – that really irks me now and I cannot stand any of the daily BBC trivia on TV either. Nobody believes a word of it (except the Liberals who live in state of permanent identity crisis, climate crisis and whatever they read in The Guardian). BUT change is on the way – we do have nationwide support in a new cross-party campaign (against the BBC TV tax and our loss of our freedom and identity) from the UK’s ‘Freedom Association’ who have just launched the TV FREEDOM Magazine’ with ‘Axe the TV Tax’ campaign. ‘Making the positive case for the abolition of the television license’ a future reality check for MP’s who get elected next round.
Not that we (at Biased BBC) need much convincing of the urgency but as a member of the Freedom Association myself we uphold the values of what was once called the Magna-Carta i.e. our English identity and freedoms are being eroded by (EU subsidised) state control. The decision after the general election must be ‘to make the BBC accountable to the License fee payers’, and the only way to do that is to abolish-the-license entirely. You can download the FREE TV FREEDOM magazine campaign here… It’s totally free, please pass it on to anybody who believe that the BBC is well and truly past its ‘sell-by-date’.
Click to access TV-Freedom-Magazine-April-2015-1.pdf
BBC ‘Axe the Tax’ campaign page is here to sign up and support with regular newsletters: Enjoy!
http://www.axethetvtax.net
You do realise that the select committee is already looking at a “review of BBC funding that should look at all options, including the introduction of a subscription based service”
They seem leery of subscription because most of the freeview boxes they allowed the BBC to install for pensioners FOC do not have the facility to decode subscription services.
Thanks Thoughtful. They had thought about that but freeview was originally partly funded by the BBC to ‘go digital’ project. Something that is still a failure on the radio! (Thank goodness!). TV’s are so cheap now and the proliferation of TV and video play devices and fast competition from Sky, NOW!, BT and You-tube etc is eroding the BBC client viewing figures. We are are all watching ‘other channels’ and yet we are still forced to ‘pay for’ the BBC. The BBC can survive on ‘repeats’ and royalties from the defunkt ‘Top-Gear’ to other ‘Freeview’ channels but not for ever, so the end is nigh. Its got to be subscription or nothing. It would give a boost to the independent Radio and TV industry with a level playing field that already knocks the spots off the BBC in most areas The BBC future is not assured – unless Milliband makes it somehow into office and the BBC License will surely be increased to make up for the loss of its prestige, integrity, + that famous BBC impartiality and loss of Top-Gear revenue. Hell what do the BBC care about pensioners? Tony Hall being a pensioner soon will also be entitled to a free TV license!
‘Families are 1,100 quid worse off under Coalition” Labour claims, which is headlining every BBC news bulletin today?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32191881
According to the independent IFS, (you know the organisation run by Ed Balls University mate Paul Johnson), who have come up with this ludicrous calculation stating the VAT rise, (17.5% to 20%), trumps any income tax threshold gains, (gain around 800 smackers each earner annually)!
£1,100 extra VAT! That is one hell of a lot of INCREASED dosh spent on INCREASED VATable household needs, (not food, kids clothing, mortgages which all VAT exempt – equates to extra £44,000 pa INCREASE spent on VATale holidays, new motors and household repairs or luxuries by all these poor families)!
The new Labour / IFS poverty trap, as advertised by your BBC!
Just another BBC / Labour connived stitch up! Surprise, surprise!
I thought we were supposed to be £1600 a year worse off according to Ed, or has that figure been revised down.
I know every individual earning enough to pay income tax is £900 a year take home better off because of large rises above inflation in personal allowance.
I know its not quite that straight forward for those on 40% and above , but the point is with two earners in a “poor” household that is £1800 a year extra through the door.
Anyone else listening to the BBC Radio 4 news headlines at 0100 today? The poor woman sounded upset, there were long silences, pauses, words repeated, incoherent statements. There seemed no-one to take over from her. You felt sorry for her.
Just thought I’d try to round off the day with an amusing photo of a note on a door for certain electioneers…(sorry, I failed miserably trying to embed it, you will just have to do with a link to the article in the Spectator).
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2015/04/coffee-shots-election-fatigue-sets-in/
Yup – pretty much how my failures turned out 🙂
15.4.6
BBC Pushing Hard Left Fascism Again. And the implications wash over the BBC again. They can’t help it. Again, a common purpose article where no named journalist is credited with the piece. Try reading it without your blood boiling.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32195135
”Young people should be forced to vote in the first election after they turn 18, a centre-left think tank has said.”
So the BBC now align the term ‘centre left’ with proposing the use of state force against individuals, to force them to undertake actions against their will? So what’s the mechanism? Picked up by the goon squad? Marched to the voting booth? Or maybe the government could chip them, with a GPS tracker and install cameras in the voting booths? Under threat of what? Imprisonment? Death? No doubt this ‘centre left’ (InterNazi?) think tank would also select who these people are forced to vote for.
Do leftists understand the term liberty? Do they know what ‘freedom’ means? Or should ‘centre left’ ‘think’ tanks which advocate the use of force by the state against individuals be more correctly labelled ‘far left’, ‘fascist left’ on Internazis (International Socialists).
’Making them vote may halt declining election turnouts…’ erm…. So if you make people vote, turnout decline may halt? Where do they get these geniuses?
Is there no trade description for the use of the term ‘think tank’, because the only logical exlpanations for Mat Lawrence at the IPPR are that either he can’t ‘think’, or he’s a far left Fascist.
For the record, if any individual can’t trouble themselves to vote, then so what? Leave the choice of representative to those that can be arsed and those that do engage. I would of course encourage all to engage in the realities of politics and learn about truth, economics, justice and ethics. That way, the far left would be seen for what it represents: Envy, spite, theft, power and enslavement.
BBC. Incapable of impartiality. Part of the problem. Scrap the Telly tax before our liberty is completely undermined by the fascist left and common purpose.
Vote sensibly.
here is a pic of the callow youth who wrote the IPPR report.
Looks like a totla pasty-faced prat to me – never had a real job before, worked for a Labour MP.
But obviously worth a BBC platform.
http://www.ippr.org/people/staff/mathew-lawrence
If you need to get to sleep – here is the slimy young fool spouting Marxism on YouTube. Guaranteed somnolent – even the clowns on the top table with him are falling asleep.
His Twitter stuff is full of references to Trotsky.
IPPR is centre-left” ???
If I can find this on a 2-minute Google search – why don’t BBC editors weed out weeds like this ?
Tee he. I bet he quotes from the Koran as well.
Freedom is a word the left has never understood. Liberty they just about grasp. They are all for granting it on their terms. Freedom just is and that is something the left has never grasped.
I would say that freedom is always limited. Otherwise it would be anarchy. The argument is over how limited.
The problem with the Left (especially the BBC) is that they want to extend those limits into the sphere of private thought and conscience in order to change the parameters of acceptable thought, expression and conduct for political reasons.
There is still a difference between freedom and liberty. We in the Anglo Saxon world voluntarily limited our freedom by instituting Common Law to which we all subscribe. This is the ideal.
This deems certain actions as illegal because they harm indivduals and society. The other way is the way of the Europeans which seems to be permitting only those actions the power structure grants us liberty to do.
So in a free land a free man is free always to assemble peacefully and to speak his mind on any matter. He is free to elect a man to speak for him in an assembly of free men.
Sadly you are right about the current attempts to limit these inalienable rights we must have as free men.
The liberal has no real conception of freedom and prefers the way of granting of liberties. The results are all around us every day.
Now which Troll did you used to be in the past…so many to choose from, all with your psychotic tenancies.
Nurse!
I’ve posted my first complaint to Ofcom, it’s about BBC bias. Has anyone here had any experience with Ofcom?
I once knew the D-G of Ofcom. He was a fool.
I think it has gone downhill since then.
You didn’t.
You don’t exist so how can you meet anyone.
Nurse!
I’d like to be wrong, but on matters of BBC editorial OFCOM will most likely bounce you to the BBC Trust, which is well versed in dealing with complaints about BBC bias.
I did browse some of the recent Ofcom findings against BBC news and they seemed more focussed on taste rather than content. One was about no warning of flashing images.
I’ll second that.
Bbc 24 at 23.15,
“Concern grows over young people in danger of radicalisation ”
Whilst showing shots of young girls walking past the camera and writing in a classroom…………….all the children are ( and for the first time that I can remember in years ) white.
Amazing that they can find a school without any darker skin on show when it suits them.
That’s Al Beeb In two words …
Blatant propaganda.
Silly propaganda. Nobody is fooled and the BBC needs to think carefully about it’s credibility.
You mean all the girls in danger of radicalisation there were erm
…… topless? ……. no hijabs
Beeboids must come clean on this:-
-the political left’s casual betrayal of the West’s security;
-front page, Tuesday’s ‘Daily Mail’-
“The damning truth about Snowden:
Traitor who put lives at risk from terrorists reveals he didn’t even read all the top-secret files he leaked ”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3027073/Last-Week-Tonight-host-John-Oliver-grills-Edward-Snowden-leaking-documents-knew-harmful.html#ixzz3WZU35QIl
Watched a dramatisation of the whole Manning/Wikileaks affair recently (starring Sherlock). It did a reasonable job of covering the compromises made to rush out publication of data that served egos more than integrity.
But, Beeboids remain in political support of Snowden.
Note the blatant bias of this unacceptable Beeboid final sentence:-
“One park visitor described the officials’ decision to remove the bust as ‘censorship’.
From:-“Snowden statue removed from New York park”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32199039
Just what is Nazir Afzal smoking alert
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11517981/Isil-are-like-Beatles-and-British-youngsters-want-to-be-them-warns-prosecutor.html
ISIS like the Beatles?
No ISIS want to be like Mohamhead, like the Quran
Mr Afzal said “tactics to combat radicalisation needed to change because youngsters did not want to ahem
“hear from men with long beards, they don’t want to hear from faith leaders”.
But … that’s what they get from ISIS?, that’s what they get from the Quran, that’s what they get from the Mosque, that’s what they get from Mohamhead, (presumably).
and, NOT from erm Nazir Afzal …. and his moptop
Lots of mentions of ‘British’ and ‘Britons’ and yet no mention of the RoP. How peculiar. Better keep an eye on those sikhs, hindus, africans, indians, welsh etc. etc. then.
ISIS like the Beatles ? More like dung beetles.
Except that dung beetles are useful to farmers, which is why the ancient Egyptians worshipped them.
Isis like the Beatles. Now you know why this guy has not pushed too hard to prosecute his fellow muslims
They should take a tip from a Beatles song then.
“Day Tripper” comes to mind, and on a one-way ticket. Yeah !
Hardly surprising, this is the epidemic of UK Islamic gangs, child rape has, nothing to do with Islam guy.
Worse is that he had all the information
http://nazir-afzal-there-is-no-religious-basis-for-the-abuse-in-rotherham
More surprising, he s a chief prosecutor
and yet missed this :-
It establishes that 20 years ago child-care professionals dealing with the victims made recommendations which could have protected the schoolgirl victims, but these steps have never been implemented.
The report is definitive – there is no analysis of this problem of this quality anywhere.
It goes into substantial detail, but anyone interested in the subject will find their time is well invested
Click to access Easy-Meat-Multiculturalism-Islam-and-Child-Sex-Slavery-05-03-2014.pdf
O/T.
ECHR. Human Rights. Don’t you just love ’em.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04/06/nhs-trust-accused-of-anti-christian-agenda-branded-worker-religious-nutcase/
Victoria Wasteney, the latest innocent to be screwed over. But she’s a Christian and not Muslim, so that’s OK.
Article 9 “Freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief.” Well, perhaps if you are a Muslim.
What next? Can Muslims now legally execute Jews, gayers, apostates and blasphemers? It’s just a manifestation of a religious belief after all. Sounds like loadsamoney for yuman rights lawyers spending decades and redistributing millions of tax cash coming up with an answer to this question (redistributing to lawyers and eurocrats bank accounts that is), whilst more blood is spilled on the streets of Europe. In today’s world of moral relativism, who can tell anymore? The French tolerate it on the streets of Paris after all, and their press assist in the process.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11513803/Paris-supermarket-hostages-sue-media-over-live-coverage.html
Wake up people! The press, the BBC, our politicians are all betraying us.
Vote sensibly. How can Britain soar like an eagle with the turkeys of the EU and the ECHR tied to its feet?
I’m not sure what your point is here. The poor Christian woman oppressed by her loony left employer only has the option of remedy because of the ECtHR. Without it the Fascists would be free to oppress every white non Muslims as they pleased, and believe me that they would !
This is a public body so we should all be expecting the head of HR and the person responsible for the oppression to resign if the poor Christian woman wins her case?
One thing we can be certain of, the hopelessly church of liberalism won’t lift a finger to help her.
The point(s)? The poor christian woman is oppressed either with or without the EHCR is she not? The evidence suggests, yes she is.
However, the point I was trying to make is the ridiculous assertion (within the EHCR, Article 9) that it is a ‘right’ to ‘manifest one’s religion or belief’.
As an aside, also, if there were more private health care, this Christian woman would have countless other potential employers lining up to snap up services and would not be religiously ostracised on account of a the existance of state monopoly.
Thoughtful, why can we as a country not define our own Bill of Rights and demand that our government honour it (through a written constitution)? Why the need for the immoral, illegitimate ECHR?
For a complete change I thought I’d visit Radio 3 for some new music, but incredibly even this has an agenda.
“Written by a man or a woman – can you tell? ..Take our quiz and see whether it’s possible to tell if music is composed by a woman or a man.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3
Like .. who cares?
I wonder how many more top-of-the-hour headlines on BBC TV and radio are going to start with the word “Labour” over the next four weeks.
8am Breakfast News certainly did!
And my BBC local radio station.
It’s the acceptable face of media plurality.
Just endured Global News on Classic FM and its top story of another ‘row’ (namely Labour press release) breaking out over the NHS, starring the Labour Health assassin.
… just had the bottom of the hour summary.
It seems Tony Blair ‘will say’ the Government has failed, so vote Labour.
Subtle.
Labour shits it should be lol
It’s ‘Labour accuses’ they start with.
They obviously cannot start with a Labour policy since they don’t have any and any pretendy ones are laughed into the long grass by the electorate.
I well remember, after the 1997 election, for about the first three months or more, there was a report every day on the BBC news programs (positively put, of course, and rarely, if ever, having any entrails pulled out of them for examination) of a new policy from Labour, and any dissenters as to the efficacy of these policies was roundly ignored or shot down by the BBC.
Of course, by the next election, Tony Blair had been annointed ‘Saviour’ by the BBC (cue the bottles of champagne), and absolutely no examination of all of these policies ever took place by the intrtepid analysts at the BBC. The reason was, of course, so many of the policies had not been implemented, but boy, was the Labour cabinet of the day made to look like it was ready and able to govern the UK, with all sorts of fresh ideas.
These days, if any announcement is made by the current government, a well-oiled BBC attack team is made available and assembled at just a moment’s notice to dissect, dismember and diffuse, and if all else fails, to digress, in the attempt to remove all traces of any possible benefit from the policies from its media sources.
Just watched the Eurovision 60th anniversary concert that was broadcast last Friday. Huge audience overwhelmingly possibly entirely white by the looks of it. Suddenly, part way through the show we see a shot of three negro women – a real close up – right on the front row all singing along and looking ecstatic. After that shot although I kept scanning the front I never spotted them again and believe me they were easily spottable in that crowd. Absolutely pathetic that the BBC has to go out of its way just to shove in some tinted people in every programme it broadcasts. Contrived or what?
‘..the BBC has to go out of its way just to shove in some tinted people in every programme it broadcasts. Contrived or what?’
Contrived, condescending, and probably ‘racist’ by some definition of that seemingly catch-all notion.
But this is typical BBC house-style.
Probably all gay as well! Eurovision does seem to attract them !
Sadly its not just the bBC, last nights ITV’s docudrama ‘The Code Of Killer’ featured the first murder to be solved by DNA in 1983.
In the program, the police force (as it was then called) was portrayed as 33% ethnic. Even in Leicester, this was not the case, viewing film of the 1984 miners riots would prove this.
Other than having an agenda, how can the program makers get this so wrong?
Definitely an agenda – ITV getting as bad as BBC now – hence the ethnics that were shoehorned into Mr. Selfridge recently. Absolutely pathetic.
Thunderbird’s ‘Brains’ has also undergone a change of ethnicity.
‘Other than having an agenda, how can the program makers get this so wrong? ‘
They are not getting it ‘wrong’, they are deliberately re-writing history to fit their 21st Centruty narrative e.g. ‘Britain has always been a nation of immigrants’.
BBC reports on the Yemen front in the Muslim Civil War – although the BBC tend not to call it that – and the ‘UN warns of impending humanitarian disaster’.
This is international journalism by numbers: Nothing in the news about a region; war breaks out; journos arrive; journos take the side of the aparent underdog; voilà – humanitarian crisis.
Meanwhile to the General Election – Ross Hawkins BBC political reporter bemoans the fact we haven’t as yet had an incident where ‘a member of the public asks a killer question we (ie the media/BBC) haven’t thought of’
For me, these are clearly the reasons for our Ross and the BBC to just pack up and go home.
The Labour Party spin machine, and party political broadcast for the Labour party in full swing, this morning. That nice Mr. Burnham geting the usual easy ride (the BBC love Mr. Burnham, don’t they?), Theresa May not so. Did anyone else get the impression that, at the end of her “bit”, Mrs. May never actually said anything?
Mr. Blair sticking his oar in, again – judging by the vitriol heaped against that creepy war criminal by most of the commentary I’ve read, that should help UKIP quite a bit.
And Ms. Bennet, other than the usual Antipodean waffle she always comes out with, didn’t have anything of import to say, either. The woman is as mad as a bag of spanners. How can anyone who isn’t either a student or a watermelon vote for the Greens? Ms. Bennet said they were doing better than UKIP! Deluded. Deliciously, when Humphrys wrapped it up, he called her Caroline Lucas!
Another eulogy to Hillary Roddam Clinton this morning by Jon Sopel on the Today programme, 0650. The BBC are positioning themselves nicely in case their second favourite Democrat gets the nomination (they really hate it that their ‘first’ favourite, Hussein Obama, cannot run a third time). All praise to Hillary, was Sopel’s message. No criticism of her dubious history in politics, and none of the worst scandals in recent time, namely the Benghazi disaster, and the e-mail scandal. Sopel did say that some people suggested much of her government work was conducted via her private e-mails, but that was that. No mention that that it is illegal under the Constitution, no mention that Congress demanded she hand them all over, and no mention that in response, she deleted all of them (also illegal). Bias by omission.
Did you hear yesterdays report that when she found out about Bill and Monica Lewinski she threw a book at him which drew blood, and then in a humorous vein asked some literary type which books might be the most appropriate to throw.
It turns out that the book cut Clinton quite badly and he later passed this off as being caused by him dashing to the bathroom in the dark and running into the door.
I wonder if the BBC would have found it so amusing if it had been Bill who had thrown the book at Hilary?
Domestic violence is never right, but it seems to fit the BBC mantra that some are more equal than others.
“Hague Dodger” Blair on the campaign trail for Labour.
Not once does the increasingly disturbed looking Blair mention the British public right to choose on Europe. Simply that the gormless Milliband is right to go against the tide on Europe. Which, in other words, means stuff the electorate I’m ignoring you. We know what’s best.
Its a shame the political “we know best” elite never asked the public on mass immigration then we wouldn’t be in a continued state of alert in this country.
Its a shame the political elite never listened to the public when they said no to war in Iraq…oh hold on who was in power then…Tony Blair.
Maybe Tony is would be best if you chumps and your pals at the Beeb did listen to us. We seem to have a lot more common sense even though you clearly believe you are smarter than us.
Cameron is no better than BLiar who was his hero. His taste for starting wars he had no qualms about was every bit as bad as BLiar, and almost certainly ordained by Sunni Muslim oil rich countries.
Look at the state he left Libya in after his intervention, now the place of choice for illegal immigrants to try to get into Europe from.
Given the chance, and if he hadn’t been stopped, he would have sent the British military to fight for ISIS in Syria, because at that time it’s what Sunni Islam wanted.
Don’t think Cameron is any better than BLiar because he isn’t, and when he leaves office we will almost certainly see him collecting his petro dollar reward in much the same way as BLiar did.
Correct. Isis are looking north over the Med from Libya after Cameron’s intervention. They can see Malta apparently.
The public via their MP’s told our elite to back off on Syria. They did thankfully. I wrote to mine, Brooks Newmark that we should not get involved. To be fair he wrote a very polite letter disagreeing with me. (He was the Tories expert on the middle east). However I think I may have been proved right on that one. Not that I’m smug. I’m not. I’m just worried that someone like me has a bit more nous than an expert for the government.
The windbag Paddy Ashdown said he was “never so ashamed” we didn’t become involved. I never bothered to listen to him after that.
Notice Syria has dropped off the BBC’s radar. At the start of the conflict they were daily pushing for us to join the fight against Assad. Now they’ve gone quiet on that. Not smart to be supporting Isis which again proves what a bunch of arses the beeb are.
I think that the more air-time the BBC give to people like Burnham and Bennett, the fewer votes labour and the greens will get! The inadequacies of these two are plain for all to see (or hear).Of course the Beeb is trying to bash the Tories by peddling labour and green views, but I think it will fall victim to the Law of Unintended Consequences with these two.
Burnham moans about GP service coverage when over 90% of people are satisfied with their GP service so it hardly merits a huge national debate at election time. Are 90% of commuters happy with their rail service? Are 90% of British voters happy with the immigration policies pursued by successive governments over the last 40 years?
Even if there is a problem with GPs, who’s to blame? Answer, the ludicrous GP contract ‘negotiated’ by the last labour government with the GP’s trade union which is a producer-interest club and doesn’t give a hoot about consumers of health services.
As for Bennett, she tells us that getting rid of our armed forces and the nuclear deterrent is only a long term Green policy. Nothing to worry about there then! When does short term end and long term begin? Does whether the rest of the world want to disarm or not, count for anything?
As for the Citizens’ Income, well perhaps we can go out and borrow from all those peace-loving foreigners to pay for that one. Given that the Greens will do nothing to reduce the existing annual public sector deficit, that would be our only choice, even in the long run.
Just sent this email to BBC:
To BBC 7 Apr 15 (10 am)
Are you aware, the UKs most visited and commented upon blog, (Guido Fawkes), has almost every page featuring derogatory comments about the reliability of BBC Political news and BBC Left bias and actual lies given by you: That is every page!
http://order-order.com/2015/04/07/more-fantasy-election-numbers/#_@/dgjpHPTKkEvxxg
EXTRACT PAGE FROM BLOG:
The BBC broadcast the lie about GPs before the good news on the GDP figures for the UK. That’s the BBC for you never let the truth get in front of a Good Lie.
3 • Reply•Share ›
Grumpy Jim • 19 minutes ago
The BBC often make corrections to erroneous reports–on the 24hr rolling news programme between 03h00 and04h00 in the mornings or Radio Guernsey, just after farming news.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
BBC 4 Cameron Jim • 22 minutes ago
I think you will find that the BBC like Mr Cameron. He won them over by giving them weddings. Every now and then they try to show a bit of impartiality by siding with Ed but not often.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Get real BBC 4 Cameron • 7 minutes ago
The BBC are the broadcast arm of the f***ing Guardian you t**t. Why do you think the Guardian and the BBC’s agendas are interchangeable, and that copies of the Guardian are the most bought up newspaper at BBC HQ?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Charlatans Jim • 18 minutes ago
‘Families are 1,100 quid worse off under Coalition” Labour claims – which is headlining every BBC news bulletin yesterday extracted from Mr Balls speech?
According to the independent IFS, (you know the organisation run by Ed Balls University mate Paul Johnson), who have come up with this ludicrous calculation stating, according to Ed Balls, the VAT rise, (17.5% to 20%), trump any income
tax threshold gains, (gain 800 smackers each earner annually)!
You would need to spend around £44,000 extra on VAT’able goods to make yourself £1,100 worse off through the 2.5% increase in VATrate!
That is a hell of a lot of INCREASED dosh spent on VATable household needs, (not food, kids clothing, mortgages which all VAT exempt – must be many thousands spent on
holidays, new motors and luxuries by all these poor families)!
This calculation is even before the tax benefits we receive from increase in 20% Tax threshold to £10k, (average £800 better off each earner)!.
How big can this Labour lie get?
What is wrong with the BBC experts unable to work it out? Give us the truth you BBC Charlatans?
Or is this just another BBC / Labour connived families route into poverty.
Basically another LABOUR /BBC stitch up! Surprise, surprise!
2 • Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Ed_Millibland Jim • 24 minutes ago
BBC News 24 – busy obfuscating the news 1440 minutes of every day.
• Reply•Share › ‘Families are 1,100 quid worse off under Coalition” Labour claims – which is headlining every BBC news bulletin today, extracted from Mr Balls speech?
According to the independent IFS, (you know the organisation run by Ed Balls University mate Paul Johnson), who have come up with this ludicrous calculation stating, according to Ed Balls, the VAT rise, (17.5% to 20%), trump any income tax threshold gains, (gain 800 smackers each earner annually)!
You would need to spend around £44,000 extra on VAT’able goods to make yourself £1,100 worse off through the 2.5% increase in VATrate!
That is a hell of a lot of INCREASED dosh spent on VATable household needs, (not food, kids clothing, mortgages which all VAT exempt – must be many thousands spent on holidays, new motors and luxuries by all these poor families)!
This calculation is even before the tax benefits we receive from increase in 20% Tax threshold to £10k, (average £800 better off each earner)!.
How big can this Labour lie get?
What is wrong with the BBC experts unable to it out and give us the truth?
Or is this just another BBC / Labour connived families route into poverty.
Basically another LABOUR /BBC stitch up! Surprise, surprise!
I must have missed the bit where Burnham and the Today interviewer agreed that mush of the pressure on GPs is due to excessive immigration started by Labour ?
Baby faced Burnham is also very punchable.
For Beeboids, this basically determines their General Election
political preference:-
“Ed Miliband: I’d defend the licence fee
(but don’t ask me to watch BBC news)”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/07/ed-miliband-defend-bbc-licence-fee-dont-watch-news?
Reminds me of a Meatloaf track.
So Ed gets a minion to do a summary for him, like with Eastenders?
Vital.
Thing is, Ed, the BBC in its quid pro quo will be expecting you not just to ask, but force the public to still pay for what you also can’t really stomach either. Hardly joined up as value for money or as a recommendation, really.
Still, Mrs. Dave is right with you in a piece that may require a diabetes check after wading through:
ttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3025899/The-strain-looking-Ivan-brought-breaking-point-marriages-don-t-survive-stronger-SamCam-gives-profoundly-candid-unique-insight-life-Downing-Street.html
‘..she is addicted to BBC 6 Music. ‘I listen to Radio 4 in the morning and the rest of the day I have 6 Music on. I love it.’
Whether that will stave off ‘hand-picked’ BBC comedic insights as things go to the wire, who knows?
Beeboids want no controls on their advocacy of open-door, mass immigration into Britain. So too, it appears, they want no controls of what they term ‘Islamic extremism’ in Britain, to be undertaken by-
a.) teachers, b.) INBBC, c.) any non-Muslims.
“Jihadi bride’s dad who blamed police admits taking daughter to fiery Islamic rallies.”
“A MUSLIM father who mixed with hardline hate mobs then blamed police when his 15-year-old daughter joined Islamic State has admitted taking her to fiery street rallies.”
By CYRIL DIXON.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/568768/Jihadi-bride-s-father-admits-taking-protests
I share many of the beliefs and concerns raised.
But will you all stop misusing the term immigration.
What has been happening to Europe since WW2 is not immigration, it is unwanted mass invasion by aliens.
If we wanted mass immigration we would invite, eg, intelligent, creative, civilised Japanese. Not the dregs of the planet we have been “enriched” by.
The proper response to invasion is lethal force. This is the first time in history that the “leaders” of the nation have not led the violent repulsion of the invaders.
Instead the “leaders” have encouraged this treason.
I see no reason to continue to adhere to the laws of the land. We need heads on the town gates, lots of heads.
A few weeks ago Margot Wallström, the Swedish foreign minister, denounced the subjugation of women in Saudi Arabia.
…
The backlash followed the pattern set by Rushdie, the Danish cartoons and Hebdo. Saudi Arabia withdrew its ambassador and stopped issuing visas to Swedish businessmen. The United Arab Emirates joined it. The Organisation of Islamic Co-operation, which represents 56 Muslim-majority states, accused Sweden of failing to respect the world’s ‘rich and varied ethical standards’…
…
Yet there is no ‘Wallström affair’. Outside Sweden, the western media has barely covered the story, and Sweden’s EU allies have shown no inclination whatsoever to support her.
Sweden’s feminist foreign minister has dared to tell the truth about Saudi Arabia. What happens now concerns us all
Shhhhhsssh… ‘not news’ (c) A. Newsroom Tealady.
Maybe this?:
http://order-order.com/2015/04/07/edward-snowden-didnt-read-all-leaked-files/
Sources say, the BBC has learned. Who has the staff these days? It’s the cuts!!!!!
Maybe how well this has, and is going so far…?:
http://order-order.com/2015/04/07/labour-supporters-welcome-blairs-return
Unhappy-warrior-wise
Jesus wept …how they manage to keep this Swedish story out of the news? This is serious stuff!
The spirit of W1A with this one strong is…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/its-not-where-you-start.html
‘one of range being advertised as the BBC fails to persuade staff to re-locate to half-empty offices’
Maybe they could house some asylum seekers in the interim?
Hello Folks. Not directly related to the bbc but the “Reclaim Australia,” rallies held on 4th April on the Easter holiday were overall a resounding success. Only Melbourne suffered fron appalling policing resulting in counter protesters being giving preference over attendees. The remainder at Perth, Brisbane, Adelaide and Sydney had between 700 and two and a half thousand people with the counter protesters in a small minority. I attended Adelaide which was loud and proud and the counter protestors were drowned out.
The media however, particularly the bbc’s relation the ABC were incredibly biased and I know this for a fact because I was there at an incident in question.
Nevertheless the Australian people are not quite as cowed as UK citizens thank God and These rallies have served to strengthen people’s resolve to speak about Islam and not remain quiet. It does wonders to come off your fb page and turn up in person. I hope that UK rallies can attract more people than they are doing.
The BBC’s ability to miss elephants continues to amaze.
Jeremy Vine’s first item has an academic economist expressing concern over hand operated car washes as an indicator of low productivity. There is vague talk of probably no planning permission, environmental problems etc. Where do they think these workers come from? That elephant called open-door immigration no doubt.
Vine things his job is safe because it can’t be outsourced to China. If Rhod Sharp can do ‘Up All Night’ from the US why can’t someone do Vine show’s from Ukraine?
Like fruit picking who the hell cleaned cars before limitless immigration? I just wish lazy b’stards would stop using them and do a better job cleaning the car themselves, its a false and unneeded industry with ‘added benefits’, much like Big Issue selling.
In my neck of the woods it seems nearly every closed filling station now operates a car washing business on the forecourt, not to mention the almost intimidatory cries of ‘car washhh sirrr?’ or ‘car wash laydeee?’ on arrival at Sainsbury’s.
Depending on how you’re dressed that day, Geoff?
Absolutely!
Can’t wait to get home and rip off the wife’s knickers, they’re killing me … 😉
Don’t throw them away there’s a market for them.
Complain to the supermarket management. Enough complaints will rid the car wash bandits ( are they even insured ?) Would also like to see the ever present tin janglers demanding charity banished, but I am sure if they were banned then they would be running to the press and being photographed with sad faces and giving bad publicity to the said supermarket ( blackmail).
Having said that cut out the middle man shop online.
I find little to disagree with here:
http://conservativewoman.co.uk/tcw-manifesto-back-marriage-restore-grammar-schools-and-quit-the-eu/
7. Scrap the BBC licence fee and break up the state broadcaster
The BBC has a guaranteed income, enforced by the threat of court action against non-payers of the licence fee, of £4 billion a year.Its existence means the Corporation unnaturally swamps the sector and stifles innovation. Not surprisingly, given its dominantposition, it is comfortably the main source of news in the UK. Not surprisingly, given its public sector ethos, it is driven by left-liberal values. These pervade its output from comedy and drama to news and current affairs. It is effectively a Guardian newspaper of the airwaves. But unlike The Guardian it has guaranteed huge resources and a quasi-official place in public life.
It is overwhelmingly led and staffed by people who adhere to its ruling leftist philosophy and the BBC has become a self-perpetuating progressive elite. Reform of such an institution is impossible by definition. The only solution is to break it up, requiring the vast majority of its output to take its chances in the marketplace funded by advertising and subscription. A small public service element, such as Radio 4 and Radio 3, should be retained as a taxpayer-funded service and subject to the most rigorous interpretation of the rules requiring impartiality.
The BBC World Service, once a bastion of British culture and impartiality, has now become the broadcasting arm of the Guardianista aid agenda, and is dominated by the same militant world-government values as the EU, Greenpeace and Oxfam. It should be forced to go back to what it once was – or also be scrapped.
“…The BBC World Service, once a bastion of British culture and impartiality, has now become the broadcasting arm of the Guardianista aid agenda, and is dominated by the same militant world-government values as the EU, Greenpeace and Oxfam.”
Yep, absolutely. I invite regulars here to brave the wee small hours of BBC R4 (The World Service) to hear it for themselves. It is unmitigated, unrestrained full-on Socialist Radio in full flow. The BBC gets away with it because it knows hardly anyone here in the UK is listening at those hours.
If you want to discover the naked truth about the BBC’s wholly imaginary ‘impartiality’ give the World Service a try between 1am – 5am. It will shock you. It will anger you.
And they will be laughing at you, because you’re all paying for it.
“The only gay in the village? You’re having a laugh!
“After a BBC executive reveals jokes are checked before they go to air, RICHARD LITTLEJOHN imagines how classic comedies could have been made today ”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?sel=site&searchPhrase=littlejohn
The BBC seem to like this woman… so canvassing for opinions in good old traditional SOHO…. a very cosmopolitan and leftie environment last time I was there. I wonder what the answer might have been if they were to ask this question up in Dagenham and Redbridge? The BBC would have been told to f**k off no doubt!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32180924
For Guardian-Beeboid-Snowden axis-
DAILY MAIL COMMENT:
“Traitor is damned from his own lips ”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3028193/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Traitor-damned-lips.html#ixzz3WckHJZkX
Oh dear the NHS has (conveniently) managed to miss its targets again!
So it’s off to lots & lots of left wing commentators to blame the evil Tories without a thought as to why this has happened. Of course it is the fault of the evil Tories, as you can’t expect to let 650 000 immigrants into the UK in a single year without increasing the infrastructure , and expect that the NHS will simply be able to absorb this.
It was mentioned that UKIP would make it compulsory that immigrants had NHS approved health insurance for at least 5 years after migrating to the UK, but of course this was not explored.
Agree. Hunt, the Minister, suggested that the problem was due to ageing population. He lies softly because given the glacial, predictable rate of that population it cannot explain the significant statistical problem at A&E. Population size is the only causal factor that can have this effect, ceteris paribus. Mild winter would preclude any spikes in young and old attending A&E. In fact, looking at the enquiry that Hunt referred to you will probably find that population increase is the significant factor creating the need for more taxpayer funding. Its the same causal factor that is causing a boom in capital expenditure on school to cater for incomers.
The unelected house of lords overruling the proposed decriminalisation of the undemocratic state media tax.
What’s not to like?
I don’t recall the bbc making much of a fuss about this travesty of democracy, oddly enough.
And thank God it is unelected !
You people who think an elected house must really have an extraordinary level of trust in politicians !
Here’s why they want an elected house.
Whipping – Peers in the second chamber would be forced to vote through or against government business or lose the party whip. The merits of a bill would not be considered.
Safe seats – The no brains will vote certain favoured individuals into office without a second thought.
Control of members – No difficult people like Lord Tebbit, and no way anyone can speak their minds without the party machine disciplining them.
Obstruction of government business – because the American system is such a good idea ! a mid term election which changes the composition of the upper house and refuses to pass any Government bills at all until there’s a general election.
What an unelected house brings
Expert viewpoints – from all areas to cast an expert eye on bills and point out the pros & cons to other members prior to a vote.
No fear of the part whips – they can’t take away a peers seat if they vote the wrong way!
Impartial vision – if a government bill is simply wrong then it can be returned to the commons to be looked at again.
What would happen with an elected house?
Section 5 of the public order act would have meant you could have been prosecuted ‘for causing offence’. As it is, it’s bad enough with the act having been used for all manner of innocuous affronts.
Many more oppressive acts would be passed.
How about an act of opposing equality? or disrespect for religion (Islam)?
Be careful what you wish for, because you might just get it !
All very well, but my point is a simple one. To get good representation first you need some representation.
The HoL is an affront to a modern democracy.
Thoughtful,
your position is also open to attack on these grounds:
-your first two sentences suggest you have sympathy for the divine right of kings, or at least a benign dictator.
-your defence of the unelected upper chamber, and your desire to preserve it, implies that the upper/lower chamber system currently in place is satisfactory. I would strongly disagree on that point.
Of course the hereditary peers who sit in the House of Lords have been elected – by the hereditary lords who are no longer allowed to attend.
If the membership of the Lords was still 100% hereditary Outsider would have a good argument, but it is overwhelmingly composed of people who have made a success of their life outside politics and so can bring a welcome “real life” perspective to the Westminster bubble.
The last thing we need is yet more highly paid jobs for the entitled class of professional politicians.
‘real life perspective’ = donations to the party coffers.
It’s not incumbent on me to argue why a non-elected chamber in the legislature is superflous to democracy, although that’s what I appear to be doing.
An elected second chamber is always and everywhere preferable.
BBC News 24. Piece on ‘transgender under 10’s’. Also on website.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32037397
Victoria Derbyshire really is an enemy of reason and humanity. She is truly sick in the head. Why is she not being sectioned under the mental health act?
We are told that the incidence of gender confusion amongst under 10’s has quadrupled. And Victoria’s explanation? Because awareness of the issue has grown. FFS. These people (Derbyshire included) are a social cancer. Perhaps mentally disturbed child abusers (certain parents, all state schools), goaded on by the sickness of Common Purpose, underpinned by the BBC and their mentally ill staff are confusing young people as to what is right, what is wrong, what is male what is female. Surreal beyond words.
This is Common Purpose at its brilliant best. Abuse children, encourage sheeple to instill unnatural values and moral relativism in their children, including hatred of all that is male, report on the ‘fourfold increase’ in a particular mental condition in children, then put it down to ‘increased awareness’.
Well Victoria, there is certainly increased awareness as to how sick in the head you are, as you report on the real world problems in real young children that you and your Common Purpose abusers have managed to manifest within our society within a generation. She has no scruples. She is surely a sociopath.
Victoria needs to be careful. If the Islamists in our country find out what she is pushing, and how their young children are being mentally abused in schools in the way Victoria encourages, their organised reaction may not be so peaceful.
Perhaps mentally disturbed child abusers (certain parents, all state schools), goaded on by the sickness of Common Purpose, underpinned by the BBC and their mentally ill staff are confusing young people as to what is right, what is wrong, what is male what is female. Surreal beyond words.
So you’ve decided, with no evidence other than your own beliefs, that there are nefarious reasons for medical professionals identifying gender dysphoria at younger ages. And then you tie in that evidence-free assertion with your ongoing “Common Purpose” conspiracy.
And then you berate somebody else for having no scruples.
Come up with some evidence to back your assertions, or admit that your ravings are the product of your own prejudice. Either way, you’d be being a lot more honest than you are being right now.
Scott.
Is there any child at primary school nowadays without some form of problem, disability, illness, disorder, allergy, intolerance?
How much healthier we were in the good old 1960s where, apart from one young lady with polio, I cannot recall anything like the mollycodling that seems to be required today to help the little darlings get through life.
Did gender dysphoria in 10 year olds exist in the days before we had homosexuality rammed down our thoats by the rights brigade?
It would seem that decriminalising homosexual acts in private back then can be seen to have been the very thin end of an enormous wedge!
Is there any child at primary school nowadays without some form of problem, disability, illness, disorder, allergy, intolerance?
Yes, of course.
Did gender dysphoria in 10 year olds exist in the days before we had homosexuality rammed down our thoats by the rights brigade?
Yes, of course. But it wouldn’t be addressed until after puberty, if at all – there are many documented cases of people committing suicide because the help they needed was not available.
The psychological effects of a gender dsyphoric person going through puberty in a body they don’t feel is correct for them is also well documented.
It would seem that decriminalising homosexual acts in private back then can be seen to have been the very thin end of an enormous wedge!
You’re confusing homosexuality and gender dysphoria. The only thing they really have in common is being misunderstood by people who like to think they know better, but rarely do.
There’s a first time for everything. For once, I completely agree with Scott.
Scott’s been away in the U.S. He’s been helping his Stateside Gay Mafia friends to close down family businesses ( cake shops, pizza restaurants, etc.) because he hates Christian values. Strange his mates never seem to target Muslim businesses.
Nice to see your predilection for fiction is as strong as ever, Andy. If only you put your creative talents to practical use, instead of using it to lie about people and pretend you’re something you’re not.
Scott’s back. Always seeing symptoms, never seeing causes. Backing child abusers on BBC and in our schools, as usual. Take your incapability to reason and apply logic, your gay lobbying and child abusing doctrines elsewhere. Tell kids that homosexuality, cross dressing, gender reassignment, same sex parents etc, are ‘normal’ enough and some will believe you, and yes, more medical ‘professionals’ (they get paid) will ‘identify’ gender dysphoria in young kids. Go figure. But then you’d need a brain for that Scott, or an understanding of the word ‘normal’.
Anyone reading this bizarre rant can only conclude that the individual is in urgent need of medical treatment. To write such a tsunami of hate, exposing severe dysfunctional sexual issues would suggest that some form of medication is necessary. Such a mind of hatred borders on the psychotic.
gethelp, if you need help phone the samaratans on 0345 90 90 90 (all calls charged at local rates)
you appear to think logical thinking is madness, therefore you yourself must be mad. Youre not a leftist by any chance are you? you appear to have commonsensephobia
But yet most of the young people who claim to have issues with their gender do not go on to want to change their gender when they reach adulthood. This is why the NHS will not allow the hormone treatment until post puberty.
Many of these children grow up to be gay or just ‘normal’. The real gender dysphoria is thankfully a pretty rare condition.
It is without a doubt being driven by the Fascist left against the interests of the people concerned and without any real insight, simply because it’s ‘trendy’.
The worst effect of this is that those few who genuinely need help aren’t getting it, and those who don’t are being encouraged by some ignorant lefties to go down a path which is wholly inappropriate. What does that matter to them though? If it doesn’t turn out right then they can just ignore it and carry on wrecking someone else’s life
Gethelp. Who do you perceive to be the object of the hate you detect? Or are you merely having a rant at someone who believes that Derbyshire’s virulent mind cancer is part of society’s problem?
Coincidentally (?) this leads on from the Louis Theroux program at the weekend.
He followed three young children all with ‘body dis-morphia’. Whilst I remain open minded on the subject one has to ask, just how does a five year old know or even more understand the word transgender?
One further observation from the program was that in every case the mother was the stronger personality within the family , with the father going along with it or leaving because he disagreed. My personal conclusion was that the subject has more than a little to do with feminism.
Geoff
Or misandry.
Geoff wrote:
My personal conclusion was that the subject has more than a little to do with feminism.
I was sent this link to this rather silly website:
confused cats against feminism
Backing child abusers on BBC and in our schools, as usual.
Your assertion that this is about child abuse has no basis in fact. Unless you would care to provide some?
Take your incapability to reason and apply logic
“Hello, Mr Pot? Mr Kettle here. Just letting you know that David Brims hates you, I’m sure you can guess why.”
I’d love to know what entitles you to lecture other people on reason and logic: your post to which I initially replied contained neither, and it was that lack to which I responded.
Doe the fact you’re getting quiet so annoyed have any relation to your inability to articulate a coherent argument, by any chance?
PS: Nice of you to illustrate that David Vance’s call for civility is not being heeded by Biased BBC’s more frequent commenters.
Quotes from Scott:
“Hello, Mr Pot? Mr Kettle here.”
“your inability to articulate a coherent argument”
“Nice of you to illustrate that David Vance’s call for civility is not being heeded by Biased BBC’s more frequent commenters”
And all in the same post.
To Scott. This is a serious issue which I don’t wish to be flippant about. You do not perceive the erosion of the innocence of children through the introduction of concepts such as ‘sexuality’, ‘gender recognition’, ‘equality’, ‘diversity’, at far too young an age, by those (teachers) who are ill qualified, to be child abuse. I do. These are educational matters strictly for family and friends to assist their loved ones with. I don’t think that the vast majority of kids should be introduced to this subject matter by schools against the wishes of their parents. If parents wish to introduce these matters, then that’s their judgement call. I have a different opinion to you on what constitutes child abuse, so accept that or don’t. Schools should stick to maths, sciences, history, grammar, etc. Schools should not be a state department of social engineering – again, my opinion whether you like it or not.
I have, with civility, highlighted your incapability to reason and to apply logic (or are you another “Scott”?) having read many of your previous posts.
Hate is not something I’m an expert on. I personally don’t have a problem with tom boys, or with males ‘in touch with their feminine side’. I don’t have a problem with homosexuals. Variety is the spice of life, and as some would say, judge not and ye shall not be judged. You seem to think these human attributes constitute a ‘problem’ requiring medical and educational intervention. I don’t.
Further I don’t have a problem with those who are not normal. You appear to. You think they need ‘treatment’.
Derbyshire herself in the article provides evidence that gender confusion is an issue that is more prevalent. (fourfold increase). Without evidence, she asserts that this is due to increased awareness. I suggest, that the ‘problem’ of gender confusion may be a result of (ie caused in part by) the meddling of teachers and educators in the innocence of young children en-mass, which I object to.
I will however challenge and condemn totalitarianism, authoritarianism and fascism wherever, and in whatever form these raise their ugly heads. And that includes Victoria Derbyshire and the majority of Common Purpose BBC output and inappropriate activities in schools.
I have to say that this certainly isn’t driven by feminism which appears to HATE transsexual people with a passion!
From Germaine Greer to Janice Raymond the hatred is visceral. Moaners hour allowed some feminist on who was so outspoken with her hatred that even I was shocked, and she would never have been allowed to talk about any other favoured group like that.
I have, with civility
Thanks for the laughter. Nice to see that Biased BBC’s usual double standards are in full effect: “But then you’d need a brain for that” being a perfectly civil way, presumably, of saying “What I believe must be right even though I have made no attempt to back up my beliefs with anything even approximating factual accuracy.”
The BBC is baffled by, Muslims in prison today ?
by 14% prison population, but only of 4% of UK population?
no don t be silly 😀 … its because more are erm … “radicalised”.
and quicker?.
But these chaps have more time to read the Quran though, don t they?
vis a vis, they should be erm … more “peaceful” then? …
what are?, they reading?
What advice are they receiving?
What about the prison Imams?,
“Tax payer funded ISIS training: British prison imams linked to Islamic radicals”
“Terrorism expert: ‘Some imams are fomenting resentments among prisoners”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2691277/Imams-working-British-prisons-links-extremist-Muslim-groups.
What about the prison mosque area then?
a erm “haven of peace” … surely?
“Haul of makeshift knives discovered under prayer mats in mosque at HMP Swaleside”
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/times_guardian/news/mosque-knives-9719/?
I would assert … not an example of great peacefulness.
The bbC, its very well paid so called Defence experts
Russian nuclear submarine on fire in Arctic dock
A Russian nuclear submarine is on fire at an Arctic naval shipyard and firefighters are tackling the blaze, Russian media report.
The Oryol-class submarine’s reactor is not at risk at the Severodvinsk base, Lenta.ru website reports.
Err no the sub is a Oscar class submarine, its name is Oryol , the most infamous Oscar class submarine was the kurst. which was the sister ship to the Oryol. Here RT does a much better job
http://rt.com/news/247493-nuclear-submarine-fire-russia/
Sorry to be a pedant but if your going to pick the BBC up …….
The submarine was the Kursk Prolly a typo .
Sorry to be a pedant but if your going to pick the BBC up ……. The submarine was the Kursk
Many thanks, I was going from memory and didn’t realise that misspelling a name was a crime. I can ensure you if the bBC was paying my way, I would have written Kursk and not Kurst.
Yes I know you mentioned it was a typo
Just imagine the BBCs response if a British Nuke sub was on fire, let alone on fire at a base on the Clyde in Scotland ?
Just imagine the response and their demand for total closure of said base by Salmond and Sturgeon. Natalie Green Voter ? As it’s Russian, no panic, move along the bus.
Just imagine the BBCs response if a British Nuke sub was on fire, let alone on fire at a base on the Clyde in Scotland ?
Funny enough on the Pakistan which receives so much aid from the Uk signed a deal with China for 8 submarines.
You’d think in this time of austerity , election promises and questioning , that somebody at the bBC would have questioned why an almost failed state which receives so much Aid from the UK only to buy weapons with the money they save from not looking after their own people.
More on INBBC’s daily Islamic ‘diversity’-
INBBC-
“Two Dewsbury teenagers ‘feared Syria-bound'”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32207587
‘Jihadwatch’-
“UK: Two 17-year-old Muslims go to Syria to join the Islamic State”
[Excerpt]:-
“Assistant Chief Constable Mark Milsom’s remarks below are the height of fatuousness, even coming from an official of contemporary Subjugated Britannia. He is wringing his hands over the possibility that the jihadis won’t be able to return to Britain, and that their families, which are almost certainly made up of jihad sympathizers who are praising Allah that these boys are seeking ‘martyrdom,’ will be ‘devastated.’ Mark Milson epitomizes the fantasy world that today’s British officials live in.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/04/uk-two-17-year-old-muslims-go-to-syria-to-join-the-islamic-state
Not to be mentioned:-
another case:-
a Muslim from Dewsbury, and 7/7 Islamic jihad massacre.
“Brother-in-law of 7/7 bomber sparks outrage with claim murderer was ‘a really good person'”
(2012.)
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2081990/Family-7-7-bomber-spark-outrage-claim-relative-really-good-person.html#ixzz3WdoGy7Bu
“The Islamic Republic of Dewsbury” –
By Danny Lockwood.
http://www.newenglishreview.org/Esmerelda_Weatherwax/The_Islamic_Republic_of_Dewsbury_-_Danny_Lockwood/
Also-
“The Islamic Republic of Dewsbury”
http://islamversuseurope.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/islamic-republic-of-dewsbury.html
PM Watch.
Analysis of NHS funding gap of 30M. NHS boss claim that the NHS could find up to 2.5% of efficiency savings was treated with amazement by the BBC analyst who spuriously claimed that in industry ( I assume the private sector ) this was the upper limit of what had proved possible. This is complete rubbish because for year after year the company I worked for demanded that we absorb inflation when inflation was running at 5 % plus.
Perhaps those in the BBC, or the whole of the public sector, think that saving money is something that other people have to do but not them! Saving 2.5% is easy to do if you really want to do it. The BBC are just a bunch of dangerous , leftist, lying , layabouts, who should see what it is like in the real world where people earn the money to pay the taxes that pay the public sector in their protected life of leisure.
All over the weekend the bBC had as it headlines the story about wee Jimmy Crankie and how she did and didn’t say she wanted the Tories in Power.
Today, its been about how Blair attacks Cameron.
Now, I find the bBC’s political editor coming out with this Labour party political broadcast:
Why you can believe Blair – on this
Oh no! Please don’t do this to me! Blair back in the headlines!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news
Just another good reason to tempt every Tory in a LABOUR stronghold to TACTICALLY vote UKIP to ensure:
Vote UKIP get Conservative / UKIP alliance.
Much better than:
Vote Tory get LABOUR/ SNP stitch up!
Pass it along – please!
If you want an alliance with the Tories , you may as well vote for the real deal , (Tories) otherwise the only possible result , is Millipeed /SNP . Only 2 people can be PM , Millipeed or Cam . So whats the point of ukip .
Good point Charlatans, the Tories have far more in common with UKIP than the Libdems .
Remind me someone, just why did the Tories jump into bed with the Libdems ?