Well, the weekend beckons. Here is a new Open Thread for you to detail the bias! Just think, each instance of bias causes Lenny Henry to shed a tear.
FRIDAY OPEN THREAD….
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Zephir April 28, 2024 at 2:20 pm on Weekend 27th April 2024We can always wish, if the bbc have a second floor
- Guest Who April 28, 2024 at 1:52 pm on Weekend 27th April 2024https://x.com/stevenedginton/status/1784562628230083047?s=61 Exclusive: Disinformation & far-Left conspiracy theories inside the BBC Lea...
- Docmarooned April 28, 2024 at 1:44 pm on Weekend 27th April 2024Have been a great fan of Dune for years. The TV version is OK and despite critics I still enjoyed...
- MarkyMark April 28, 2024 at 1:42 pm on Weekend 27th April 2024The Police Are No Longer On Our Side (New Culture Forum Conference 2024 - Peter Whittle) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PPDUaGrE9w "our co...
- Zephir April 28, 2024 at 1:12 pm on Weekend 27th April 2024https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5QpCaMHJjQ
- Guest Who April 28, 2024 at 1:06 pm on Weekend 27th April 2024https://x.com/bbcpolitics/status/1784521186556158451?s=61 "I don't know what they're talking about... safer for what?" Former US House Speak...
- Fedup2 April 28, 2024 at 1:00 pm on Weekend 27th April 2024Ian - ha ha - I didn’t know - maybe she thinks she ll get loyalty points with The Boss...
- Zephir April 28, 2024 at 12:58 pm on Weekend 27th April 2024https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3tUqRBiMVo
- Fedup2 April 28, 2024 at 12:57 pm on Weekend 27th April 2024Brissles - having watched The West Wing too many times - if I allow myself to ‘file ‘ my Right...
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
BBC news website – ‘No terror link’ in US shooting.
So now we know.
Also “FBI say there is no obvious motive for the 24-year-old who shot dead four marines in Chattanooga, Tennessee.”
BBC analysis of facts – zero.
Totally baffling action by ‘man’.
Must be a ostracised, persecuted, disenfranchised, hounded, powerless, member of a beleaguered community … the victim of poverty, “racism”, “bigotry and rampant Islamofauxbia. whose mind was turned by erm “foreign policy” so that … he had to just rush out and murder as many as possible?
Is that it?.
ps
He was a very devout Muslim, so obviously nothing to do with Islam either
Just for sh-ts and giggles, taking
“nothing to do with Islam” to new levels of absurdity
The lead terror analyst for CNN can t be sure Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez’s name is an Islamic one.
I know…what the name sounds like,
but we don’t know that it’s a Muslim name.
We do know it’s an Arabic name. We don’t know what this individual was believing in,
and that’s what they’re going to be trying hard to
determine
… meanwhile its not only BBC and CNN
Reuters, and the Grainard
Chattanooga shooting:
Investigators search for motive of little-known gunman
Authorities are investigating what could have made a gunman attack military sites in the US, killing four marines before he was shot dead by police.
motive?, anyone see a motive lying around anywhere?
If it looks like s..t, smells like s..t and tastes like s..t, then it must be S..t!
Wake up Al Beeb
Still, the BBC can’t help but confront the facts:
“…A high school friend told the LA Times he excelled in science and maths and was dedicated to his Muslim beliefs, praying five times a day and fasting during Ramadan.”
“…Reports citing US officials say he kept a blog, monitored by the SITE Intelligence Group which checks on extremist activity.
In a post written on Monday, he said “This life is short and bitter” and that Muslims should not let “the opportunity to submit to allah… pass you by”.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33562142
‘Nothing to do with Islam..?’ Awkward.
“Mr Davis, a former Conservative minister and Mr Watson, a civil liberties campaigner who is standing to be Labour’s deputy leader, brought the case in conjunction with campaign group Liberty.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33564442
So Watson is a civil liberties campaigner and prospective Labour deputy leader while Davis is just a former Conservative minister.
Well, they COULD have said, “Mr. Watson, winner of the Billy Bunter lookalike contest SO many times, they retired the bloody trophy…” Probably would be more believable.
John Whittingdale, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, has said that he wants to hear from people all over the UK so he can understand what the country wants from and for the BBC. Thanks to ‘Axe-the-tax’ for this info and I pass it on for us here to consider…
Main areas up for discussion are:
Mission, Purpose and Values – what the BBC is for, examining the overall rationale for the BBC and the case for reform of its public purposes;
Scale and scope – what the BBC therefore should do, examining the services it should deliver and the audiences it should be seeking to serve;
Funding – how the BBC should be paid for, examining not just future potential funding models but related issues such as how best to enforce payment; and
Governance – how the BBC should be overseen, examining options for reform of the current Trust model alongside other governance issues.
To read the ‘Charter Review Consultation’ in full, see below.
Click to access BBC_Charter_Review_Consultation_WEB.pdf
Seems ex-Labour Minister James Purnell is trying to out-Danny Danny…
http://order-order.com/2015/07/17/james-purnells-rotten-apple-spin/
Interesting to raise Apple as the BBC, especially Mr. Coyle, has spent most of Apple’s existence either bigging it up or giving its staff as much Apple kit on the public tab as it can swing (Paul Mason once bragged about at least four iToys he used) at the local iStore. Of course a lot gets then ‘stolen’ and needs replacing.
There is also the simple fact that seems to have escaped BBC staff and supporters:
“Apple makes billions by creating and selling shiny things that people want so much they pay way over the odds for.
The BBC has to force people to pay for it through harassment, prosecutions, fines, and imprisonment.”
Or this neat analogy:
“Maybe there can be an Apple Tax, where everyone pays Apple £145 a year regardless whether they use Apple products or Samsung products or in fact any other technology company’s products.”
Bet Mr. Purnell is thrilled he raised Apple now.
It’s worse than that, Jim.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33559853
Kuwaiti national, Chattanooga shooting suspect identified as Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, believed to be originally from Kuwait – NBC
BBC radio reports his neighbours said how nice he was …
His High School – Senior Yearbook quote:
“My name causes national security alerts
… What does yours do?
-Hijabman”
… “beautiful young man”, obviously
This is a very good article:
http://www.alexanderboot.com/content/pardon-me-boy-who-chattanooga-shooter
Stunning Al BBC performance on Al BBC1 Breakfast by David Attenborough, and resident Beebots.
Where in 5 minutes, we have pretty butterflies, butterfly concerns, swiftly followed by the great man Obama … remarkable man … grave concerns over climate change, and why the BBC is priceless.
Followed by 10 minutes of why kids coming out of nursery should have a “cap n gown” event complete with rolled up silk bowed qualifications.
How spending a small fortune on a school “prom” with limousine’s or going in a private helicopter so affluent parents
can gloat … is such a wonderful idea.
… there was a passing reference to some shooting? … US or something? obviously nothing to do with Islam.
Then on to pretty flowers the weather forecast, and some cretin
waffling for ten minutes about there s rain in St Andrews.
Rain? … in Scotland? … stop the presses.
It is repugnant little articles such as this tripe which I find abhorrent about the Left; their hatred of England and the concept of England having a clear identity, shared heritage and culture is in contrast with their fawning over Scottish Nationalism, for example. Pathetic. The BBC and the Guardian just cannot countenance that the English are a proud nation like any other, so they contrive these little snippets of historical fact to undermine a sense of patriotism. The truth is that the English have been shat upon and undermined by the Left for too long; that’s why Liebour have been thrown into the political wilderness; they are anti-English… as they tear into each other with infantile squabbling, they ignore the real reasons why they are simply unelectable.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/17/home-truths-five-english-traditions
On This Week Mr Portillo said that the English people didn’t want an English Parliament. I don’t remember that we were ever asked! The people of the N East were asked if they wanted a regional assembly and said no. But a national parliament ( yes BBC ,Labour and other assorted lefties, we the English are a nation and proud of it) is an entirely different matter. In fact the only way we can become equal with Scottish and Welsh citizens is to have our own parliament.
M.P.s’/media prattle on about second class M.P.s’ if England get a Parliament.
No mention of the second class citizens in Britain…The English.
As a Scot it bemuses me why there is such resistance from the political class to an English Parliament. It’s the obvious solution, indeed I would say the only workable solution to the West Lothian question unless you’re simply going to pretend it isn’t an issue. If the English are content to put up with the imbalances, which become more pronounced the more powers head north of the border, then fine. Otherwise an English Parliament must be the only way forward. Frankly the goverment’s current EVEL proposals seem to be an awful dog’s breakfast of a solution.
I can’t see the Scots complaining about an English parliament and even if we do, well tough. But what I would urge those of you in England to bear in mind is that despite what the BBC would have you believe, Scotland isn’t 100% behind the SNP. It’s roughly 50:50 but because support for the union is split between several parties, you land up with the SNP winning almost all the seats. Watch for some interesting tactical voting at the next election – it happened in my own constituency where great swathes of Tory voters held their noses and voted to keep the Labour incumbent in place.
If I was living in Scotland ,I would vote SNP , because an Independent Scotland would be Win , Win for England . No Labour Government ever again . And a Socialist world in Scotland that would be like Greece within months .
Roland, you are completeky right in what you say. Just as Blair only half completed House of Lords reform, he only half completed devolution. In both cases he deliberately finished half way because he thought it would help the Labour Party, and until the recent election his gerrymandering worked.
There should be an English Parliament sitting in the Commons and the Lords should become an elected chamber covering UK issues (200 members at most and with even sized constituencies).
A good article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11747801/To-save-the-Union-end-the-Scots-insurgency.html
The trouble with the SNP thugs and MPs is that they intend to make the UK parliament as unworkable as possible, in a strategy of intimidation and disruption.
They have reneged on their previous assurances that they would not involve themselves in English affairs which many of us forecast would happen. Here in England we hear the SNP stating they represent (all) the people of Scotland, they make their hatred of England and English, and all English institutions clear and obvious so as far as we are concerned all Scots are tarred with the SNP brush.
From my observations they are attempting to turn Scottish MPs of English constituencies against England too.
Yes, Doublethinker good point. I, too, watched him say that last night on This Week and thought to myself ‘I don’t ever remember the English having a choice.’ That smug prat Salmond was on there; why the BBC are so eager to give these SNP bigots airtime is beyond me. And Roland, I agree. The problem in the recent Election up in Scotland was that the Unionist opposition was split between four parties: Labour, Tories, Lib Dems and Ukip. The SNP do NOT represent Scottish views in their entirety.
Yet more garbage from this pathetic paper:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/17/surge-english-snp-members-scottish-nationalist-party
One can see where the BBC gets its appalling leftie bias from.
Guar-bage indeed. Anything to stick the knife in the English…just like Beeb. Just Like Labour. Hateful (hate-filled) institutions.
“…another new English recruit, who preferred to remain anonymous,…” Odd that.
What’s he or she so shy about?
Interesting little connections here: ‘says Chevis, a one-time branch secretary for Labour in Battersea’ and ‘according to Chevis, a 49-year-old who runs a business providing proof-of-age and identity cards.’
Oops! The Guardian giving away a bit too much information there. Remind me, who was very keen to introduce ID cards to the UK a few years ago?
Is New Labour trying to infiltrate and subvert the SNP?
Meanwhile the BBC continues its trusted mission to educate and inform…
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/bbc-trumpet-another-dodgy-polar-bear-study/
Albeit selectively. Bet Light/dark/bilious Green Dave could simply hug ’em sometimes.
BBC did a bit this morning on how the BBC was perceived by the general public and to get a view on what direction the public at large consider Aunty should be moving. So with this in mind they took themselves to the home of a typically ‘British’ family who have come here from Pakistan.
(Radio 4 Today 7.44am) – clearly part of the BBC’s aim yet again to to emphasise and to generalise about all Pakistani ‘s in Britain being integrated into British society .
I wonder if the BBC in all it’s pomp has ever heard of ‘Joy’s law’?
As it keeps telling [lying to] us that its news organisation is the envy of the world I wonder if they ever stop to consider this:
Sun Microsystems co-founder Bill Joy once said that “no matter who you are, most of the smartest people work for someone else.” That’s why the smartest executives, especially in the technology sector, are constantly looking outside the boundaries of their own firm for good ideas.
Joy’s Law has a corollary for the news business: No matter how good your news organization is, most of the best journalism is being done somewhere else. That’s because no publication, even storied outlets such as the New York Times or The Washington Post, can hope to hire a majority of the world’s most talented journalists.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/05/sorry-jeff-bezos-the-news-bundle-isnt-coming-back/
The article goes on to consider how people are sourcing their news nowadays, and it really is rare that they will get it from just one source.
The article concludes that the days when people obtained their news from a single source are over:
“It’s an aging demographic, and focusing primarily on their needs is a recipe for decline.”
Yet this appears to be exactly the future path the BBC has set itself. The self belief that they are so wonderful no one else can come close and they are the best in the world is breath taking. They fail to see that Britain is a tiny island and that even with the highest income of any news medium (much of it squandered) they are but bit players on the world stage.
A bit like English football syndrome. England is the best team in the world. Until they have to play someone.
Then there is ‘No-joys Law’
Best exemplified in the old Soviet Union and the satellite Communist states. When you have total control and keep telling people one thing over and over again, people start to feel ground down & overwhelmed by it. No joy! Those who naturally question things start to be joined by those who are aware they are being made miserable and they also start to question ‘the message’.
Very soon, they work out alternatives and start to discuss them a little more widely and with no news outlets available to them, they resort to samizdat, a Russian word describing an underground form of free press. Their message starts to spread.
It works in western, liberal, capitalist societies, too, hence ‘fanzines’ ….
…. and back through pop music, alternative cultures, etc., … to English football.
Aaaauuggghh!
It is the CRICKET season.
BBC1 News this morning. 08.20
Interview with Sir David Attenborough. (Are the BBC intent on interviewing all who signed the letter?)
Climate Change- Set in a butterfly sanctuary. Butterflies can tell us a lot about climate change. Numbers falling year after year.
Obama- Met him in the USA recently. A remarkable and kind man who is a supporter of climate change.
BBC Future- (Almost word for word here).
Question. You were a controller of BBC and you signed a recent letter with a number of high-profile names. What are your thoughts on the changes that might be coming?
Answer. I very much hope that the BBC position as a major broadcaster in this country is protected.
Question. How would you protect the BBC?
Answer. It certainly has to change because the broadcasting landscape has changed. But the BBC is a public service organisation and it’s aim is to get the best possible public service to the public and that’s what it will be striving to do.
Question. Are the frustrations still the same as when you were a controller of a channel?
Answer. The BBC occupies a very central position in our society. Everybody cares about it. The BBC does it’s best to fulfil these obligations as a public service. There are always people in government who wish to change the BBC to suit there own particular purposes. The BBC has to take a stand about it’s place in British society.
Question. Delightful to talk to you. I’ll count butterflies later in my garden.
Question. Always lovely to hear from Sir David Attenborough.
“BBC Future- (Almost word for word here).”
It is obviously a simple oversight that your ‘almost word for word’ account omits the lengthy section of the interview in which he was asked whether he knew the risible letter he signed was orchestrated by BBC management, whether it was appropriate for management to adopt such subterfuge and for him to sign a letter which failed to acknowledge its origin. A line of questioning pursued with some vigour by the interviewer, and which clearly made him uncomfortable.
Other than that tiny omission, you give a faithful account of proceedings.
‘A line of questioning pursued with some vigour by the interviewer, and which clearly made him uncomfortable.’
But did he answer in a straight way?
James Purnell circled answering a similar simple question put to him on this topic by Evan Davis for several minutes (go on, knock one out on your stopwatch) before the latter gave up and… ‘ran out of time’.
As are you with the cherry vulture gig.
Editted for reasons of space – per BBC EG SOP
“But did he answer in a straight way?”
No, which most people will have inferred quite easily from my phrases ‘pursued with some vigour’ and ‘clearly made him uncomfortable’.
‘As are you with the cherry vulture gig.’
Is that a threat? Or are you implying that I am a soon-to-be-laid-off BBC employee? Hahahaha (lest you take my derision for evasion: I’m not).
Of course, aiming a barb at me is easier than acknowledging that I’m right. Which amusingly Alan has just done by devoting an entire post to the section of the interview that completely slipped Dover Sentry’s mind.
The concept of the rhetorical question not a familiar one in the Murray crib, clearly. So at least we are agreed that so far it’s BBC Obfuscation 2, Trust & Transparency, still, 0.
Which leads to the fine art of carefully plucking a single cherry to chew on.
And if that observation can be seen as a threat, you clearly have a great career as an abuse charity Asst. Head of Communications, with a permanent slot on the Breakfast sofa.
‘Hahahaha (lest you take my derision for evasion: I’m not)’
Thanks for clarifying (no, really).
Larks. To horse! I must now sally forth and dust off my copy of Knights Who Say Ni! Comebacks.
Diane Abbott paid £113,168 by the bBC in the period 2008-2014.
That’s £16,000 a year pocket money, some struggle on less.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1c2kGEFGOMIfjW89Z-vUr86YntlL0de62mu6CAmF8wgo/edit#gid=913305577
All money well spent in service of ‘The Cause’, comrade.
amirite?
…………….and some go to jail for not paying the telly tax – she should be ashamed.
Jeremy Vine show – Tim Farron new Limp Dem leader – ‘got into politics because of his hatred of Thatcherism – but not from the left , more from a centrist position’ – almost like you BBC?
“Ramadan offers chance to oppose extremism” says the headline for this BBC featurette.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33563558
Unfortunately the extremism that the muslims in question are looking to oppose does not originate from the Religion of Peace itself. Oh no.
Turns out that the ‘extremism’ the ‘the climate of racially inspired hate and bigotry’ that is sweeping the US at the moment.
But of course.
The insanity is hitting new heights
I think it’s true to say that according to the islamic teachings, a muslim can earn more blessings if he kills non-muslims and apostates during the period of ramdam than at other times. That’s why ramdam is such a violent time.
Islam seems more and more like a play station game than a religion. Of course, if it was a play station game, the bbbc would be up in arms and trying to get it banned from sale.
This is a good quote by Daniel Greenfield –
“Most Muslims and Westerners want peace. But to Westerners peace means co-existence. To Muslims, peace means the end of your existence.”
Is anyone else getting the impression that the BBC is actually becoming more Left wing, particularly in recent months?
I actually didn’t believe it was possible, but my gut feeling from monitoring the news site is that is has drastically stepped up its propaganda on all fronts.
Just me?
I watched This Week last night. I like Andrew Neil – he’s a fine broadcaster, but I must admit that I was totally taken aback by the extraordinary level of bias on show.
Neil specifically lambasted Diane Abbott, Alex Salmond and Miranda Green (to a lesser extent) whilst giving Michael Portillo the easiest ride of his life. Portillo couldn’t quite believe it as he sat there grinning like the proverbial Cheshire Cat.
I thought the the BBC has to be impartial – treating differing political viewpoints as equally as possible. Instead, This Week is rapidly becoming a late night extension of the Conservative Party press office, with Neil and Portillo lording it over all other guests and Government policy being given an incredibly easy ride.
I’m very disappointed that the BBC has not fulfilled its impartiality remit with regard to This Week.
For clarification please advise if you are being tongue in cheek or serious.
I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear, but I’m being serious. I enjoy This Week but it doesn’t treat all viewpoints equally.
Tory points of view tend to go unchallenged, whereupon Labour, Lib Dem, SNP and UKIP are generally given a much tougher ride. It’s become more blatant since the election – almost as if Neil is getting his orders from Conservative Central Office.
If you haven’t watched it, please do and you will see what I mean.
Meanwhile, on Question Time…
I don’t think that was on last night.
Having watched it Gordon, i think it is more of a case that Abbot and Salmond damned themselves with the utter drivel they uttered as opposed to any bias shown by Neil.
I agree that they didn’t cover themselves in glory, but there was no reciprocal ‘grilling’ of Michael Portillo whatsoever. That’s been the case for several weeks now.
It is vital to hold all our politicians / political spokespeople to account.
The other week, Portillo was prevented from replying by Andrew Neil when the guest (a woman named Jack-somebody) personally attacked him.
Neil and Portillo ended up arguing on air. If that were me, it would have been my last appearance on any programme presented by Andrew Neil.
I saw that and was quite surprised by Neil shutting down Portillo. The ‘girl called Jack’ was horrific and needed to be put in her place – i.e. made to answer why she considered herself ‘ready’ to have children, when she was incapable of supporting her child, without resorting to government help. I got the impression that this topic was verbotten on the show. Maybe it is BBC policy that people are not to be criticised regarding ‘lifestyle’ choices?
I’ve added an iframe, but for some reason the video isn’t displaying. Here is a link:
https://vid.me/e/iGpx
sorry, still can’t get the embed to work. Any tips?
“…the extraordinary level of bias on show…
I thought the the BBC has to be impartial…
…disappointed that the BBC has not fulfilled its impartiality remit…
…doesn’t treat all viewpoints equally.
…become more blatant since the election.”
On this basis you will, presumably, support the notion of personal choice in funding such a programme in future, especially the option of rejection without fine or threat if the service is felt unrepresentative or below par?
No I would not.
I believe in collective taxation. There are a number of things I would prefer not to support through taxation, but as we live in a democracy I accede to the majority position.
The television tax is similar. We all pay in and the majority get something out. I can’t bear Eastenders , Strictly or The Voice, but many do and who am I to judge their taste? I love TMS, Radio 4, Natural History programmes, MOTD and others, so I get something out. And 40p a day really isn’t much in the great scheme of things.
Last night’s This Week exhibited clear bias, but I don’t consider that sufficient reason to do away with the BBC or its funding. I believe that would be a gross overreaction.
“And 40p a day really isn’t much in the great scheme of things.”
Well, I daresay the Daily Mail could bring its price down to pennies if everyone who bought the Guardian was forced also to buy a copy of the Mail. I’m sure you’d find something there you wanted to read. That wouldn’t be much in the great scheme of things either and would be pretty good value. But it would give huge clout to the Mail in setting the news agenda, crowding other papers out of the market and influencing attitudes.
That isn’t something I’d want any more than I want the BBC doing the same.
I’m somewhat confused as to why you appear to reduce the entire BBC output down to political reporting and programmes.
This represents a small fraction of BBC output.
The BBC’s agenda spreads far beyond its political output. No nature programme is complete without a reference to climate change. Period dramas are stuffed with right-on characters with 21st-century attitudes.
I’ll leave it there before it descends into single-letter columns.
Thank you for the reply.
As a matter of interest, how many democracies are there, who seem to function pretty well, where general taxation is not also dedicated to supporting a social-engineering news and entertainment medium with a poor history of accuracy, objectivity and integrity, which oversees itself in ensuring it stays that way?
I fear the equivalence with the NHS argument is one struggling to take hold as it is not even similar, and many may prefer some kids’ hospitals get an MRI annually over you enjoying Gary Lineker’s analysis and ‘views my own’ censure-free political contributions via twitter.
Meanwhile I am quite happy dedicating 40p daily where I want, and where it does a lot more good that ensuring you get what you want, however vital the bits you like may seem.
Thank you.
Indeed, there are many differing points of view about the BBC and its perceived value. Clearly you and I have occupy different positions as I believe that, whilst quite imperfect, overall the BBC adds value and is overall a force for good.
Of course, none of it is ‘vital’ – not to me anyway, I wouldn’t dream of claiming that – there are many things we pay for through taxation that are certainly not ‘vital’.
The fact that other countries who do not have a national broadcaster seem very keen to purchase BBC-made programmes indicates that much of its product is quite popular throughout the world. Indeed, domestic viewing figures also seem to indicate that its product is quite popular here too.
The MRI in kids’ hospitals argument can easily be extended to virtually any area of public expenditure – a few less tanks, less foreign aid, less generous tax breaks for the energy industry etc. etc., although of course, I never mentioned the NHS.
It will be interesting when we come to Charter Renewal time. I foresee some tough decisions, but ultimately I believe that the BBC will emerge not wholly different from its current form – mainly because there is little public appetite for wholesale change.
I disgree. I think the BBC is a malign influence in the UK especially in areas unseen or forgotten by most people.
Colour TV delayed by something like 2 decades; DRM encryption; now freeview.
In terms of programs I believe the BBC is trading on past glory. It’s big selling major program Top Gear was fronted by a man they made no secret of their hatred for simply because his political views were different from theirs. and now they got their hearts desire & sacked him, but they probably lost half their program sales revenue in the process.
Still – it doesn’t matter ! the TV tax payer will make up the difference !
The wrecked Doctor Who in a similar way, and the massively expensive ‘Atlantis’ flopped because they appointed an actor whose PC credentials were more important than his acting skills.
I also share your view that there will be little change, mainly because of the spineless Tories whose only concern is their personal wealth, and to whom £145 is chickenfeed, the poor don’t matter.
I used to live in Singapore. They abolished the TV license about 5 years ago. The reasoning was it was loosing its relevance and was costing too much to administer. The national broadcasts and news improved afterwards. I would rather watch Chanel News Asia than the BBC News output these days.
It’s not a force for good, unless you are a communist.
A “Force for Good” sounds hypocritical if it comes from a socialist, due to the historical experience with Socialism, and its need for poverty and evil people. But a “Force for Good” comes naturally from a Libertarian supporter of UKIP, without the need to say so, due to the nature of the “freedom” for a right-wing Libertarian. But I don’t think the BBC is a “Force for Good” because of the censorship of many aspects of reality, especially when it comes to mean that the BBC becomes a “Force for Evil” people, mostly foreigners or Labour party supporting whites. Because whenever UKIP point to the reality of who the evil people are, the BBC defends the evil person through the use of media censorship.
The problem with misinformation repeated over and over again by the BBC in news, drama history and comedy programmes is that people begin to think a certain way and it is difficult to go against the flow.
And no justice when you complain about absolute lies told. One example that comes to mind ( from the past ) a University Professor explaining the Middle East conflict and begins by saying that the Jews were the first suicide bombers in Roman times and the interviewer affirming the lie so that the listener absorbs the false information “Well I never knew that how interesting!” The reply came back from the BBC ” Not enough people will be offended by this ”
The BBC is thus able to educate people into believing anything and downright lies can be told because the vast majority of people are ignorant . This is the real danger of an organisation that influences so many people with its own agenda.
And a complaints procedure that will not even issue a public apology when eventually after a year their documentary is proven to be flawed http://netanyalynette.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/appeal-to-governors-road-to-armegeddon-3.html
“saying that the Jews were the first suicide bombers in Roman times ”
Good grief – did they really say that??? Well it’s on the BBC where any lie is good enough to damn Jews so they would have done.
The major problem for me is the funding of the BBC. Crimalising non payment of a regressive tax is just iniquitous and indefensible. This is 2015.
If the BBC thought things through it would press for the decriminalisation of non payment.
That it does not is regrettable.
I am not interested in the BBC’s viewpoint. it is not acceptable and that is all there is to it.
I do watch it and most of Mr Neil’s other programmes precisely because they are THE ONLY BBC programmes on which you get a balanced view. I wonder if you have been so brainwashed by the never ending stream of leftist bias that you regard any programme were the standard leftist view is challenged as being biased to the right.
No. I would like to see balance in all their political programming.
I just felt that this was rather blatant.
Dt
Clarification?
He/she is active on another thread.
Gordon, if you visit this site regularly you’ll know that Andrew Neil is generally accepted here to be one of the few journalists on the BBC who makes a decent fist of being impartial. That in itself may make him appear biased to the right when compared to others, as he’s giving those on the left a hard time they aren’t used to.
I only saw the first part if This Week last night, when talking about the Greek bail out. Frankly the EU’s position of continuing to pile debt onto the Greeks that can never be repaid is indefensible, whatever your political views, so Portillo as the only Eurosceptic in the village had an easy time whilst the rest had to try to talk about it without stepping on the metaphorical turds littering their path, lest their EU masters be displeased. That’s my take on it anyway.
I agree entirely that the EU’s position is indefensible and also agree with your point about Portillo’s position being made easy by the squirming of his colleagues on the red sofa.
However, regrettably his easy ride continued throughout the programme and has happened regularly over the past few weeks. Suzanne Evans got a grilling last time she was on – it also seems as if Portillo – being the only permanent guest – is somehow sacrosanct.
Just see it as a counterbalance to all their other news, current affairs and ‘satirical’ output, so that they can claim that overall they’re not biased at all and that on the whole they ‘get it about right’.
This Gordon Murray ,must live in Scotland , so pro Labour /SNP bias would be the norm for BBC Scotland . The fact that one programme a week, might have a right of centre bias, is about 1% of the BBC`s News & Current Affairs output . The normal default is Left , Left , Left . GM can listen to Radio 2 (Vine Show ) , Radio 4 , 5 & BBC Scotland for the `Normal Lefty Service .On TV , he can watch News 24 plus the other BBC 1 bulletins .
As the BBC are constantly telling those of us who bother to contact its denial department, that individual programs are allowed to exhibit bias just so long as that is redressed over the entire broadcast output.
They usually go to say that producers are required to monitor this over a period of time, although when pressed as to what the results of that monitoring actually are they then admit none is actually carried out !
So there you have it, a one off program or a single swallow does not a summer make !
Notes from Greg Dykes book Inside story…
“Greg Dyke has confirmed suspicions in the commercial sector that he launched the digital terrestrial TV service, Freeview, as a way of delaying the day the licence fee would be scrapped.
The former BBC director general reckoned that if millions of homes were hooked up to Freeview, the move to turn the BBC into a subscription service could be prevented.
This is because under Mr Dyke’s original plans the Freeview service would be a Trojan horse, offering free channels exclusively with no means of collecting subscription fees.
In his book, Inside Story, Mr Dyke admits for the first time that part of the rationale behind the launch of the digital terrestrial service was to flood the market with “dumb” boxes incapable of turning the BBC’s channels into “pay as you go” services at a later date.
Because most Freeview boxes do not contain the card slots or encryption technology required to operate a pay-TV service, Mr Dyke concluded that leading the launch of the service following the collapse of ITV Digital was “important to the BBC defensively”.
You see if we had a Tory government back in 2002, they would have certainly questioned why ‘dumb boxes’ and the bBC would have probably not be the unquestionable monster that it has become in the intervening years, if the easy threat of subscription were available post analogue switch off.
Good point. The BBC was behind early BBC adoption and I always puzzled why. However what the BBC could not control was competition from other popular Broadcasters (such as NetFlix) to its ‘iPlayer’ service which looks increasingly unlikely to succeed any further than it has done. Even less so when we (or anybody else) are forced to ‘subscribe’ when we object so strongly to the TV license fee and the hostility of its output to all things English.
If that was the plan then it’s a pretty crap one, because all of the boxes provide the facility for a paid for card the service for which now appears to be unavailable due to lack of demand.
http://www.freeview.co.uk/articles/faq/before-you-buy/products-and-features/can-i-access-any-pay-channels-with-freeview.html
The service was called Top up TV and could still be used should the BBC go subscription.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Up_TV
Its not about the availablity, the facility existed in 1997. OnDigital boxes were encrypted. The point is that the consumer was coerced into Freeview, should the end user yet again have to pay for another set top box, TV or PVR with such a facility, having already replaced earlier STBs that became defunct with 8k decoding.
Dyke knew full well once most had Freeview, the move to encryption will be expesive for all, safeguarding the TVL.
BBC radio 4 news reporting that despite Parliament voting not to allow any British involvement in Syria over ISIS, the RAF have in fact been carrying out missions there.
Why bother with the UK parliament when our foreign policy in that region & our domestic policy is dictate by Saudi Arabia & friends. Might as just hand over control of our armed forces to the Saudi defence ministry !
It was a Commons free vote and Libs and Labs voted against. Cameron lost then but the risk has increased substantially and he would win any vote at Westminster now. Even so we may never be told when military ‘action’ is actually taking place to avoid upsetting the Muslims living here who may be suddenly ‘offended’ by such offensive military force being used. What we hear on the BBC will always be tinkered with in times of war. We know which side the BBC are on which means it may lack hard news as it cannot be trusted by our defense chiefs to be unbiased.
I take it that you are opposed to any action against Isis. It seems irrelevant whether Saudi Arabia approves or not.
At last the Saudis are not so opposed to the Kurds as certain other allied nations.
Actually I am opposed to any action against ISIS. I believe best to let them all get on with it and allow any Muslim nutters to leave the UK proviso that they lose their UK citizenship. To this end we should recognise ISIS as a country to fulfil our treaty obligations.
Any signs that ISIS are becoming too successful will easily be attended to by other regional nutters such as Iran, as they have recently.
We simply don’t need to spend £10 million on a missile to hit a £50 clapped out pickup truck!
I think you will find the pilots are RN and RM, not RAF. The reason being that whatever you think of the coming white elephants HMS Queen Elizibeth and Prince Of Wales you need pilots and indeed flight deck crew who know what to do on said flight deck. It’s a curious fact that if you scrap aircraft carriers and then want to reinvent them a number of years later it does get difficult if nobody knows what the hell to do.
In another take on the issue, years after Nimrod was scraped we still have flight crew flying maritime patrol aircraft all around the world, it takes more than money to start doing things you’ve forgotten after taking a “capability holiday ”
http://archive.navytimes.com/article/20140419/NEWS/304190032/Crews-hunt-enemy-subs-latest-patrol-airplane
PS, “seed corn ” both for carriers and maritime costs an arm and a leg, the yanks don’t give it for free.
They are not RM , unlike the US Marine Corps , our Marines don`t have an airwing . They will be RAF & RN ,on exchange with the USAF or US Navy . They will be flying the F18 Hornet , I would guess. I would not have a problem with that , its a normal military occurrence .
One of the pilots is reported to be from the Royal Marines, the others are Royal Navy.
Essex Man. Sorry to shoot you down but you are wrong. They are RN and Royal Marines, there is at least one Royal Marine pilot flying F18s he might in fact have now moved on to the F35b program.
This is a predecessor who payed the ultimate price.
http://www.paradata.org.uk/people/richard-j-nunn
And this might inform you of who they were and what they did
http://www.flyingmarines.com/Biography%20Photos/Front%20Cover.jpg
There are no RAF pilots flying F18s.
There is an element of the Fleet Air Arm , the Commando Helicopter Force ,that tasks Fleet Air Arm helicopter`s for Royal Marine use. If any heavy lift helo`s are needed like a Chinook , they are tasked from the RAF helo force . If there are any RM pilot`s they would be helicopter pilot`s from the Fleet Air Arm . There is no information on any RM`s flying fast jet`s .I think you will find some RAF pilot
There is an element of the Fleet Air Arm , the Commando Helicopter Force ,that tasks Fleet Air Arm helicopter`s for Royal Marine use. If any heavy lift helo`s are needed like a Chinook , they are tasked from the RAF helo force . If there are any RM pilot`s they would be helicopter pilot`s from the Fleet Air Arm . There is no information on any RM`s flying fast jet`s .I think you will find some RAF pilot`s, have flown F18`s in the past .
Dunno why you are talking about the Chinook force, they have no relevance to the story.
http://www.flyingmarines.com/Biographies/1991-2000/Dresner.htm
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2014/april/28/140428-major-milestone
Are just 2 that I googled in 2 minutes, I have read somewhere about the RM F-18 driver, I seem to remember he is/was moving onto flying training for the 35 B he is “seed corn” not an exchange pilot. The Navy has paid a lot of money to keep aircrew proficient in flying fixed wing off carriers after the Harrier was scrapped.
You formulate a hypothesis/research question folks based on your own ontological position (worldview) and more often than not, you will find evidence to support it. The BBC’s ontology is all too clear, and they never seem to have difficulty finding some psychologist or sociologist to provide (tenuous) warranting for their perennial claims of (white only?) bigotry. Like this article, for instance –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33523313
Now, I’m not criticising this obviously eminent academic, but there is a tone in the article that suggests that this ‘bigotry’ only applies to white people; or perhaps that’s what the BBC wish to portray. I wonder if this research applies to all ethnicities?
Yes, you’d never hear a trendy psychologist making claims about African-American racism towards whites; and the BBC would never report such findings. Though, as we all know, racism exists in all cultures, it’s just that racism committed by any other race than white Christian anglo-saxons is unacceptable to lefties as it undermines their whole infantile ideological utopia. Only majorities can be racist; never minority cultures.
My Malaysian friends are not too keen on the Indians living within their country, whilst my Thai friends don’t speak too well of their
BurmeseMyanmar neighbours forever hopping across the Thai-BurmaMyanmar border…But racist? Oh, no. That’s a white thing.
/sarc
When it becomes hard for even the BBC to explain certain issues regarding race it always has the trusty default of blaming it on the “Right wing” or “far Right”.
At Uni I lived with a Kenyan of Indian descent and he was the worst racist towards blacks I have ever met.
I walked into the city centre today for a spot of shopping. At one point, being peckish and a bit hungover I fancied something disgustingly greasy and bad for my health so I headed for the KFC.
There must be some kind of muslim holiday going on because there was a great big queue of Somali/Eritrean? women (each with 4 or 5 kids in tow) blocking the entrance. None spoke English, all were overweight and actually their attempts at queueing was more like a disorganised mob with pitchforks & torches after Frankenstein.
Basically my thoughts were – how many generations will it take to assimilate these people, and how much will it cost? In Education, Welfare, Housing and Health. On this particular day they even managed to edge out the Caribbean/West Indians who are KFC’s normal mainstay customers (in my town at least).
It seems like austerity is still finger lickin’ good for some folks.
“Eat a Fiddle” (Eid al-Fitr), the end of Rama-Lama-Ding-Dong. THAT’s what you walked into.
This will send shivers down the backs of the Met Office pundits that read these pages. With June being the coldest for 24 years, July is hot on the heels with what looks like being the coldest July for roughly the same number of years. Don’t be fooled by the “Hottest Eva” a few weeks ago, after all, the thermometer that recorded that temperature was stuck up the tail pipe of a A380 at Heathrow. A few days to go before the end of the month but my ticker tape is saying there might even be snow on Sunday night and into Monday in Scotland. Frosts in the Glens then? Or will that be “chilly” in the forecast BBC? Ah yes, Global Warming, eh BBC? Can’t you just feel the heat? Unlike those poor butterflies, whose wings are so cold these days they can’t fly anywhere to meet a mate and propagate their species. The wrong sort of “Climate Change” is it? Yup and only a few months to Christmas. Now where did I put my chain saw? Coal is cheap at the moment too. Better get plenty in, Dartmoor gets cut off from the white stuff from time to time.
funny how the rich left like the whining lenny henry and russell brand made there wealth on the backs of the poorest in society but talk and behave like there some oppressed minority,lenny henry made his fortune bleating on about the colour of his skin,he still does, russell brand rants on like he is still some poor student even though he has a 20 million pound fortune locked away in his bank account,not bad for a guy who despises the capitalist system heh russell,the bottem line is who cares what these has beens and bores like mr henry and mr brand says any more,who really cares.
I’ll be watching closely to see if this story makes it to Points West tonight, odds?
https://twitter.com/DavidJo52951945/status/622071296017440768
It will be on as a main story.
It’s also the main news story on the Bristol section of the BBC website.
So pretty low odds – certainly not enough to buy you a new tin foil hat if your bet came in.
Crap, we’re more than a third into the program, no mention, just an OB from the Harbour Fesival.
Take your head out of the BBC trusts arse…
Wrong again, not main point, finally touched on 20 minutes in, 3rd item behind hospital failings and MH17 and glossed over in 15 seconds, meanwhile back at the Harbour Festival…
Can I be the first to say it? Nothing to do with Islam, nothing to do with religion. Like the Crown Prosecutor said about Rotherham
Once a muslim always a muslim,a leopard can’t change his spots even when the keepers state blind its a leopard of peace
New Lib Dem leader Tim Farron refuses to say whether he thinks homosexuality is a sin:
Silence from the BBC.
Imagine the uproar if Nigel Farage had refused to give a straight answer to that question…
I don’t watch or listen to bbc news but on the assumption that they have a requirement to inform our nation, have they informed us that the FSCS protection of savings will be reduced as of January 2016, from £85,000 to £75,000?
Yes, as it happens there was a whole episode of Moneybox on R4 with experts available for phone in advice trailed and dedicated to it.
A Massive 35 percent increase in complaints to the BBC, in one year.
In 2014/15 the BBC received 259,886 complaints, of which 583 complaints went on to the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit, 326 of these appealed to the BBC Trust.
In 2013/14 the BBC received 192,459 complaints, the complaints were sent to a first-tear team of about 400 people in Belfast, of which 485 complaints went on to a second-tear team of about 30 people in the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit in London, only 12 of these complaints were upheld, but then 277 of the remaining 473 complainants appealed to the Trust for a third-tier review. Only 52 of these complaints were upheld by the Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee.
So nearly 200 000 complaints and only 12 were upheld ! Surely that must strike people as wildly unreasonable !
If a private company did that trading standards would be on them like a ton of bricks!
I wouldn’t mind, but I was one of the 12 who had a complaint upheld !
Of the remaining complainants who had the stamina to go to the trust 20% were upheld, again a very low figure.
It just adds more truth to the statement that the BBC does not have a complaints department, it has a denial department !
Tokyo national stadium architect Zaha Hadid has been told that her design which was approved will now not be built as the costs of construction would have made it the most expensive monstrosity in the world.
Of course the BBC is aghast, and claims the fault lies with the ‘old men’ in the profession jealous that they didn’t win the contract.
It turns out that this is the woman who designed the Qatar bribery & corruption stadium and who has been accused in the BBC print arm the Grauniad not to show an ounce of interest in the people killed in its construction.
But. She’s a Muslim woman architect.
So that’s alright then !
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/aug/25/zaha-hadid-suing-qatar-article-2022-world-cup
Is it at all relevant that she is also a crap architect?
Thoughtful,
“Of course the BBC is aghast, and claims the fault lies with the ‘old men’ in the profession jealous that they didn’t win the contract”
Can you provide evidence for that statement? This BBC report, for example, concentrates on little else but the spiralling costs:
http://bbc.in/1gFbd5T
“It turns out that this is the woman who designed the Qatar bribery & corruption stadium and who has been accused in the BBC print arm the Grauniad not to show an ounce of interest in the people killed in its construction”
Now you are quite transparently being deliberately dishonest:
First, by implying she had something to do with bribery & corruption in Qatar (apparently just because she designed the stadium).
Second, by saying she was accused in The Guardian of not caring about the deaths of construction workers; when the article you link to is about Zaha Hadid suing the author of that accusation.
And third, by failing to mention that the author issued a retraction “and admitted he made a mistake” the very next day (which was in August 2014); even though it was posted directly under the very same article you linked to.
Truly, pitiful stuff, “Thoughtful”.
But. She’s a Muslim. So that’s alright then.
The Al BBC and Islamists eh!
Whether Walter Mittee types likes Mo Ansar
Zionists ate my shoe types like Asghar Bukhari
Next go to guy appears to be Dilly Hussein.
So after go to Al BBC guy Abdullah al Andalusi only last week … “Government watchdog, which inspects police forces’ readiness for terrorism, employed preacher of extremism”
today
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-33564319
The question has to be asked … are they as wilfully blind as the BBC? … is it possible?
July 8 – Farooq Siddique – Impeccable public record, wildly out of context, stupidly attempted to present me as an extremist etc.
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Impeccable-public-record-presented-extremist/story-21341205-detail/story.html
July 17 – Farooq Siddique. Former government adviser on tackling radicalisation will appear in court charged with a string of offences including rape and assault. Police confirmed leading Bristol Muslim, Farooq Siddique, will appear in front of the city’s magistrates later this month to face six allegations, including three of rape. The 46-year-old has also been charged with two counts of assault causing actual bodily harm and one count of making a threat to kill.
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Leading-Bristol-Muslim-government-adviser-Farooq/story-26913566-
Funny but the BBC doesn’t have any report of this:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/jail-islamic-extremist-crumpsall-who-9681973
Jail for Islamic extremist from Crumpsall who translated videos and documents and uploaded them to YouTube
Maybe it was the lax gun laws which made him do it, or the stress of Ramadam, or that he wanted to be mentally ill, or perhaps it’s the oppression of living in Britian?
This is precisely the sort of issue (as was the BBC’s failure to report the French troubles earlier this week) that I have challenged dez and his little posse of BBC sycophants to address.
Instead, they nit-pick and and smear – anything to avoid addressing the clear-cut issue of the BBC’s careful management of news to protect its Left liberal agenda. .
GCooper,
“This is precisely the sort of issue (as was the BBC’s failure to report the French troubles earlier this week) that I have challenged dez and his little posse of BBC sycophants to address”
Manchester man charged with terrorism offences
http://bbc.in/1MAwNSU
Muhammad Aftab Suleman in court charged with terrorism offences
http://bbc.in/1fTRHlU
Extremist video translator Muhammad Suleman jailed
http://bbc.in/1fTRJuf
There you go. Happy to help with one of your “issues”.
More twisting and writhing, dez. That last was published just seven hours ago. Burying inconvenient news again.
Now, perhaps if your researcher has recovered, you’d like to explain the curious lack of reporting from France?
GCooper,
“More twisting and writhing, dez. That last was published just seven hours ago. Burying inconvenient news again”
Huh, how is reporting Suleman’s jail sentence, “burying inconvenient news”?
“…explain the curious lack of reporting from France?”
I seem to have missed something. What are you referring to?
The MEN managed to get that report up yesterday – when the news was still current.
The original post pointing out its exclusion from the BBC was also made yesterday – as was my subsidiary comment.
The report your minion found was published seven hours ago. What kept you? Lack of resources?
As for France, I’m not surprised you have ‘missed something’ if you are either part of the BBC’s lamentable ‘news’ organisation, or rely on it for your information. I suggest you re-read the thread and maybe cast an eye over last week’s Breitbart London (sourced from Le Figaro among others).
If you’re getting your backside kicked by an outfit like Breitbart, you are in real trouble.
Don’t worry, Dez. GCooper is clearly drunk – so drunk he thinks his comments make sense.
Don’t forget, this is Biased BBC. Reporting something is NOT reporting something if it involves the BBC and has been reported seven hours ago.
And here’s something GCooper might like to sign, when he sobers up:
https://speakout.38degrees.org.uk/campaigns/protect-our-bbc
George G
There is no need for anyone to sign that. If its that good it will ‘protect’ itself.
In this day and age it is archaic that there is such tax which jails poor people for not paying into a slush fund that supports overpaid, over opinionated and bloated ‘so-called’ t.v. stars?
Pay by subscription – if you want it you pay for it. Simple.
To get a democratic debate on this unjust and unfair tax vote here ……………………..
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/end-the-bbc-licence-fee
Merched Becca,
Why not have a rethink and add your signature?
“The BBC’s TV and radio programmes, news service and website are read, watched, listened to and loved by millions of British people every day. It’s envied across the world.
Programmes like The Voice, Strictly Come Dancing and Dr Who entertain millions while services like BBC News bring important investigative journalism.
We all benefit from having a public broadcasting institution, run independently from government, for everyone in our country.
Please sign this petition calling on David Cameron to protect the BBC.”
https://speakout.38degrees.org.uk/campaigns/protect-our-bbc
I repeat , If its that popular it should be self funded ie Pay by Subscription, not by a tax which jails poor people for not paying into a slush fund that supports overpaid, over opinionated and bloated ‘so-called’ t.v. stars?
You pay for it if you want it and the rest of the world wants it .
Unless your job depends on it ?
Simple.
There is an excellent commentary on the current review of the BBC’s role and funding over on Scott Gronmark’s blog.
Mr Gronmark has the advantage over many commentators of having been embedded behind enemy lines, in a variety of roles within the BBC’s news machine.
http://scottgronmark.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/babies-and-bathwater-this-government.html
You like to-may-toes and I like to-mah-toes. You say an excellent commentary and I say a rabid, idiotic right wing rant. To-may-toes ? To-mah-toes? Excellent commentary? Rabid, idiotic right wing rant? Let’s call the whole thing off (froth, froth, froth).
‘Call the whole thing off’ by voting here ……………..
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/end-the-bbc-licence-fee
Even better, say “to-mah-toe” and vote here. This one’s going down a storm… … … …
https://speakout.38degrees.org.uk/campaigns/protect-our-bbc
The other one is free – no unfair and unjust tax that jails people for non payment to a fund that supports overpaid, over opinionated and bloated ‘so-called’ tv stars .
Then tell us all Scott , is it right to jail poor people for not paying an archaic tax?
A tax which jails people for not paying into a slush fund that supports overpaid, over opinionated and bloated ‘so-called’ tv stars ?
We have no choice , no representation.
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/end-the-bbc-licence-fee
I am still waiting for a coherent defence of imprisoning non payers of the TV tax.
How long will I have to wait?
And now what about the regular examples of bias reported on this site, which you and your fellow sycophants routinely ignore?
Strange how you vanish back under your stone the moment you are asked a difficult question.
Well Scott , you seem to take this site very seriously otherwise you wouldn’t be here. This site is about bias , that is what it is called.
A disingenuous reply from an intellectually bankrupt troll.
Given how the BBC have had to resort to selective omission……..
Don’t split infinitives Scott.
Or better still, just STFU.
I bet not as many as the Jeremy Clarkson one which the BBC ignored
Don’t kid yourself, thats all the arrogant self protecting BBC employees signed, their families, extended familes and self employed BBC contracted employees, all forced to sign by Danny Cohen….
You can also include PC savvy Twitter hugging younger types, doing or have done Meedja Studies degrees, not to mention the extended Common Purpose network.
The form in which the BBC exists today days are numbered, speak to some real people, not the metrosexual bubble in which you circulate.
BTW Do you think that in anyway the BBC is baised?
Don’t kid yourself, thats all the arrogant self protecting BBC employees signed, their families, extended familes and self employed BBC contracted employees, all forced to sign by Danny Cohen….
Oh dear. “Biased BBC commenter claims shit he made up in his head must be true” shock.
Biased BBC: Relying on fabrication to prop up idiotic bigotry, now and for ever.
If its fabrication, prove me wrong, did Danny Cohen not shove the open letter under the stars ‘noses’ to sign? Are Nightingale and Palin lying? Why should we believe that said petition is any different?
You wonder why people are aggressive towards you with such an aggressive reply, its hard not to be in return.
And….Do you think that in anyway the BBC is biased? Answer the f’ing question.
Are you thick or suffer from selective dyslexia?
What part of Cohen and the open letter did I make up?
I also note you didn’t answer my question (again)
Scott
To avoid your answer to the question you have changed the subject.
Reminder – Is it right to jail poor people for not paying an archaic tax?
A tax which jails people for not paying into a slush fund that supports overpaid, over opinionated and bloated ‘so-called’ tv stars ?
Lets us remember Scott was aroused by a terrorist who he thought “kinda hot.”
Thank you for your fascinating contribution. You can collect your medication on the way out.
The threading is faulty again – replies are appearing out of sequence. Apologies if any of mine offend anyone other than the BBC fanbois they were intended for.
Bloody hell Scott, what is it ….. rag week again?
hormones all over the place?
Hear the one about John Whittingdale being an ‘utter hypocrite’ over BBC deal, says Chris Bryant?
I actually agree, I believe all of those No10 inept grasping traitors are
… but
I would sooner hear it from someone who hasn t appeared on Gaydar posing in his pants on the Internet to advertise himself for casual gay sex encounters.
ie how can you take it seriously.
Protect the Al BBC by all means, if you will, but for crying out loud be constructive.
It’s Nelson Mandela Day today, I wonder if Dez will bake a cake ? Check out this white wash, all the grinning faces. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-28370736
The BBC seems cock a hoop that the Sun has found some 80 year old footage of the Queen and her sister giving the Socialist Salute, because for those who don’t know the ‘Nazi Salute’ isn’t really Nazi at all, and started off as the Bellamy salute, progressing through acceptance to be the Socialist one.
Perhaps Al Beeb would be happy to re-run a few episodes of their ‘B&W Minstrel Show’.
‘Pot’ and ‘kettle’ comes to mind?
She was 6 years old FFS!
No mention that the entire England football team did the same thing in 1938?
and ….. they all look … WHITE!
far right! far right!, stop the presses
Al BBC are ejaculating as we speak.
now in production, a documentary special to follow on
from its slavery dirgefest
The England football team looks like the Nigerian B team now.
If only they were that good…..
David Brims,
“The England football team looks like the Nigerian B team now”
“Keepie Uppity Niggers” huh David?
What’s up, dez? Was your regular Saturday SWP meeting cancelled?
No simply stating a fact, many ‘England’ players have the ability to play for other countries due to their family lines, Nigeria included.
Do you have a problem with that fact ? Why so? Does the fact it’s a fact offend you?
There is a big problem with it. Is the right to play for teams intended to be genetically based or based on legal nationality or normal place of residence?
There should be one rule for all, and only one team that anyone is eligible to play for or compete for. Why the hell should someone with a Nigerian grandfather get chance to be selected twice?
It was extremely misjudged, at least, for the Sun to bribe a palace employee to steal a private film, and was perhaps criminal (one never knows that archaic laws can be brought to bear). I also reflect that in he 1950s, we schoolhilden often larked about with two fingers over the upper lip and the same straight arm salute. as a kind of skit against Hitler and the Nazis. There was nothing in it, apart from childish lampooning,
The BBC joined in the fun of it all earlier this evening by having some scouse ‘academic’ pontificating that it taught us something about the prevalence of Nazi sympathies among the upper classes.
Possibly he has a point. Sadly, they didn’t give him sufficient airtime to expand on what I’m sure must be his devastating expose of Stalinist sympathisers connected with the Labour party and trade unions.
Or, come to that, within his own trade as a wannabe historian.
See you Edward VIII and raise you Eric Hobsbawm, sonny.
Radio 4 trailer for a programme about Brits abroad , do they speak the local language , have they assimilated etc .
Ending with a bloke ( paraphrasing) here I am an expat , but if a Pole leaves Warsaw and works in the UK he is an immigrant .
Yes Beeboids, we know that . We also know that one who leaves a country is an emigrant but when he arrives into another country he is an immigrant .We’re not as stupid as you’d like us to be .
But here’s some info for you to learn ,Beeboids because you’re not as clever as you think you are ;
Asylum seekers are people seeking asylum , they are not automatically genuine , worthy people . Most are bogus .
Some immigrants have made long arduous dangerous journeys to get here , most have hopped on a bus or plane . Even the ones who have fled a bad country , and faced hardship getting to Calais are not necessarily good people . In fact judging by the violence that is happening there we could well do without them .
Don’t keep trying to open our eyes ,Beeboids, open your own .
I heard about this programme presented by the hypocrit BBC luvvie Saffraz Mansoor (formerly of the Guardian).
They love coming out with this expat v immigrants crap. Of course Brits referring to Brits in Spain identify them as ‘ex pats’ (emigrants in other words)but Spanish people will call them the equivalent of ‘immigrants’. No doubt Poles refer to their relatives and friends in Britain by some equivalent of ’emigree’ or ‘expat’ too. Whether people are incomers or outgoers depends on where you are standing physically and psychologically.!
There should be no such thing as asylum.
Not necessarily – they should reintroduce asylums (the institutions), as there are a lot of potential inmates around who would be better off inside one, as would we with them off the streets, and out of government.
SKY news doing a piece on African immigrants coming / invading Europe, Italian doctor says all the men have scabies and the women are pregnant. female reporter Alex Crawford doing the emotional, manipulation routine.
John Whittingdale doesn’t full answer the question in the house (from Peter Bone) as to why the bBC can’t easily and cheaply go subscription. He was more candid as to the real reason why a year earlier….
Are we getting the whole story? Sometimes listening to the BBC is like the old days of the Soviet Union, you have to notice what isn’t said.
R4 midday news tells me about Britons released by China which had mistakenly linked them with terrorism becasue they had watched an English language film about Ghenghis Khan. Well, it’s possible I suppose, and it’s too easy to forget that China is a communist dictatorship.
However, I was struck the strange inclusion that a ‘South African charity’ had intervened on their behalf. So I decided to investigate.
The charity is ‘Gift of the Givers’ http://ewn.co.za/2015/07/17/Gift-of-the-Givers-celebrate-as-China-detainees-are-released which was “established on the instruction of a Sufi Sheik, Muhammed Saffer Effendi al Jerrahi (a spiritual teacher) in Istanbul, Turkey” and on its ‘About Us’ page quotes the koran http://www.giftofthegivers.org/about-us .
I have no idea how genuine the charity is, but it seems to me there is a hint there why the Chinese acted as they did, and it’s not about 13th century Mongolian history.
Well spotted.
It’s very easy now – when the story has a negative and they are vague about the people concerned – then they are muslims. Any other religion/race/nationality etc is pointed out immediately. If the story is positive, muslim participation is highlighted from the get-go.
I think that Scott chap is a wanker.
Does anyone agree? If so, please give me a like
Ah you’ve reappeared, now maybe now you’ll answer my question, I’ll ask again….
Do you think that in anyway the BBC is biased?
Ooh, that’ll be a toughie…
Scott ( and Dez and Manon etc) should put our minds at rest and show 99% that the BBC is not biased , so we can relax , let it continue and all is right in the world .
That would be like Heaven but I suppose that’s not good enough for them .
R4 Any Questions comes from Leamington Spa.
General Election 2015: Warwick and Leamington
Conservative Chris White 47.9%
Labour Lynnette Kelly 34.9%
UKIP Alastair MacBrayne 8.3%
Liberal Democrat Haseeb Arif 5%
Green Azzees Minott 3.9%
So given it’s a strong Tory seat, can you guess whether it was the left wing trades unionist or Conservative who got the regular rapturous applause, and which was the one who at best got muted applause and was even jeered?
Audience selection bias? What bias?
Probably but wouldnt it be mostly Labour and hard left people who WANT to form the audience at a BBC event?
Fuck a duck. This will boil your piss.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33572433
16 Things That Could Get You Executed In Saudi Arabia
http://www.vocativ.com/underworld/crime/saudi-arabia-execution-beheading/
Includes gay sex, apostasy and consumption of alcohol. (Any one that is, you don’t have to combine all three)
I watched two drug dealers getting executed in Saudi. (no cinema and telly was crap, plus I wanted to meet someone who was actually worse off than me).The re-offending rate is pretty low so I’m told.
Amazingly would implicate half the shit that works at the BBC………………
Yes non Muslims not allowed with the city limits of either Mecca or Medina. The road that leads to both cities show a massive 3 lane highway for Muslims and a dirty road veering away for non-Muslims. Even has Muslims and non-Muslims over the lanes. Bet you would never get that in the Vatican City
‘a city typically closed to non-Muslims’
What the hell do they put the qualifier word ‘typically’ in for?
Also how would Al Beeb react, do you suppose, if Birmingham Alabama was ‘typically’ closed to non-whites? Would we ever hear the end of it?
The Moaners hour ‘power list’ has been announced, and as I suspected is chosen, not voted for.
Here is the list and unlike last year you probably will have heard of one or two !
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1wsc6xjTph1CvN5jWzLtfzT/womans-hour-2015-power-list-influencers
Here are the judges:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1YmbsbyVkMDTXgjwgn9P4Ff/the-womans-hour-2015-power-list-influencers
I’m surprised they didn’t find space for the influential Connie St Louis, the liar who forced the resignation of Tim Hunt.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/damian-thompson/2015/06/connie-st-louis-the-woman-who-brought-down-sir-tim-hunt-faces-questions-over-her-cv-wheres-the-media-coverage/
Has the bBBC yet responded to her false claim that ‘she presents and produces a range of programmes for BBC Radio 4 and BBC World Service’?
No, as far as I am aware, the BBC hasn’t. Indeed, it’s probably commissioning a series from her right now.
Even more troubling is that neither of the pretend universities highlighted by this story have acted with anything good sense.
A decent goverment would cease funding both of them.
The Today programme was part of the effort to smear Tim Hunt.
I’ve tried to post a link to the report, but it doesn’t appear. The key section is:
“In the piece, the presenter opens the segment by stating as a fact that Sir Tim Hunt said words he did not say, in an order he did not say them. She notes with sarcasm that Sir Tim had said he was joking and being ironic.
This was the first time the world had heard any statement at all that Tim Hunt was not only joking but joking ironically, that is, sending up himself, not sending up women.
However, the Today show does not broadcast Tim Hunt’s speech in his own defence, explaining what he meant by the joke and the irony of it. That is a basic, fundamental requirement of an impartial state broadcaster. It has never put those words or quotes online.
She then moves to a quote from Hunt, where he talks about emotion and crying without mentioning women at all. It ends “I only meant to be honest, really.”
Unchallenged, Connie St. Louis and Jennifer Rohn are allowed both to give negative views on Hunt and present, in the case of St. Louis, falsehoods as facts. St. Louis’s lies are so voluminous they require a separate blog, and I refer here to the lies in her account, not the lies on her CV. Rohn is the author of a “Lab-Lit” romance called “Experimental Heart” described by Science magazine’s reviewer, an oncologist, as an “accurate” portrayal of the “familiar” world of “dark-room romance.”
Ho-hum.
This broadcast, however, spliced the words “I was only being honest” away from where Sir Tim actually said them and put them after comments about crying (where women aren’t mentioned) to make it appear “I was just trying to be honest” referred to his views on women rather than about his own life. A later BBC audio of Sir Tim shows he clearly refers to his own life (as his joke did) and ends with the same words “I was just trying to be honest” – that is, about himself, not women in science.”
The website is unfashionista .com
Scott, in reference to your comment as to who the biggest idiot on here, to which I am unable to reply, there is absolutely no doubt who that individual is. You are both selective and avoiding in your replies and if anyone replied to you in the way you did to me up thread you would go running off home to mummy, who I’m sure is your best mate.
Also let me put you straight (excuse the pun) 170,000 signatory’s means jack it is easy to manipulate, especially by a large organisation with IT resource and agenda, ever heard of propaganda? The BBC have.
Now be a good boy and answer my question, please without any sarcasm, unfunny wit or personal attacks, do you think the BBC is in anyway biased?
Well thank you for deciding what I would do. As ever, the only way you can feel superior is by making stuff up. Don’t you ever wonder that your prediliction for fiction may be a sign that your determination that you are always right may be a bit faulty?
Also let me put you straight (excuse the pun) 170,000 signatory’s means jack it is easy to manipulate
Hope you tell that to Merched Becca the next time he spams this site with his petition for the six hundredth time. Oh no, wait, I forgot – one rule for Biased BBC commenters, another for everybody else.
Unless you think Merched Becca is a liar also, but are just too much of a coward to challenge him? Is that it, Geoff? Are you afraid?
Now be a good boy and answer my question, please without any sarcasm, unfunny wit or personal attacks, do you think the BBC is in anyway biased?
There are plenty of occasions where I think the BBC could, and should, have introduced more viewpoints than it has.
But that’s different from Biased BBC’s approach to bias. Vance, Alan and all the other hangers-on who they allow to riddle this site with their racism. sexism, bigotry and lies think the BBC is biased because the Corporation doesn’t reinforce their own misguided belief that they are superior to everybody else.
That the BBC doesn’t treat Biased BBC commenters’ viewpoint with reverence isn’t bias. It’s ignoring petulant toddlers who are having a temper tantrum.
Geoff, I asked Scott the same question many moons ago. I got an answer, in that he believed any bias by the BBC was “perceived”.
Some may have heard the news item about the pensioner stabbed and killed ina road rage attack.
Neither police nor BBC have any qualms about revealing the race, either when the suspect was wanted, or now that he is being questioned.
The Globalist tendency always excuse the concealment of the race or ethnicity of foreign suspects by saying it wouldnt be appropriate before charges are brought.
The BBC stated he was a ‘white’ man, with active emphasis, and relish.
“The BBC stated he was a ‘white’ man, with active emphasis, and relish.”
Aerfen,
If a criminal is white the BBC will report his colour. If they don’t specifically say that he’s white you know that he isn’t.
Generally true, although they ar ecrafty enough to very occasionally reveal the ethnicitty of foreign ethnics, and very occasionally to initially cover up that of Brits – just to make it look as though those of us suggesting bias in this are paranoid.
The BBC are past grandmasters of propaganda.
….But more than happy to describe a ‘Brit’ who isn’t really a Brit as British!
All part of the same game.
I’ve just watched (on Amazon Prime) an episode of a BBC drama called The Indian Doctor, which is set in a Welsh mining village in the 60’s. I was struck by this comment:
“You’re a miner, a shop-steward. You’re a socialist. If you can’t make the right decision, we’re all lost.”
Forward to the Revolution brothers and sisters…
What a crude piece of Soviet style ‘socialist realism’ that sounds to be, showing life not how it was, but as the BBC wished to believe it to be. There were almost no Indians in Wales in the sixties, and any forerunners were likely to settle in already slightly multikulti Cardiff not the ugly valleys with their close communties.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01cz639
What a load of BS
Arfen
Sadly I have to agree with you. As a person coming from the western parts of Wales, the only Indians that I saw in my town were the Indians that took a hammering in the ‘westerns’ that were shown in the cinema on a Saturday.
Here are some wise words to Al Beeb from the USA ……………”You can fool all the people some of the time, or you can fool some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all people all the time”.
Was chatting to my 15 year nephew the other day, he couldn’t believe that when I was his age my school class was 100% white and that was only 1983!
Sadly I never watched “The Indian Doctor” whilst being shown as a “premium” “drama” production on the BBc on the basis that like most of BBc drama it would be crap. Did I miss another piece of uniquely funded genius. Or was it just crap?
Dave666
As a Welshman putting it politely, it was a thinly disguised attempt at ‘multikulti’ propaganda which we are forced by law under the penalty of jail, to pay for.
It’s a daytime drama (based on real events) which offers you an alternative to Loose Women on itv. Father Brown and Land Girls are both much whiter so that should keep you happy if brown faces upset you so much.
Meanwhile I think you are confused about the prospect of being jailed for non-payment of the Licence Fee. You are fined by the court for non-payment. A few people are sent to jail at a later date but that is for non-payment of the court fine and that more than likely includes other non-payments as well. It is obviously a last resort for the court.
T
There is no confusion, you avoid the main point which is that poor people are jailed for not paying a TV tax that lines the pockets of rich ‘so called’ tv stars.
Why should anyone pay for something they don’t watch.
You pay for it if you want it.
Unless your employment depends on it ? Please take the trouble to read this ……https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/end-the-bbc-licence-fee
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3166617/BBC-s-gravy-train-1st-class-way-Feckless-Corporation-pleading-poverty-face-cuts-wastes-millions-luxury-travel-celebrity-bashes-OVERPAYING-staff.html
Good article:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/rod-liddle/9571842/sorry-but-you-cant-take-the-islam-out-of-islamic-state/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33581753
Chattanooga attack: Gunman Abdulazeez ‘sent war text’
War? Text?? … bit ambiguous
“Police have said his motives are still being investigated.”
war?, text??, unknown motives??? … hmm as clear as mud.
war against unarmed personnel in the US?
Anyway as an issue of clarity
Chattanooga : Islamic Jihadi mass murderer, that is MOHAMED Youssuf Abdulazeez BBC,(an Islamic name for CNN) … texted Islamic verse that mandates warfare, to friend before murdering 5 unarmed soldiers.
“Whosoever shows enmity to a friend of Mine, then I have declared war against him.”
“A Hadith, in which Muhammad quotes Allah saying something that is not in the Qur’an. They are considered on par with the Qur’an itself.
In any case, clearly this verse refers to being an enemy to those who are supposedly fighting Muslims — that is, U.S Military personnel.
It mandates warfare.”
Appalling pro asylum seeker bias on Radio 4 concerning the story of a group of asylum seekers who bought wet suits (all of them have no money?) and then attempted to swim the English Channel !
One was found washed up dead in Holland, another in Norway.
The Journalist went to Jordan to interview his family, and absolutely avoided all the questions the majority of listeners would want answered, and asked all those which concern the hand wringing Fascist left.
Typical BBC bias.