Middle of the week and time for a new one of these. HERE is where you detail the bias! The floor is yours….
MID WEEK OPEN THREAD….
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- non-licence payer Nov 14, 22:01
Midweek 13th November 2024
Zephir, how times are changed. This was the sort of advice that was printed in the Socialist Worker. It is… - vlad Nov 14, 21:58
Midweek 13th November 2024
After woke Welby, next woke Francis maybe? (Any non-Catholics, take it from me: he’s just as bad.) - Nibor Nov 14, 21:56
Midweek 13th November 2024
Taffy, Make friends. I’m a moaner and complainer and haven’t paid the telly tax for 20 years, and other taxes. - vlad Nov 14, 21:55
Midweek 13th November 2024
I’ll be a Socialist for 1 night. Nah, too high a price. - Eddy Booth Nov 14, 21:19
Midweek 13th November 2024
He’s too obsessed with “the genocide in Palestine”. - vlad Nov 14, 20:52
Midweek 13th November 2024
Just now and again, I like Galloway. Here he is taking the p out of Amin Lammy. https://youtu.be/Tkt4aYmYfKM - digg Nov 14, 20:46
Midweek 13th November 2024
There is only so long that this dysfunctional load of twats trying to run the Country can keep on F****ing… - Docmarooned Nov 14, 20:32
Midweek 13th November 2024
What “awards” other than back slapping from her cronies. Awards for telling blatant lies and BBC Verify confirming the nonsense.…
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
A reprise from Start the Week open thread:-
It’s not often I say this about Beeboid Wales – Well done!
I just watched a documentary which actually showed that they can still do investigative journalism (WRT the Liebore hedgemony).
It involves the “West London College” in Cardiff(?) which is run from an unnamed address in (monocultural – at least it was the last time I drove through it) Wembley.
The principle was a certain Dr Khan PhD (Cambs.) and also a visiting Professor, Trinity Col. Cambs. (nothing to do with an atrocious Beeb “comedy”).
This “college” was using a taxi driver to recruit “ethnics” promising to supply them with forged entry documents and qualifications in return for £1,000. This was paid for by fraudulent Student Loan applications + grants (£6,000) paid to the college.
The Libore Administration declined to comment.
Cambridge University and Trinity College had no record of Mr Khan.
I rest my case m’lord. – IPlayer link to follow (if available).
Week in Week Out – BBC Wales
Spoilt only by a reference in the report on Radio 4s PM to the Welsh government taking a closer look at how “English companies operate in Wales” lol!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-34975140
The college “Professor” was called Kumar, not Khan.
embolden
Is he the one who lives at No. 42 ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06qsvgp/week-in-week-out-learning-how-to-fake-it
Today’s quiz, can you spot the missing word in this article?
Sydney police raid home linked to Curtis Cheng shooting
So predictable. What’s not said tells you all you need to know. Or else sinophobia is on the rise in Oz?
I clicked on the link and there’s a photograph of a lads “Efnic” pork chops. to be fair the news shouldn’t scream “Muzzer” but report the facts alone without prejudice. Us English tend to stick to the rules of fair play, Queensbury and all that.
worrywort – You don’t think the motive for the murder is a ‘fact’ that might be relevant and without prejudice? Or do you prefer the BBC’s euphemism ‘terror-linked killing’? You did get the missing word right though so I know you see what’s happening 😉
As ever you can spot the Beebs bias by what is doesn’t report.
There are major pieces today in the FT and Mail on the comments of former Home Office adviser Nick Timothy, saying the Government is not interested in cutting net migration (I think we managed to work that one out) as Osborne is relying on their contributions to total GDP to help balance the books. So the UK can expect another 1.1m in the next five years.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3341170/Migration-DOUBLE-Cameron-s-tens-thousands-target-tackle-deficit-amid-claims-PM-given-borders.html
The Beeb briefly refers to it in its daily newspaper round-up, but you really have to look. This clearly isn’t considered news worthy of a Beeb report, but “Madonna returns to scene of Brits fall” is deemed front page news.
Osborne is relying on their contributions to total GDP to help balance the books
How can they contribute when they are all gimmigrants. Any money they have gets sent home so more can come.
UKIP for me now.Never again shall i vote for any other party.Nigel was right . The BBC will never put liebour in the spotlight so word of mouth is the only way to burst their bubble.
A former Home Office adviser has already admitted the government have completely given up on cutting down net migration, as usual Pete its more Tory lies … no change there.
… but they ve got the money behind them, the money media, the Westminster machine
We have the best government hedge funds can buy ….
Election win? … “never under estimate the power of lies and money”
This morning a second bite of the cherry (which is not the only fruit) or will it be a rotten tomato?
Professor Yaffle-like BBC arts critic Will Gompertz treats us to yet another interview with a thespian in what is fast becoming the BBC’s (as yet unreleased) favourite movie – The Danish Girl
Gosh, who would have guessed actors like a bit of make-up and cross-dressing? The main actress- it’s her turn with Will today – has had a long discussion about gender – so this is serious stuff and not just another seasonal Panto, kids – bully for her. Dungarees and Doc Martens on the cat walk, luv?
House eunuch Bill Turnbull confides that he is a little glum as he is going to have to wait until the new year to see the film.
That’s ‘after the Oscars’ – our Bill explains – which probably further explains how the bien pensant push behind this film will coalesce.
Blimey by the time the public can actually judge the BBC will already have been 12 weeks a slave to this film.
On the subject of 70,000 suposed moderate muslims in Syria that Cameron hopes will eventually lead a ground war against IS, I would refer the right honourable member for Whitney to one of my mantras gleaned over many years travelling to the Middle East.
Never trust an Arab.
Or to paraphrase an old Gulf War joke:
Q – what’s the difference between a Syrian and a piece of toast
A – you can make soldiers out of toast
How long will it take that 70,000 to turn on us? 5 minutes after we have armed and trained them? Or 10 minutes?
Syria
A “supposed”estimated 70,000 people in the Free Syrian Islamists oops I mean Army, these are the good fellas?
these are the people that we’re now assisting?
… while the Camoron wants to bomb ISIS, or inadvertently Assad or , erm … don t think he s even actually sure who?
AND … without any real, clear long term strategy, (just like every other one of their bloody policies).
Camoron and his No10 traitors lying again, sounds like underhand mission creep is on the cards.
(even more so now)
… I mean folks … what could go wrong eh?
Why the BBC, our lame brain Government, the media, the erm “world’s leaders” fly in to “solve” a “problem” that doesn’t exist, rather than have a coherent elimination strategy to address the enormous one that does
…”the clear and present danger” … and no clear plan, its a very dangerous joke … isn t it?
Westminster, “old boy” network, does its usual, backstabbing best, to totally ignore common sense, the will of the majority of the people … the No10 traitors are busy ringing everybody to undermine, to pervert, to rush through the Camorons joyride to Syria, simultaneously insulting the intelligence of anyone who can read, and showing an astounding lack
of rationale. His “terrorist sympathisers” slant at opponents of bombing smears half the country. Intolerant, the usual patronising lies we ve come to expect, from this most corrupt of (I use the term in its most loose sense) Government
… is it any surprise they want to rush this vote through now?, in 2 weeks they never would get it through.
It is more fag packet, ambiguous short termism, no real plan, no coherent strategy typical No 10 traitors.
“never underestimate the power of lies and money” for the election victory, and sadly it just continues
Laying down PMQs in his clamour to loin the big bombing theme park, where everyone is bombing everyone else?
to go to war?
… So erm … “selfless” of Camoron to avoid, erm “not” answering questions on bullying, NHS, etc etc
Meanwhile … Cameron, and said No10 traitors still support Angela Merkel’s push for full Turkish EU membership.
Yep! that’s the Illegal economic immigrant aiding, ISIS abetting, IS oil buying, corrupt governing, Islamist racist Erdogan, deliberate Russia targeting one … the Shengen “dead duck” would aid them to get to here.
.
Let the RAF get on with the job & ,stop doing down ourarmed to forces, they do a brilliant job. Some of you are sounding like Corbynista’s defeatists,or the BBC before World War II.
Don’t think anyone has a downer on our armed forces, certainly not me, just questioning what effect it will have, the answer is absolutely nothing as to those already in the midst of Europe. A gung-ho attitude is not what we need right now.
I just wish our government would concentrate on those already here.
Drones aside, I pity the first RAF pilot to get shot down or captured alive, an example will certainly be made of him (remember the Jordainian?) then we’ ll question was it right?
Who is doing down our armed forces ?
Our present government has cut the military to ribbons . They have neglected the nations defence expenditure since they have been in power.
We have to rely on France for an aircraft carrier.
Yes, Taffman. It is the politicians who , for decades, have attacked our military, but suddenly need them when they want to pull some stunt. Reduced numbers, wrong equipment, appalling treatment of wounded and retired servicemen and women. The Gurkha case was a classic. The military and intelligence services are the only institutions I have any respect for. As for politicians, they are just disgusting sewer rats and even that is an insult to rats.
Taffman, that makes me very uneasy about sending out Tornados to bomb Syria (or Iraq for that matter) because from Cyprus they are operating, I would have thought, way beyond their combat range. IIRC, in-flight refuelling is required for every mission (another aircraft in air for every pair) making three aircraft vulnerable to s-a-missile or groundfire attack, friendly fire or collision on a busy day.
The Russians are operating from within Syria & the French can park their carrier (I assume with permission) offshore and fly from there. Why don’t we let them take care of the a-t-g attacks on ISIS?
I think it extremely notable that the Russians and the French have not really bombed much deep into ISIS territory? Why? Have Cameron, Fallon & Hammond asked themselves that question and sought to find an answer?
I sure hope the Joint Chiefs & their JIC are doing so!
The French are flying, from Abu Dhabi, the Russian’s from their base in Syria. The RAF, from Cyprus , Turkey, (with the USA,NATO Base.)as well as Kuwait. We are already operating in Iraq, which we have been doing for about 18 months now.
Grow up. The Russians might let the RAF fly or they might not. Cameron will have to ask Mr Putin nicely.
The Russian S400 system controls the skies over Syria and if Cameron has not grasped that then he is unfit to be PM.
For your information the S400 is the world’s most advanced anti aircraft system and at present Nato has no counter.
It is irresponsible in the extreme to put our pilots at risk from this.
Conspiracy theory or not?
I have read recently (can’t remember where) that the bombing of Syria is not about ISIS at all but more to do with an oil pipeline from Saudi through Iraq and into Syria and Turkey to Europe. Assad has always opposed this and this was a means of getting around the problem. Russia’s involvement was more due to the fact that it would weaken them economically and Putin therefore had to intervene.
I know it’s easy to start plausible sounding theories such as this but this one is a new one on me. Any mileage in it, or has anyone else heard similar?
Syria’s oil is running out, apparently. They were, IIRC, wanting to push the Russians out of their bases some years ago but now need the rent money and have welcomed Putin back in. Russia is running out of cash from oil but has oodles of oil & gas or access to same in adjoining territory. There were rumours some years ago that the undiscovered oil reserves around the Caspian were so large that they might equal or exceed the amount of world oil consumed up to the end of the 20th century. They haven’t, IIRC, started pumping out much of the established, discovered, oil there yet as the gas fields are so large as well and have been exploited first.
In the normal scheme of things, a significant military conflict anywhere in the Middle East would send the oil price soaring and certainly benefit the Gulf States & Russia and others. I was always struck by a sentence from Blair’s testimony to, I think, Chilcot that (of the Gulf 2/Iraq 2003 war) ” ‘we’ knew the war in Iraq would not push up the oil price”, the ‘we’ being Bush & Blair.
Maybe there is a hegemony thing going on. Oil & gas could be a factor. So could the trials and the selling of new weaponry. Greed may be the driving factor. Some research found that many people when they became incredibly rich, only ever wanted from then on to become richer still. This was backed up by Camelot’s research with UK lottery winners. Money is power.
On the other hand it could all be a bit eschatological . . . .
Eschatological? I’ll go down that route when a third temple is built and Damascus is in ruins.
http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/is-the-fight-over-a-gas-pipeline-fuelling-the-worlds-bloodiest-conflict/news-story/74efcba9554c10bd35e280b63a9afb74
found one.
For information, much of our gas now comes from the Qatar fields, which will give people an indication of where the government’s interests lie. Having said that, the West is betting on both horses, hence the reproachment with Iran. The correct strategy would, of course, be to develop our own extensive gas fields (fracking) which would make us self-sufficient for the rest of the century, minimise our dependency on other countries for energy plus generally stop meddling in the Middle East.
Mild. Mild. Very mild. Mild. Mild. Yes BBc breakfast weather this morning in a nutshell it’s mild. In fact I lost count on how many times the word mild was used on the breakfast & local weather. Breakfast continues with it’s publicity campaign for the Danish girl. Sofa sloth tells us she can’t wait to see it. The program rounds off with some woman I don’t recognise who is on strictly dullness which we don’t watch.
Mild! eh … must be “global warming” 😀
… the polar bears! 😀
Certainly warm in the south-east for December. No significant heating on here. Am warmed by the PC alone at present!
Al Beeb reporting those ‘men’ again, are being pulled in at Luton.
Isn’t it time that our PM took action by controlling all those men coming in to the country.
Vote here ………….
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/107516
Al Beeb reporting those ‘men’ again, are being pulled in at Luton.
Isn’t it time that our PM and the Torys took action by controlling all ‘those men’ coming in to the country. Vote UKIP to get out of the madhouse that the EU is, and in the meantime vote here ………….
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/107516
Why are we bombing Syria when the greatest threat to our way of life is here in the UK?
Er, because it is easier to re-assign three ageing Tornados for a spot of recreational bombing rather than deal with the implications of a potentially large number of imported hostile people at home?
Ian, Apparently it is four. Four out of eight currently involved in Iraq are, I think, Raptor equipped, which leaves – according to Wiki (usual cautions – I haven’t checked Janes) another four to join them in Cyprus. Although it is always a good idea to keep one spare, just in case . . . .
Which is a bit strange. If this bit of British invented, American made kit is SO GOOD, brilliant even, AND SO ESSENTIAL {Cameronian style-emphahsis) IN SYRIA why aren’t the American & French aircraft drippin’ with the stuff? I gather some of the F15s or F16s are Raptor equipped but why not more? Will ours make that much difference? And, as a country recovering from a dreadful economic shock & emerging from the grip of austerity, should we not be making Raptor here and flogging it like mad around the world. Apparently, it is so fantastic it cuts the risk of collateral and non-combatant damage. OK Dave, if that’s the case, answer that previous question & do something about that, please, instead of sending the RAF bombing in Syria!!!
As for Tornados ageing, I cannot remember where but I came across some apparently knowledgeable bod (maybe on here) who pointed out that the good old EE Lightning would still be very competitive in some aspects of fast strike jets capabilities. The problem, as I understand it as an enthusiast layman, comes in air to air combat (chuckability & vision) and also in the limits on what can be weapons can be bolted to older ‘planes & how they ‘interface’ with control systems.
But your implied point is key & correct. I do not think that Cameron and many of the Ministers understand what they are dealing with. Whatever we do in Syria, beyond ending the civil war as far as possible (ISIS permitting) and establishing a legitimate Government will not make us one jot safer in the UK. Either that or Cameron & Co are working to some strange agenda belonging to someone else, somewhere else.
The Lightning was aptly named. It was faster and climbed quicker than any modern RAF jet. It was a pure interceptor, but it didn’t have much endurance as it used its fuel up very quickly. Ironically, it was developed into a fighter bomber for Saudi Arabia in the 1960s, at the start of a period of very profitable military aircraft sales to that “ally”. They have since bought Tornados and Typhoons, so at least BAe did well out of it.
Thatcherrevolutionary
Good point.
The usual military opinion is to fight wars within the enemies’ territory not your own .
But I am afraid our present government has been letting the enemy in , no, encouraging and inviting them in since they have been in power and have done nothing to defend our country. They have left the stable door open for far too long despite the overwhelming opinion of the true indigenous people of Britain .
Thatcherrevolutionary,
Because bombing Luton might not go down very well with the electorate.
“It left me with the suspicion that while we shouldn’t bomb Luton, maybe we should bomb Dunstable, where Three Counties is located*. Don’t these monkeys have the power of thought?”
Rod Liddle.
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/ive-changed-my-mind-about-where-we-should-bomb/
Cameron wants to drop bombs in the sand in Syria and appear to be matching Russia’s assault on ISIS. But am I alone in smelling a rat here. Cameron and the Arab US President want to remove Assad and once given access to Syria I believe he will follow that route, unless Putin stops him.
In the resolution before Parliament is a call to bomb Isis, but also this
‘ that military action against ISIL is only one component of a broader strategy to bring peace and stability to Syria’
And this can evolve into regime change.
I don’t understand why the BBC, in its opposition to Cameron’s plan to bomb targets in Syria, hasn’t made what to me is an obvious point.
At the moment there is a coalition bombing ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria. We are only bombing targets in Iraq while our “partners” are bombing targets in both countries. RAF missions over Iraq free up others for missions over Syria. If the RAF are now to be diverted to Syrian targets someone else will have to pick up what would have been our missions over Iraq – unless we abandon the Iraqi Kurds (again).
In terms of military capability it makes sense for all forces to be available for use against any target, but politically (which is where the BBC’s interest lies) the only benefit from the arguments over Syria is that Cameron can make Labour look weak – which isn’t what the BBC wants.
Does anyone know why the BBC hasn’t pointed out that if the RAF is now to attack targets in Syria others will have to replace it in attacking the targets in Iraq, to no overall benefit in “the war against ISIS”?
The best way to hurt Isis is to bomb its tanker convoys taking oil to Turkey. The Turkish president’s son runs this smuggling network, making hundreds of millions of dollars a year for Isis and for the Turkish president and his family. But Turkey is our NATO ally, so heaven forbid that anyone should point out that it has armed and financed Isis from the start. Without Turkish support there would be no Isis.
Russia Today has been giving “the terrorist sympathizers” both barrels. Here’s today’s report (14 mins), though watch from 06:32 – 07:33 for the RT line in 60 seconds.
https://www.rt.com/news/324263-russia-briefing-isis-funding/
I am finding that RT, for all its Radio Moscow style at times, is essential viewing. Especially so, now that Russia is very much centre stage again.
Here’s a thought re BBC and Global Warming: are the world temperatures that the IPCC are working to ever independently audited?
I realise that the auditing profession around the world have not exactly done too well with their corporate work in this century and especially in the banking industry from 2007-2009 but should not someone ‘without a dog in the fight’ do some rigorous checking of all these ‘stated’ temperatures?
Is that not a good question for a robust BBC journalist to work away on?
well they could do simultaneous measurement, but I doubt they could go back in time and measure again.
They can’t go back in time but they could make up some numbers that give the answer they want. Same as they do with figures for the present day, then.
They could check who has been measuring what, how it is currently measured, establish what – if anything – has changed, what other checks & assumptions made and so on. Could do the same with the CO2 measurements.
Ask some penetrating questions. Prod around a bit.
You know, bit like a good journalist might :-p when working for, say, the BBC? 😉
The problem is not with how they are measured. The problem is in how the GCHN, NASA GISS, HADCrut NOAA, et al all post-hoc adjust the accurately measured temperatures from years ago. When you compare the actual published temperatures of the last century as published in 2000, 2003, 2005, 2008 etc… What you find is that those temperatures from the last century have gone down as time goes by. This is, of course, impossible. If the temperature measured in essex on 23rd June 1927 was recorded as 78.5 degrees F, then it should stay on the record for that day, in that location at that temperature forevermore. But no. Earlier temperature recordings are lowered and more modern temperatures recordings are increased. They have done this with recordsets from all over the world. Darwin in Australia had a recorded cooling trend over the last century adjusted to create a false warmig trend. This also has happened across South America and in the Arctic too.
Worse still, they also infill recordings from stations which no longer exist. Where once a fellow would trudge out in all weathers to faithfully record air pressure, temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction etc… There now is someone in an office miles away, literally inventing the temperature for those stations which are no longer being monitored. A staggering 40% of the actual global land surface temperature record is simply made up. It is estimated based on historical temps from those areas, and biased with the warming that they assume is happening, so that is what they record.
When you realise the many different ways that the land-surface record is not an accurate of faithful record of land temperatures, there is no way anyone can have faith in the great global warming swindle.
Good point made by several in the ‘climate realist’ community.
The re-adjustment of old temperature records are always up – never down.
One reason why the satellite records are those to look at as they are not (yet) being
politically corrupted. Unfortunately they only run from 1979.
This article is a real corker –
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/29/aps-seth-borenstein-gets-something-right-but-only-the-date/
Somebody will be for the high jump after making an internal BBC staff memo public,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34961217
LOL !
Amazing ! – among comments on a Guardian article about the Oldham by-election I found a link to a BBC article from 2010 describing the realities of the Pakistani vote in the UK. Some real live facts for once from the BBC !
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8655697.stm
OT
As much as I understand the ideology of left wing thinking having formerly been one my self, can anyone tell me why the warmist fascists desecrated a Parisian memorial to the victims of IS as has been reported on this site?
I cannot see any link rhyme or reason whatsoever.
Jerry Owen, here is a guess at left fascist logic. The Paris attack had nothing to do with Islam, whatever the terrorists said. That is from the BBC and Teresa May. But apart from it being a response to years of western imperialism (Left Unity, SWP, BBC) terrorism is also a response to climate change (Guardian, BBC, the Greens) . And the evil capitalist neo liberal west are responsible for climate change. As the standard defence of violence is that the victims must be in some sense guilty, then the memorial to those victims is a legitimate target for peace loving climate activists who also share the belief that Islamic terror is something the ROP is forced into by the victims and those who commemorate their deaths.
It derives from lack of respect. Leftists are narcissists. They have large but fragile egos. They are at war with reality.
And, I suspect, the bully boys in their ranks were happy to have a ruckus with the police.
Also, some others may have been happy to have police cracking down on demonstrators at the Climate Summit talks because it then looks like ‘the people, good and responsible, caring and only wanting the best for the planet for the good of their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren’ being brutally suppressed by heartless leaders who have failed to reach any great self-flagellating restrictions on evil big business at every previous Climate Summit should really make even more effort to do so now. Win the front pages to win hearts & minds to the cause.
Cynical? Moi?
I couldn’t possibly comment.
John Ray at his site Dissecting Leftism
http://dissectleft.blogspot.co.uk/
argues that Leftists are born miserable. I am watching the BBC drama London Spy at the moment. I try to avoid fiction but since Ben Whishaw is talked about as one the finest actors of his generation I thought I would give it a go. Whishaw is indeed brilliant, but the drama is miserabilist BBC trash.
Danny (Whishaw) meets the love of his life, who gets then horribly murdered by our security services. (Episode 1). The police drag him from his bed in the early hours and falsely accuse him (once we find your blood and shit on his sheets we will charge you) of the murder, and he goes to the press, who trash his reputation by claiming that he is a drug addict, and cause him to lose his job (Episode 2). The parents of the deceased are horrible cold upper class English people, who tell him that their son was promiscuous, and indeed it turns out that he was unfaithful and has infected him with HIV (Episode 3). The deceased was a maths genius and his professor (black of course) despises Danny. His only real friend is an old bloke, who is left hanging by his neck on a tree near his home by our security services. In Episode 5 Danny takes a drug overdose and kills himself. (My guess)
Putting aside the fact that the author is the boyfriend of the Head of BBC drama, I cannot help noticing that in real life our security services do not persecute gays (Burgess et al and all those other BBC heroes were enemies because they were traitors not because they were gay) they protect us from people who actually do persecute gays. The whole drama is saturated with a bleakness arsing from the complete absence of any spiritual dimension – there is no God.
‘London Spy’ has all the theatrical turgidity of Morrissey at his most self indulgent.
(Turgidity): Doesn’t our English language contain some delightful synonyms?
BBC ‘dramas’ these days are so stuffed with agendas there’s no room left for anything like a believable plot.
Just like real life then. You been anywhere near our universities recently?
Fascism reborn, see: http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/2015/12/they-heart-fascism_1.html
Wild:
Thank you for watching “London Spy” so that I don’t have to. As soon as I saw the plot synopsis I knew it would be something very similar to that which you described, and did not wish to waste my time over it. Also, Ben Wishaw is an actor I have no time for. He certainly fails to fill Desmond Llewellyn’s shoes in the James Bond movies, though Q now seems to be a computer geek rather than a designer of exploding fountain pens, more’s the pity.
Dan Damon, one of very few at the BBC who has not been totally warped by lefty PeeCee had an interesting World Update on the World Service yesterday, actually interviewing Matt Ridley of The Times re his scepticism of the whole “settled science” thing.
From 1:20 minutes in, 29 days left to listen:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p038yqrd#play
Funny thing is, when I went to the podcast a few hours ago, only the second half of the programme was available, while he’d spoken to Ridley at the beginning (a fact in itself extraordinary).
So I tweeted him, allergic as I am to the short-attention-span Twitter, and, miraculously, the full programme is now available.
Dunno if my tweet made a difference, but these are very strange happenings indeed at the BBC.
And on today’s World Update he himself expressed scepticism re the alleged link between storms and global warming.
Could be that some BBC staff are as sick as so many of us of the relentless propaganda. Who was that Newsnight guy again who went against the global warming mob some time back?
Anyway, we live in hope.
Dan Damon use to be an LBC presenter , always very fair & balanced.
This gas pipeline conspiracy theory makes a huge amount of sense to me.
Qatar has huge gas reserves and exports most as liquid but the liquification burns about 10% of the feed to run the process. A pipeline to a huge market (EU) seems obvious until all the politics are examined.
It puzzles me why Al Beeb have been so quiet on this. I seem to remember the Gulf Wars were widely reported as being all about Iraq’a oil, Cheney and Halliburton. Why the silence on a perfectly feasible theory?
Al-Beeb are going all out to max out the Corbyn pacifist vote. I tried to watch Newsnight last night but could only stand 5 minutes.
The airtime given to the ‘unless absolutely everything is nailed down we shouldn’t do anything’ argument is incredible. On that basis, June 6 1944 would not have happened ‘in case we kill innocent civilians’ among other things. Entirely false arguments are given huge space along with endless challenge of the government’s case, which of course is not 100% compelling.
A modest military contribution to a wider coalition in order to disrupt, degrade a little, and contain ISIS is a fair concept in its own right. Why does Al-Beeb not give this argument some airtime rather than rely on the Corbynista absolutism of the need for a brilliant single total solution that is just not going to happen but gives his inherent Pacifism a technocratic guise?
D “nothing to with Islam” Camoron, is at this time at the box clearly lying to the … oops I mean speaking to the house.
Ignoring every question, and keeps turning his back on everyone persistent in insisting he apologise, this moron simply has no clue, no plan, and … no shame.
To call this insult to the office he holds, a lying beneath contempt self serving traitor doesn t go far enough.
… Don t call them Islamic State eh! … Dave
Just spotted on Al Beeb ‘in Parliament’ – an MP, (possibly Tory?) criticising Al Beeb for its ‘so called’ impartiality with its terminology by using so called ‘IS’ as opposed to ‘Daish’.
I wonder what ‘BBC’ will be seen to stand for?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34975365?
Nice to see Justin keeping occupied with the major stories after the Ethical gig didn’t really fly.
Tell us about the least appropriate brand name you have seen.
Well, there’s this one that claims to be British, but…
I started watching the debate about 2O minutes ago. It is quite clear that none of them knows what they are talking about. Backbenchers stand up, make a point in a serious voice , their colleagues nod sagely, Cameron puts on his serious face and replies , when all the time these bloated airheads know sweet Fanny Adams about most things. I have switched off. A waste of time.
Perhaps I watched for the same time as you did Grant. A depressing shambles, all over the place, like children. I shudder to think that the lives of our service men and women are connected to the deliberations of these fools. I believe in Parliamentary democracy, but it requires informed debate.
G.W.F. I find it very shameful and embarrassing. This is meant to be the ” Mother of all Parliaments “.
It has been this way for a long time. I remember listening to the debate regarding the Iraq invasion. Stuffed full of the same regurgitated and regularly debunked lies. The wanton ignorance on display was utterly embarrasing. Those MPs were utterly clueless as to what was happening in Iraq.
It is the same today over this debate on bombing Syria. Utterly clueless ignorant dolts spouting something, anything, to be seen to be doing something.
I do not advocate any particular scenario. I only judge upon what the objective outcome that our leader wish to achieve, and if the strategy and tactics applied are likely to be successful in achieving the desired outcome.
The impression of being a caring, virtuous leader, respectful of Islam, and holding a desire to avoid civilian casualties, whilst engaging in a restricted, minimal campaign of bombing, whilst holding out a delusional hope of civilising enough Islamic barbarians to ally with to defeat the Islamic State on the ground, is pure horseshit. That strategy is doomed to fail. It is looking increasingly like they actually want to fail.
What do we need to do to actually win? Firstly scrap all this nothing to do with Islam bullshit. If the leaders in the west really do not want the carnage of Paris repeating in our cities, then they have to get real. Stop the “innocent civilian” handwringing. If they really want to win this? (which I am not convinced by them of that at all), then they have to consider all people in the territory held by Islamic State to be enemies. ALL of them. None of them are innocent civilians. We have to obliterate their cities in their entirity. Before we do that though, we need to eliminate the Islamist threat at home. Stop pandering to Islam in the UK.
That is the reality of the situation. We have been led so badly by ignorant dolts for so long, that they have led us to this point in a clash of civilasations. We cannot back out of war, because they will continue to wage war upon us, whatever we decide. So war it is. We must win, by whatever means necessary, with no weapon, no strategy and no tactics left off the table.
4 more arrests in Luton today; although not linked to Paris – (nothing ever is).
As for the ‘discussion’ in Parliament, why didn’t any one of the spineless wonders just get up and say…….. “I thought we were hear to debate attacking ISIS, not indulging in demanding playground apologies”. I thought the number of MPs who were spitting feathers over a couple of words was pretty pathetic, and after seeing Alex Salmond spraying spit everywhere with his demands, I would have punched his lights out myself had I been there !
They are just a bunch of little kids and we don’t need them.
Yes Geyza, If you are incapable of recognizing your enemy, or even admitting who your enemy actually is, elaborating grand strategems and making token gestures is a useful displacement activity. What’s the point in spending hundreds of billions on armed forces if they can’t do what they are intended to do – kill the enemy in large numbers while avoiding casualties themselves. If you believe the army are armed social workers, this truth is no doubt shocking. Thinking about the unpleasantness of actually winning a war has to be repressed, the “moral high ground” can be reclaimed by waffling about “post-conflict reconstruction strategies”. Of course, the main problem is the immense Muslim 5th column that has been allowed to establish itself in Europe. Camerloon claims that Muslims in Britain are peace-loving, supporters of the West and that refugees from Syria detest ISIS, yet Western troops would not be welcome in Syria. How can this be so? Even in Germany after WWIi, many German nationalists were grateful that Hitler was removed by foreign forces. Clearly Muslims have a greater allegiance to their Muslim coreligionists, no matter how blood thirsty, than to the West. The idea that Muslims would fight fellow Muslims on behalf of the West is ridiculous. The Kurds are fighting ISIS for a state of their own or at least unfettered autonomy . Th fight against ISIS will stop when it no longer threatens that goal. Putin and Assad doing the West a favour by eliminating ISIS is also a pipe-dream. A mini-caliphate directing its activities towards the West, could, I’m sure, be tolerated under some pretext.
I love a bit of irony in the early PM.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34977045?
Maybe A. BBC Editor of Integrity could comment on when it is appropriate to leave stuff out, for reasons such as time, space… or ‘the BBC doesn’t like it either’.
Anyone else disappointed by the standard of comments in this blog, and elsewhere on news programs and talk shows regarding ISIS/Iraq/Syria/Assad. All I hear and read is people putting in their two pennies worth using their, no doubt vast expertise and reference sources of the area, denigrating the Government, the opposition, supporters of action, non supporters of action. From where I stand this appears to be an incredibly complex issue involving multiple factions, none of whom can be relied upon to follow through on any commitments that they may make. All of whom appear to have their own very different agendas. I see a lot of comments of here about what we shouldn’t be doing but, surprisingly, given the clear expertise the writers have, not many suggestions of what should, and pragmatically can, be done. We should/should not bomb. What is the alternative positive action that can be taken. We should deal with those inside the UK. How by locking up or deporting every Muslim in the country, only some ? I confess I don’t have the answers either but I would like to think that I at least I recognize the complexity of the issue.
By the way I have seen several comments on the RN Aircraft Carriers. As I understand it their are no aircraft because of the $38 billion black whole in the MOD budget, caused mainly through the mismanagement of contracts. I used to work with a former senior RAF pilot, who worked on a number of development programs who said that the MOD were absolutely impossible to work with. Constantly changing requirements and specifications, in some cases costing millions with no, or even a detrimental, affect on project capability. I also have to add that I believe that the reason the Carriers were commissioned had nothing to do with our defence requirements and everything to do with Gordon Brown’s wish to maintain employment of ship builders in Scotland.
There are indeed a wide variety of opinions expressed on this site. Whether they are right, wrong or somewhere inbetween is largely irrelevant. Long may it continue, given the Single World Groupthink Propaganda of the BBC!
To quote Alan Duncan, if you’re not confused by the issue you don’t understand….
It’s very difficult to be pragmatic if you don’t know all the facts, Saudi is probably behind all this, but we don’t know how. Calling IS Daesh is also probably a nod to them, purposely dropping the Islamic link with the terror organisation.
Daesh is just the arabic acronym for ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah so it is still ‘Islamic’ but one step removed to western ears.
It’s a bit like calling the British Broadcasting Corporation the BBC, it hides the fact that it has anything to do with Britain apart from being funded by the British. That works so well that even its employees and contracted ‘talent’ don’t make the connection!
It is the same with when terrorists scream Allah hu’ackbar. The BBC censors this and the closest they will ever come to reporting it is reporting , “They were heard to say God is great in Arabic” Or as was reported in one report I heard, they only reported, “They shouted God is great” and left out everything to do with the faith, origin or motivations of the killers.
The BBC will do anything to wilfully lie to the public by utterly misrepresenting what actually happened and why.
I think that the whole concept of solutions is inappropriate to politics. There are various possible paths, and arguments in favour of one path rather than another, but even in hindsight historians will argue over whether the right decision was made.
As a rule of thumb decisions based on ideology rather than reality are bad, decisions based on reality rather than ideology are good.
Ace:
The reason two large aircraft carriers were ordered was because in 1998 a Defence Review concluded, rightly imo, that future employment of British forces would most likely be expeditionary, rather than confined to the NATO area, and that therefore it was necessary to have the ability to take modern aircraft along. This was sensible, but the subsequent history of the project has been depressing.
Firstly, the Labour government took years to order the ships, then they slowed up the build to save money in the short term, but of course it costs more in the long term.
Then they selected the F35B rather than build the carriers with catapults and arrester wires, so now we are stuck with huge carriers which can only operate that one type of aeroplane. The reasons for this are complex, but I feel they derive from pressure from the RAF that the Royal Navy should not have a cheaper alternative such as the Super Hornet, when the RAF wanted to buy F35s.
Really we should by now have two carriers in service, each embarking Super Hornets, at a saving of several billions. Instead, we have no carriers, but at least the fact that they are late might, possibly, mean the F35B will be ready when they are. If we are very lucky.
Hi Rob. Sorry I have absolutely no faith in so called defence reviews. As far as I am concerned their primary objective is not to determine what the optimum requirements of the Armed Forces are, but to find ways of reducing cost and saving money. Every single review has significantly reduced the amount of money available. You would think in any rational reviews that were fairly undertaken, that on occasion it would be determined that more money had to be spent. Needless to say that is not even a consideration.
You mention in your response that you agreed with the decision as any future employment of British forces would most likely be expeditionary, rather than confined to the NATO areas. Not sure the Middle East, Africa, and the South Atlantic constitutes NATO areas. So we have always had an expeditionary element. Friends I have spoken to in the Armed Forces have severe reservations that a hugely expensive warship, which is very vulnerable unless protected by a significantly sized battle group, is the right answer. From what I have read the minimum requirements for protection will be a guided missile destroyer, a frigate preferably two, a couple of mine sweepers, a support ship and at least one, preferably two, hunter killer submarines. I wonder where those resources will be found in our rapidly reducing fleet. The Falklands should have taught us a lesson. As one analyst during the war said, you can have the most sophisticated expensive warship possible, but it can be destroyed by one Exocet costing £500,000, and if you use 20 Exocets, it still costs only £10m. And the cost of the Carrier is 5/6 billion ?
I think this is more of an ego trip for senior Naval officers and politicians. We couldn’t even afford to run the existing smaller carriers. One of the most depressing tours I ever went on was around Portsmouth harbour to ‘see the fleet’. Except it consisted of one frigate, three minesweepers, a moth balled carrier, some destroyers that had already been sold to another country, and others that had been sold for scrap. One American on the boat turned to no one in particular and incredulously asked if this was it, the might of the Royal Navy ? I await with interest 2020 and our new strike force.
I suspect another reason for the reduction in our Fleet and their capability is more to do with requiring that the UK cannot maintain an independent military so that we become reliant on being part of the EU military. If we are stupid enough to vote to remain in the EU, you can guarantee that the Europhiles in parliament will take that as an actual vote for much more integration, and our military will cease to be Her Majesty’s miltary, and will very quickly be handed over to the EU to be part of theirs.
The result of that vote will determine if I remain in this country or not. I do not want to be part of the EU at all, yet I want to grow old, retire and eventually die in this, the country of my birth.
If we make the fatal mistake of voting to remain in the EU, I will lose my country. I will sell my house and emmigrate. I do not know where yet, but anywhere where there is free competitive markets, democracy and liberty will be my criteria.
Ace:
I would agree with you about most Defence Reviews, but I do feel the 1998 Review was correct abour expeditionary warfare and the need for proper sized carriers. It was not an Admiralty ego trip, and if the politicians had handled it properly, the ships would be in service now operating very effective and cheap FA18s. As to the Falklands, the lesson was surely that if you are operating out of range of your land based air, you absolutley need carriers, and the bigger the better. They are not particularly vulnerable ships, and I agree that a carrier group would normally include a destroyer, two frigates and a sub, but they would be there anyway, but with a carrier they are far more effective.
As to what we can “afford”, we can afford whatever politicians want us to. It seems we can “afford” billions in foreign aid, contributions to the EU, and welfare payments to foreigners. I would rather we decided to afford proper national defence, but then I am rather old fashioned in my views.
In summary, I feel the decision to build two large carriers was correct, the decision to build them without catapults and arrestors was wrong. They will still be very useful when they finally enter service, but they should have been in service now, and the fact that the fool Cameron allowed a ten year “carrier holiday” in 2010, because he was happy to take that risk, just shows what a cretin the man is.
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/12/so-bob-geldof-where-are-your-refugees/
Maybe one for Newsnight and Panorama to fight over ‘investigating’, if time or space can be found, natch.
Only the BBC would head up the midday news on such a day by conflating a Parliamentary debate about the bombing of Syria with the offence taken by Alex Salmond about being labelled a terrorist sympathiser.
Corbyn supported the IRA, supports Hamas and Hezbollah-and thinks we should not have killed either Bin Laden or Jihadi John.
His deputy reckons that Mao is worth following in terms of economics-and if that leads to Tiananmen, then that`ll be fine.
Salmond himself is in Bonnie Prince Charlie mode as he coins it in, at our expense-for someone who wants self-rule for Scotland, he clearly prefers to be nearer the woolsack where the baubies and baubles are to be found.
And WE don`t want the fat grub here, but here he is-and the BBC hang on his every word,
And didn`t Salmond send Magrabhi home for four rested years after the trauma of being pampered in Scotland-accused of killing Yank students, so a noble cause as far as Ken ,George G. Alex, Jez and the like are concerned.
In my view, Cameron is not causing NEAR enough offence to these traitors-the Tories are quiescent, we need Owen Paterson and Michael Gove back with the gloves off…this time.
chrisH , you will find that Salmond follows the money, booze and best restaurants. When he was First Minister here he had, on top of his normal expenses, a £400 pcm allowance which he did not have to account for. One time he charged for an expensive pair of tartan trews for a trip to China and forgot to pack them. Some journalist pursued this and Salmond denied it until the evidence was overwhelming and he claims he repaid the money. He is a repulsive venal creature who I would not even wish on the english !
Typical deflection and political point scoring from the BBC, I’m afraid Chris. Although I agree with Cameron about the allegiances of some of the opposition, the whole affair was just part of the rough and tumble of The House of Commons. As were Corbyn’s demands for an apology. Not really an issue at all. But then I’ve long given up on the concept of the BBC as a news service.
Salmond must have been holding his breath for some considerable time behind his copy of the SNP manifesto in order to achieve that ‘suffused with justifiable outrage’ look. What a clever little fat chap he is to be sure, but he really must guard against being too theatrical – think of the loss to politics if he were to bring on a genuine coronary through over-acting.
BBC have a page where the UK parties stand on Syrian strikes. Of course there had to be a mug shot of Caroline Lucas and her Green Party, despite the fact UKIP having twice as many votes than them in the last election and no photo of Douglas Carswell. Also no photos for the SDLP and Ulster Unionists who have more MP’s than the Green’s single, but I suppose the BBC must have a picture of miserable Lucas who looks like a bag full of spanners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34710658
It was a lot more than twice. UKIP got more votes than the greens and the SNP and the Lib Dems COMBINED!
Caroline Lucas is not even the party leader. But she does look like a Pixie, so that is worth putting her picture in the article
The penny dropped last night why her photo was there. BBC GENDER EQUALITY OF COURSE.
Nobody in the real world cares if Cameron said that not supporting military action makes you a terrorist sympathizer.
Nobody.
The BBC are simply spin merchants for the Left. It was inevitable that they would make THAT the political story rather than the issue itself.
Wild, I slightly disagree with you. There are many who rely on Cameron telling lies, and they feel comfortable and know where they stand in the whole political arena based on the safe assumption that he is probably lying…
So when he tells the truth about something, as he did with regards to “terrorist sympathisers”, it throws them off their guard and confuses them.
A little early Christmas gift from me, to share with you all !
Once upon a time the BBC was a decent organisation which could produce work that should have stood the test of time. One of its composers Victor Hely Hutchinson composed the first carol symphony ever in 1927, his biography is short, but a true Englishman who died tragically early sacrificing his life in the service of his country by refusing to use his coal ration at a time of shortage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Hely-Hutchinson
The Symphony is very English, and has little cues to Vaughn Williams (or maybe the other way around) It has been used by the BBC decades ago, but now it’s far to English for the Fascists to want to bring it to public attention. It falls to us therefore to remember it, and the man who created it, and a once great corporation.
Glorious. Thank you Thoughtful. I didn’t know that piece nor the composer’s name.
Excellent. Thanks.
British music rocks! The first 4 minutes are timeless
Too many notes.
Geyza , a quote from “Amadeus” I believe ?
Full – on campaign now to have ‘Islamic State’ ‘IS’ ‘ISIL’ all redundant and go with ‘Daesh’
Pushed by the fat Scottish oaf and backed up by every Lefty Maverick and effnik MP, this is all about getting Islam and Muslim removed from the public discourse.
Saudi have been pushing for this for some time now. Follow the money trail and expect to see Jimmy Krankie receiving some soon unless she’s so on message as a useful idiot she’ll do it without any sweeteners.
“this is all about getting Islam and Muslim removed from the public discourse.”
TR, It might be that they’ve seen the poster of Ronald Reagan with the caption: “If I was still President ISIS would be WASWAS”.
Is that why they are disguising themselves as rubber ducks?
We’ve published a little article entitled: Daesh is a distraction
(Wish we had thought of the Voldemort analogy ourselves, though!)
You may care to read it at:
http://wisermonkeys.uk/islam.html#daesh
Just been watching the live debate. Someone asked Cameron to apologise for calling those who will vote no to the bombings terrorist sympathisers. Apparently there is a list going round with their name son it and the person said he can’t find anyone on the list who is a terrorist sympathiser. I can name half a dozen straight away! Maybe he should look closer or buy some specs
I am looking forward to the BBC reaction when Cameron wins the vote. The bastards have to report it and can’t spin it, or can they ?
Cameron will win it I expect but that does not make it a sensible policy for us. It seems as if opposition is as much from the old right as from the usual suspects.
On the right I look for only national interest and am guided by that alone. That means ,in my opinion, that Assad must be maintained in power and allowed to take back control of Syria. His tyrannical; ways are of no concern to us if they do not affect our interests.
So that means an alliance with Russia makes real sense. Nato is now unreliable and might not now serve our interests. I have no interest in EU needs other than how they might affect us. Mrs Mekel has destabalised central Europe and that makes Germany now unreliable as an ally over this. Turkey is in the grip of am Islamist leadership and is now equally unreliable.
The US looks impotent and Obama is out of his depth.
So in conclusion the national interest, in my opinion, demands that we ally with Russia and if necessary leave Nato to it’s impotent devices.
Won’t happen of course but it is a coherent policy and one which puts this country’s needs first .
Dave S, Makes sense to me too ! Although I am not sure the Russians would be more reliable allies than anyone else. I am not sure why we are getting involved in this at all when so little is done about the terrorists in the UK . I really don’t think the idiot politicians take this seriously. For them it is just a game.
Agreed Dave. You seem to suffer from the same 21st century affliction I suffer from. It used to be a highly saught after quality, but these days, it feels more like an affliction. I refer, of course, to having common sense.
I thought I heard a BBC announcer say that they would be broadcasting ALL NIGHT on Thursday to cover the Oldham bye-election????
I cannot remember this happening before for a bye-election-what can it mean?
Are the Left-Liberals really worried at the possible erosion of the Liebore voting base in Oldham? Do they believe that they might shore up the vote by the promise of on-the-spot reportage ,even when the polling stations have closed?
They are s******g themselves that Liebore have LOST the white working-class vote …but , fear not! ,some Liebore clown has already declared that they will win ‘because of the Asian vote’ (this while various commentators have noted the large number of Asian voters who do not speak English).
I am sure these ‘communities’ have already extracted promises from Liebore and that ,as we speak , their ‘elders’ are telling their people to vote early and vote often to support Liebore once the dodgy postal votes have been sent out.
Tory voters should take note that a vote for Camoron and his traitorous bunch will merely aid Liebore on their way .
There is only one way to vote and that begins with a ‘U’ and ends with a ‘P’.
“I cannot remember this happening before for a bye-election-what can it mean?”
It means that if things are looking bad for the LieBore candidate they will have plenty of warning to dig out the spare sacks of postal votes.
I would love to know what % of the postal vote goes to Labour.
120%!
Nice one Peter.
Weird thing is, everyone knows this goes on but no-one does anything about it. I got a postal vote for the 2010 election and I automatically now get one every year. It is just an obvious point of corrupt practice.
The Tories should be all over this as it is doing them out of votes, yet we hear nothing.
http://britain-watch.co.uk/2013/11/electoral-fraud/
Obviously Al-Beeb are not going to be investigating and finding evidence against their own buddies.
Peter, LOL ! I no longer have any confidence in UK election results anyway.
What perhaps is more important is why it goes to Labour and how that comes about.
As an utterly corrupt party bereft of moral values, I was hearing stories of Pakistani & Muslim self appointed community leaders holding wads of uncrossed but signed postal votes up to candidates and asking them what they were going to do for them and their community.
Nu Labour candidate kept schtum about this happening, but others didn’t. Effectively Labour MPs are in some cases being bought. But then it can’t be happening because bribery & corruption doesn’t happen in England so it can’t be happening – just like it isn’t happening in Europe, and just like it wasn’t happening at FIFA – until another country had to come and show us that it actually was happening.
In the whole of Europe we simply cannot deal with even the possibility of corruption, which is why it is flourishing.
On TWATo today the fat bastard Mardell introduced ‘Baroness’ Scotland without referring to her conviction and fine of £5k for having employed an illegal immigrant.
Would Lardy Mardell be so kind to a Tory, or worse, UKIP malefactor?
Oh no, I forgot, she was a ZaNuLab ‘minister’.
Apparently Labour MP Angela Raynor has spoken out that will be voting against bombing Syria. The (air) force is apparently not strong with this one !
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11984305/Angela-Rayner-shoes-row-A-bad-case-of-Do-you-know-who-I-am-syndrome.html
What a vile bitch. But the worst aspect is using taxpayer-funded Commons notepaper for a personal matter. It shows a corrupt mindset.
Absolutely typical and just a variation of the ‘entitlement’ culture the left so want to perpetuate in the masses, and so successfully demonstrated by the bBBC management in all their pronouncements.
If you want to see bBBC bias at its zenith look at the top rated remarks in today’s HYS on the proposed Syria campaign.
The hard left have really got the troops out onto the website. Vindictive, nihilistic messages get top votes, yet offer no realistic alternatives beyond lighting candles, holding hands, a bit of friendly rioting and singing “Give Peace a Chance”. Morally and intellectually bankrupt pacifism whose hard left purpose is to undermine the Western market economic model yet masquerading under technocratic arguments as to the detailed merits of Syria policy. And constantly given free uncritical rein by Al-Beeb.
Isn’t it funny how Far Left peace demonstrations, and any other demonstration they’re involved in come to that, are also paradoxically extremely violent?
As predicted, DV and indeed the entire Al beeb (and Sky) rat pack are all screaming at the top their lungs that ” public opinion” is turning against the UK bombing IS terrorist scum is Syria _ Keunssberg is twittering away furiously about Cameroon and his jibe about “terrorist sympathisers”, and meanwhile Momentum are pounding away at Liebour defectors on social media. To his great credit Alan Johnson has just stood up and called them out – “that finger pointing crew of the new kinder politics”. If nothing else, watching Alex Salmond display his “righteous indignation ” has been worth the time spent with Al Beeb thus far.
I missed the early part of the debate and switched to the BBC News Channel – the side bar consisted of the sort of comments from Kuenssberg et all that you describe plus comments from Labour MPs, opposed. Five or six comments putting the government on the back foot to one from Cameron was what the BBC seemed to be feeding the viewer so I turned over to the Parliament Channel to watch the debate without the BBC’s interpretation and make my own mind up.
Incidentally having done so, I watched the deeply impressive speech by Margaret Becket (I never thought I’d say that. No doubt, though, the BBC will be more interested in the speech by Julian Lewis, the Tory anti. Despite it being rambling, out of touch and unimpressive…I’ve no doubt that the BBC will be using it later and inviting Lewis along to their studios. I wonder what it is about Lewis that the BBC will like.
Has Kuenssberg previously had a stroke?
Her lower mouth hangs down at one side markedly.
The BBC’s understanding of public opinion goes no further than Twitter and the carefully vetted audiences of Question Time, Any Questions and that Godawful Sunday morning programme on TV.
The debate about joining the bomb-fest in Syria once again indicates how clueless most UK politicians are about ‘ realpolitik’ as regards the factionism, tribalism, ethnic and religious splits that characterise the Middle East both today and historically. Just as frightening is the refusal to recognise that Russia has legitimate concerns about western expansion eastwards via the EU and NATO. In the meantime serious concerns about security in the UK are rubbished as racism or Nazism. But hey, who would want a debate when you can have a load of self-serving political and media waffle?
Why the f**k is the licence payer shelling out for the BBC’s “100 Women” ?
It seems to be the brainchild of a BBC type Fiona Crack and has been running for the last 3 years instigated after the Delhi Gang Rapes (disgusting as those acts were Fiona nor anyone else at the BBC clearly felt compelled to respond in kind to the 1200 raped underage girls a little closer to home) and by the looks of things IT COSTS…especially with supposed BBC expenditure issues and the BBC’s threat to shut down services. It doesn’t add up figuratively nor financially.
I notice part of the large team working on this vanity project is a Lesley Sixsmith. Surely not Martin’s daughter? I’m sure I’m wrong. The BBC doesn’t do nepotism. I don’t know where I got that idea from. If she is, then why doesnt she pass her job on to another woman who is not related to a BBC big wig and show some true solidarity to the sisterhood.
Better still why doesn’t the team f**k off up to Rotherham and do some real leg work with in-depth investigation in to this enormous vicious rape factory of young women?
“1200+ Systematically Raped Working Class Girls” isn’t such a right-on subject I guess when preening yourself at North London supper parties.
Could of course be a false flag, but in the spirit of ‘critics are saying’, sources not very close to the BBC think this may bear investigation. Given the bio and sentiments, what are the odds? The BBC can’t really complain as it is not averse to making connection when they fancy, and it’s not like other staff have not started beyond those loose guidelines….
http://bbcwatch.org/2015/12/02/does-offensive-twitter-account-belong-to-a-bbc-employee/
No ‘views my own’ which secures an immediate get out of everything free pass, but even without, the BBC will likely decide no one outside their transparent bunker needs to know a thing.
‘the issue of someone posing as a BBC employee on social media and thereby bringing the corporation into disrepute also clearly warrants action’
Love it. I think I may need a small moment to compose myself.
Good spot, GW.
Just imagine the self-righteous indignation from the BBC had he been an Israel-supporting Fox News cameraman calling for the nuking of Gaza – repeated on the hour, every hour for days on end, laden with the usual proxy interviewee quotes calling for his sacking (and worse).
Instead it’ll be along the lines of….. ‘We think he got it about right’.
Four men from Luton have been arrested on suspicion of terrorism offences.
Bloody Quakers at it again…
It is not right that you should blame people who have never ever put explosive material in their Quaker oats. I eat oats more or less everyday, and can vouch for its authencity and freedom from C4.
I blame the Amish .
Proof that BBC presenters live in a different world? Laurie Taylor on Thinking Allowed tells us that sometimes his students said that they really like a film or even really, really, really like a film.
Taylor believes that they thought that the film expressed something special about the ‘reality’ of life, socialist suffering I expect. Unless his students really, really, really are brainwashed in the ways of newspeak I would have thought that they were just saying that they liked the film a lot.
The really really really insufferable Laurie Taylor.
When he spoke once enthusiastically of a “lively and diverse area” I screamed in agony (having lived in “lively and diverse” Peckham and hating every minute of that lively and diverse shit-hole) I switched “Thinking Alloud” off permanently.
I really really really don’t miss Thinking Aloud…nor Peckham.
Laurie Taylor is the sort of person that gives stupid people a bad name.
“A moron in a hurry.” as an old work mate would say.
I was embarrassed by him once on air – and a cheap shot it was at that. I can reveal the great man’s nickname among hapless workmates was “the incredible talking man”. When he talks, he goes on and on and on and on….
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/dec/01/bbc-trust-chair-pledges-intelligent-reform-as-part-of-new-royal-charter
Major speech by Rona Fairhead yesterday seems to have been missed on these pages.
7 days ago the insulated out of touch woman actually said “There is “next-to-no public appetite” for radical change at the BBC”
http://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2015/11/25/next-to-no-appetite-for-radical-change-at-the-bbc-rona-fairhead/
And I thought Patten was hopeless as chair of governors, but this woman take useless and inept to another level !
What she meant to say is ” At the BBC there is no appetite for radical change “.
Perhaps what she means is ‘We here at the BBC, despite extensive use of our very own Memory Hole facility, our recruitment of presenters and correspondents with a predominant far-left mindset, strategic partnerships with environmental activists and political pressure groups masquerading as charities, selective reporting of the news and frequent re-writings of history, have still managed successfully to dupe the public into believing we are truly impartial and unbiased’.
Radical change….like giving people the freedom to choose.
1,140 managers at the BBC are paid over £67,000 a year, and 126 are on over 142,500, plus nice big fat pensions, what incentive is there for the BBC to change if people are forced by law to pay for that 24/7 Guardian reader pro-Labour Party crap.
BBC = public sector gravy train + leftist political propaganda