The Guardian never fails us…or its chums at the BBC.
The reason the BBC allowed Savile to rape and abuse young boys and girls was that the BBC were under siege from Thatcher and her ilk…..why is it always Thatcher’s fault?
Dame Janet has ploughed through 375 witnesses over three years. She has documented four Savile rapes and some 61 sexual assaults in corporation corridors, kitchens, dressing rooms and studios scattered far and wide. And yet she concludes that “nobody in a senior position at the BBC was ever aware of information that could have led to, or assisted in, the prosecution of Savile. Prosecution and imprisonment was the only way to stop him.”
How can this possibly be?
“A deference” down the line that stifled allegations about Savile in a trice. He was “talent” (like other offenders from the same putrid pod). He seemingly couldn’t be stopped, sacked or prosecuted. He was special. Therefore he had to be defended, like the broadcasting giant he served, because – then, in the 1970s, as now – it was under attack.
Those attacks come now, as they came then, from politicians seeking to bully the state broadcaster. They impose unwanted governance by Downing Street démarche. They threaten the BBC’s future – and find ready supporters in Fleet Street. Deference up and down the chain; defensiveness as a dominant posture; a culture of loyalty and mute embarrassment; a determination to survive by rocking as few boats as possible. In today’s terms, the BBC of the 70s and 80s was already a powerful brand: a brand under siege that had to be protected.
Ironically the Guardian’s reaction provides the real answer….the closed world of like-minded chums who don’t want to admit blame and take the responsibility and have other mates in the media to cover up for them.
The Guardian goes on…
Institutions under attack build walls around themselves. They repel controversy. They create sheltered places where bad things can happen. And their external fear translates into an internal dread of nasty news. It’s the job of journalists to open up these worlds – a job failed in Savile’s case over decades, and tragically let slide by a defensive Newsnight.
And if those journalists fail to do their job who is then left to rein in the BBC? The politicians. The reason politicians complain about the BBC so much is because there is so much to complain about. If the BBC journalists were doing their jobs there would be little to complain of but instead they use their privileged positions at the BBC to peddle their own political views and ideologies. Any wonder they come under scrutiny, especially when they produce reports that whitewash the BBC’s role in Savile’s crimes.
And in reference to the BBC and its whitewash Alex Feltham in the comments links us to this…..
Even those familiar with the BBC’s twisted morality were stunned.
The leaked £10m investigation into Jimmy Savile’s four decade career of paedophilia, sexual assault and rape at the BBC finds that absolutely nobody was responsible. Apparently no manager up to and including the Director-General himself could have done anything to stop this monster pervert stalking the corridors of the BBC. In the words of Dame Janet Smith who wrote the report, “I do not think that the BBC can be criticized for failing to uncover Savile’s sexual deviancy.”
Just imagine what the BBC’s own journalists would make of such a story if the abuser was Willliam Hague and the organization was the Conservative Party? At the very least they would be pushing for the abolition of the Conservative Party and probably of the very concept of conservatism itself. Somehow I don’t think they’ll be taking such an uncompromising line with themselves when the report is officially released.
But you shouldn’t run away with the idea that nobody at the BBC has been held accountable. In the wake of the scandal the BBC has forced out at least 4 employees. It turns out that there are limits to what even the BBC will tolerate. And that limit isn’t the practice of paedophilia on the premises but disloyalty to the cause. The BBC constructively dismissed those who actually had done the right thing and (very belatedly) exposed Savile. Meirion Jones and Liz Mackean who worked on a Newsnight piece which was blocked by their editor Peter Rippon, and Tom Giles and Peter Horrocks who made a Panorama episode on the same subject were left in no doubt that they had no future at the Beeb.
This is an even greater scandal in its way than the original Savile outrage. After all, the only defence of senior BBC bosses over their inaction on Savile was that they were unaware of his crimes. But if that were true, how can they justify destroying the careers of those people who fought to bring those crimes to light?
The Norway Option will keep appearing in the EU referendum debate so here are some useful links explaining what it’s all about.
What is the Norway Option?
The Norway Option is a move whereby the UK gives up EU membership by invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and moves to a position in the European Economic Area which essentially only participates in the single market and therefore the four freedoms of movement, goods, capital and people but is not engaged in political union. EEA countries are Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, but as Norway is the biggest country in the group, any proposed shift by the UK to this position gets labelled as The Norway Option.
In order to join the EEA, the UK would probably first join EFTA (of which Switzerland is also a member) although that particular move depends on Brexit negotiations.
A quick comparison of the Norway Option and Britain’s current EU membership:
Like all those political exemptions….and most people would probably agree. Norway seems to have a pretty good deal but the BBC likes to concentrate mainly on the economic consequences of Brexit…or I should say the supposed consequences…There will be winners and losers in either scenario but in the end not much will change economically…but the BBC, as in Bloom’s misleading report, cherry-picks alarmist scenarios that paint a highly negative picture of leaving the EU.
To most people this is not about economics [The billions we plough into the EU might come in handy though] and more to do with the politics, sovereignty, the ECJ, immigration and control of your own country to a much higher extent than being subsumed inside the EU would, or does, allow.
The BBC of course would find it hard to quantify such feelings [Though 4 million votes for UKIP might have helped them] and in reality doesn’t try too hard to do so preferring instead to settle for labelling the sceptics racist little Englanders.
Balance, who needs it when you are completely unaccountable.
Norway and the EU enjoy good and close relations, although Norway is not a member of the European Union. The Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) is the mainstay of our cooperation, and it ensures that Norway takes part in the EU internal market. We are also part of the Schengen Agreement and cooperate with the EU on foreign and security policy issues.
Through the EEA Agreement, the three EFTA states Norway, Iceland and Liechten-stein are equal partners in the EU internal market, on the same terms as the EU member states. Moreover, the Agreement also covers cooperation in other important areas such as research and development, education, social policy, the environment, consumer protection, tourism and culture. It also enables the three EEA EFTA states to participate in various EU programmes. Norway also participates in the activities of a number of EU agencies through provisions in the EEA Agreement or on the basis of bilateral agreements.
The BBC likes to come up with the alarmist scenario that on leaving the EU we will still be subject to their regulations on products if we want to export to them…..therefore we might as well stay in the EU….or on that logic we might as well be the 51st State……[never mind many rules and regulations are imposed due to world-wide trade or political agreements on subjects such as energy efficiency, climate and safety and will be imposed whether or not you are in the EU]
Want to export to the USA? Here’s some regulations you have to obey to do so……
The USA.gov website has a full list of US federal agencies.
Check the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to find out what standards apply. The NIST works with industry to develop and apply technology, measurements and standards.
Those damnable Yankees imposing rules and regulations upon businessmen who want to export to the good ole US of A…..listen to the BBC burbling on about the marvels of the EU and the dangers of being out of, or is that in, the EU and you’d never know that the US and all other countries impose stringent conditons upon those who want to export to their countries….if you listen to the BBC the only way to succeed in business is to join the EU for regulation free business….it is regulation free isn’t it?
The BBC’s message is very confused….the EU is great but it imposes regulations that are a nightmare.
Apparently if you are in the EU life for a businessman is a bed of roses…no regulations, no tariffs, no rules or nuffink…..great….oh hang on….if you’re a slinking curr on the outskirts of the great and fabulous EU, like Norway for instance, and you rather tentatively dip your toe into the EU’s waters then you will still be subject to a tsunami of regulations and rules that the EU imposes upon its own businesses….er…..er….what? So at one moment the BBC tells us life will be fantastic for all businessmen if they are in the EU…..but if you’re not fully committed you will still be subject to those fabulous regulations that EU businessmen so enjoy and which makes the EU such a good place to be a member of, however you will suffer under them. That makes a lot of sense…to the BBC, in particular to one BBC journalist…Jonty Bloom, who tells us that if you’re not fully in the EU you’re living a nightmare…..
The business woke up to a nightmare….half of Osos products useless or unsellable.
I first caught Jonty’s jaunty little babble about the EU on FOOC and thought that it was such a one-sided, pro-Europe piece of propaganda I’d have to look further. Apparently the FOOC piece was a mere taster for the full-on indigestible tripe that Bloom would try to force feed us later on.
It was indeed just a foretaster for a much longer programme, but one no more rounded or informative, on the subject of Norway and its relationship with the EU….unfortunately it seemed that Bloom’s aim was political, to persuade us that doing a ‘Norway’ and remaining out of the EU was a bad idea rather than a rounded and intelligent, and accurate, honest, look at not just the Norwegian option but all other options as to how the UK could shape the way it deals with the EU……such as Switzerland..
Switzerland is neither an EU nor EEA member but is part of the single market
Norway isn’t a member of the European Union, but does business with the EU. Is it a model for other countries? Jonty Bloom speaks to people working in a range of businesses – including Norway’s vital fishing industry – and asks about the advantages and disadvantages of the arrangement.
There is not going to be a referendum on joining the European Union in Norway anytime soon, not least because the polls show that up to 85% would vote against joining.
Despite telling us that 85% would vote against joining the EU Bloom brings us the views of two supposedly pro-EU businessmen…..the first a fisherman….which is dishonest in itself as Norway is a member of the EEA, the rules of which do not govern fishing and agriculture and so don’t relate to, or rather negates, this narrative from Bloom that being part of the European Economic Area means you are subject to all of Europe’s rules.
Bloom then goes to a boiler manufacturer whose travails are solely, we are told, due to being suddenly subject to the EU rules on energy efficiency…again, funny how EU rules are a burden and yet the EU is a good thing when it suits.
OSO Hotwater is a maker of central heating boilers just outside Oslo, and a few years ago it woke up to a nightmare. Overnight it discovered that the EU was introducing new environmental and energy efficiency standards that favoured gas powered boilers over electric ones.
As OSO’s boss Sigurd Braathen told me he did the calculations and realised that half of Oso’s products would soon be useless: unsaleable.
Now, as Norway is not a member of the EU, it has no say over these or any other EU rules. It can lobby against them, but it does not sit round the table when they are proposed, discussed, amended, debated, or voted into law.
In theory it has a veto over any legislation but it has never used it, and the consequences of using the veto could be huge.
It [Norway] most certainly does not have a veto over any legislation and yet the consequences can be huge.
Bloom was clearly ridiculed for that mistake, ignorant piece of reporting, complete lie, take your pick, by various commentators and he rewrote his piece…however it is still highly misleading.
Bloom then goes on to explain why being in the EEA means you are still subject to all EU rules and, his main point, that you have no say in how those rules are drawn up……
New machinery and robots that were needed to install better insulation onto the boilers — in all it has cost the company £5m of extra investment.
Now you may be wondering why, with a large domestic market, OSO did not just turn its back on the European Union and its new rules and ignore them. The answer is that it can’t.
This is a key factor of the Norwegian model; Norway is not in the EU, but it is in the European Economic Area (EEA), and technically it is as much a part of the single market as France, Germany or the UK.
As Sigurd told me: “The legislation came from the EU and it was implemented in Norway without any alterations to the way we would have liked it to be.
“It is implemented in Norway in exactly the same way as the rest of the EU and we can get no exceptions and no adaptations to Norwegian conditions. We have difficulties making alterations to any of the legislation we are getting.”
OSO and many other companies in Norway have to follow the rules of the single market even if they have never exported so much as a single widget to the European Union.
That is just one of the costs of Norway’s non-membership of the EU.
It does a higher percentage of its trade with the EU than we in the UK do, in fact more than the vast majority of EU members do.
But it pays hundreds of millions of pounds a year for the right to do that and has to accept all the rules and regulations without a say in how they are made.
So Norway has no influence on EU regulations and rules that effect it?
Decision shaping is the phase of preparatory work undertaken by the European Commission to draw up new legislative proposals. The EEA Agreement contains provisions for input from the EEA EFTA side at various stages before new legislation is adopted.
Bloom wrote..[Norway] ‘can lobby against them, but it does not sit round the table when they are proposed, discussed, amended, debated, or voted into law.’
Not true at all…..Norway has little but not absolutely no say in the decision as to whether the regulations would actually be made law but it has a huge say in how they are drawn up…..
During the decision-making process on the EU side, the EEA EFTA States have little or no formal opportunity to influence the Council or the EP. This is very different from the pre-pipeline or preparatory stage, where the EEA EFTA States take an active part in the decision shaping of EEA legislation.
Once an EC act has gone through the EC procedures and been adopted, the desk officer in the EFTA Secretariat responsible for that area prepares a standard sheet concerning that particular act. The standard sheet is a form which records all references and vital information about the act in question. EFTA experts in the capitals must answer a number of questions, such as whether the act is EEA-relevant, whether it will require technical adaptations for implementation in the EEA EFTA States, and whether it is likely to have constitutional requirements
The contracting parties have not transferred any legislative powers to the EEA Joint Committee. It has therefore been necessary to regulate the situation in which, according to their constitutions, an EEA JCD can only be binding on one or the other contracting party after it has been approved by parliament or by referendum……an EEA JCD can only be binding on one or the other contracting party after it has been approved by parliament or by referendum.
Decisions that have budgetary implications for more than one year will in principle need parliamentary consent in Norway.
So any new laws have to be approved by the Norwegian parliament or by a referendum….so much for no veto and no say.
And what else tells us that Norway has a huge say in any new regulations?…..
The EEA institutions Substantive decisions relating to the EEA Agreement are a joint venture between the EEA EFTA states and the EU. Common bodies, such as the EEA Council and the EEA Joint Committee, have been established to administer the EEA Agreement.
The EEA Agreement is dynamic in character. This means that it is continuously updated and amended to incorporate new internal market legislation in order to maintain common rules across the EEA.
There are approximately 1 000 national experts seconded to the European Commission from the 28 EU Member States, the EFTA States and other countries. See the full list and contact details of the EEA EFTA national experts in this section.
The aim of the arrangement is to supply the Commission with expertise that is not available internally and to be a tool for the European Union to increase and spread knowledge of the European institutions and decision-making process.
When preparing implementing measures and the working plan, the Commission should consult Member States’ representatives as well as interested parties concerned with the product group, such as industry, including SMEs and craft industry, trade unions, traders, retailers, importers, environmental protection groups and consumer organisations.
In addition to the meetings with experts mentioned above, EEA EFTA State representatives have access to the following types of Commission committees in the policy-shaping phase: comitology committees (Article 100 EEA), programme committees (Article 81 EEA) and other committees in very specific areas (Article 101 EEA).
Underlines the importance of Norway as a major supplier of energy to the EU, resulting in more than half of the EU supplies being produced within the European Economic Area; highlights the importance of a regular energy dialogue between the EU and Norway
The Danish Energy Agency and the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE) both provide input to the EU legislative processes for more eco-friendly design and the energy labelling of products. Since 2007, Viegand Maagøe has led and participated in an expert consortium that provides technical assistance in EU negotiations on future legal requirements for products. We have worked to promote Danish and Norwegian interests in the EU and have contributed to promoting ambitious energy requirements for products.
And just how important is the EU market on the scale of things?…….
Over the next ten to 15 years, 90% of world demand will be generated outside Europe. That is why it is a key priority for the EU to tap into this growth potential by opening up market opportunities for European businesses abroad. One way of ensuring this is through negotiating agreements with our key partners.
EU trade negotiations
The EU has successfully concluded a number of important trade agreements with trading partners and is in the process of negotiating agreements with many more.
Does Norway participate actively in policy debates with the EU?……yes of course….
Norway and the EU share the same fundamental values, and face many of the same challenges. Close cooperation at political level is essential to find joint solutions to these challenges.
The EEA and other agreements with the EU shape domestic policies at most levels and in most areas of Norwegian society. It is therefore in our national interest to cooperate closely with the EU and to participate actively in policy debates at European level. In this way, Norway seeks to promote its interests and to contribute to a positive development in Europe.
How about the Norwegian ‘Mission to the EU’? Does that have a reason for its existence?…..
The Mission of Norway to the European Union plays an essential role in the development and implementation of Norway’s policy on Europe. The Mission is also an important centre of expertise on EU and EEA affairs for the Norwegian public administration.
All Norwegian ministries are represented at the Mission, reflecting the broad scope of Norway’s relations with the EU. The Mission has a staff of around 60, of which two thirds are diplomats.
Some of the Mission’s main tasks are to:
Represent the Norwegian Government in Brussels and promote the Government’s policies and positions vis-à-vis the European Union
Identify at the earliest stage possible issues related to the EEA and Schengen cooperation that are of political or economic importance to Norway
Safeguard Norwegian interests in negotiations with the European Commission, the European External Action Service and the Council of the European Union in areas covered by the EEA and Schengen agreements
Work closely with the EU institutions on the further development of the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Common Security and Defence Policy
Increase awareness of Norway’s close ties with the EU, in particular our participation in the internal market.
So it…Represents the Norwegian Government in Brussels and promote the Government’s policies and positions vis-à-vis the European Union and safeguards Norwegian interests in negotiations with the European Commission…I’m guessing they actually speak at these meetings.
Just how much influence might Norway have?…….quite a lot you’d think…..
Norway is the EU’s 5th most important import partner for trade in goods, after China, Russia, USA and Switzerland and the 7th export market for the EU, after the USA, China, Switzerland, Russia, Turkey and Japan.
Norway’s trade with the EU shows a surplus. Norway’s trade flows have traditionally been dominated by trade with the EU, and this trend is being enhanced after the latest EU enlargements.
The EU remains the first major import and export partner for Norway, capturing 74.3% of the latter’s trade.
Interesting that non-aligned Switzerland is ahead of Norway. Just how many cuckoo clocks does Europe need?
Any sign of Norwegian diplomacy in action in the EU?……
Never before have so many Norwegian Government ministers visited Greece than during these last months.
Just in the period between late April and mid-May, eight ministers have participated in the EU’s informal ministerial meetings in Athens. This is an expression of the emphasis the Norwegian Government places on the close relationship and dialogue with the EU and European countries.
For a country that’s not a member of the EU it seems they are allowed a great deal of say in how things are run….not the narrative Bloom and the BBC has been selling us at all.
It took no time at all to Google [tax free] Norway’s influence over policy and regulation making decisions….why did a BBC journalist with all those resources and time behind him not come up with the answers?
The only possibility is because he didn’t want to give us the truth and was solely intent on selling us a ‘nightmare scenario’, ironically, of still being subject to the EU but having no influence over it…a narrative that is demonstrably false.
Can’t be any clearer about the BBC’s dishonesty can we?…oh hang on…Bloom’s in the clear….the BBC hasn’t decided what ‘impartial…accurate….honest…balanced‘ mean yet..they’re having a consultation about that…the result due in February….when the referendum could be held in June….
The BBC Trust is today [ 20.11.2015 ] launching an eight week consultation asking for views on a set of referendum guidelines and a set of election guidelines which will assist BBC journalists and content producers reporting on both the European Union membership referendum and on elections due to take place next May.
We anticipate that the final guidelines for the referendum and for the May 2016 elections will be published in February 2016.
BBC charter review consultation hijacked by left-wing campaign group
The Culture Secretary has been forced to revisit the consultation on the future of the BBC
John Whittingdale, the culture secretary, is to launch a new study of public attitudes towards the BBC, after a consultation into the future of the corporation was hijacked by a left-wing campaigning group.
It has now emerged that 177,000 submissions – 92 per cent of all responses – were sent via 38 Degrees, a “campaigning community” that specialises in organising mass-emails to MPs. The group told its three million members that ministers planned to “rip out the heart of the BBC”, by forcing the corporation to take adverts and ending its independence from government –neither of which are proposed in the green paper.
Not only did 38 Degrees organise the massed response but damningly ‘guided’ the answers that people wrote to the review….which you might think completely undermined any appearance of credibility and honesty…..
The group told its members that it had “translated” the “gobbledegook” questions in the consultation into plain English, and gave them a crib sheet advising people how to respond. One question in the green paper asked, “How well is the BBC serving its audiences?”, which 38 Degrees told its members to answer as “Which parts of the BBC do you particularly love?”.
A question asking whether the corporation had a negative impact on any of its commercial rivals was described as: “If you value having independent news that comes without adverts, you could write about that here.”
Nolan then went on to Google and tax…..we had Edwina Currie putting up an excellent and reasoned defence and someone from Labour who didn’t have a clue about the corporate tax system in the UK but that didn’t stop her declaring emphatically that Google wasn’t paying its legal tax requirement….a classic claim from her was ‘I don’t know but I don’t think so.’
Nolan also seemed rather unversed in said tax system and declared, when Currie said Google were paying what was legally required and were based in Ireland, that this inconvenient legal fact was a ‘red herring’ and that Google weren’t paying what was morally right for them to pay.
Morally right? Wasn’t that Labour’s mantra…ala Hodge the Dodge? Always knew BBC journalists were the new priesthood…and scarily think of themselves in that way.
Jim Naughtie treated us to his syruppy pro-indendence tones this morning on the Today programme (08:42-ish) as he told us that there was ‘an enticing prospect’ of Scotland voting to stay in Europe…whilst England voted to leave.
Enticing for who exactly?
Naughtie also told us that Nicola Sturgeon was ‘exceptionally cautious’ about raising the prospect of another independence referendum, LOL… but…she may be ‘pushed’ into that position if the EU vote, in the UK, went against the Scot’s wishes. Which is curious as the Today blurb, and indeed Sarah Montague in the trail for Naughtie’s piece, tells us she ‘has indicated she will push for a second independence referendum if Scotland votes to stay in the EU while the rest of the UK votes to come out.’
Sturgeon ‘Pushing’ for a second referendum doesn’t sound too much like ‘exceptionally cautious’ or being her being ‘pushed to’ ask for a referendum.
Hmmm, and he saw no contradiction in all this…Scotland voted to stay in the UK and therefore should abide by the result of a UK vote which is based upon a UK wide electorate not on a regional basis. Seems that Sturgeon, and Naughtie are just trying to slyly build a case to justify another referendum. The polls ask the question ‘Should the UK stay in the EU?‘ not should Scotland stay?
Support among Scots for the UK remaining in the European Union is at its highest level yet, an STV poll has revealed.
Why did Naughtie play a clip of Scotland’s National Socialist blackshirts attacking Farage to illustrate how Scotland is so anti-EU? One, I don’t think those National socialist bootboys are representative of Scotland and two, was their thuggishness in support of the EU or just racism against someone who is blatantly English?….after all Salmond has based his entire career upon anti-English rabble rousing, hate-mongering.
Liked the claim that tourists coming to Scotland were sent here by the benevolent EU commissars and that they paid for the pontoons that allowed the tourist to come ashore….well they paid for it with money sent to the EU by the UK….the EU takes its enormous cut which it generously gives in lavish quantities to its bureaucrats before handing what remains back to us whilst demanding we thank them for their charity. Would it not be better we cut out the troughing middle-men and just send the money direct from the UK government? I’m sure tourists would still come to Scotland whether or not shipped in by the EU en masse.
Naughtie tells us that the debate on the EU is ‘complicated’…a narrative that the BBC’s other pro-Europe lobbyist, Jonty Bloom (see later), likes to peddle.
It’s a rotating door between the left wing press and the BBC. The Spectator reports;
The Guardian set tongues wagging across Westminster in December when its editor Katharine Viner appointed two women to share the role of political editor. Although the paper’s chief political correspondent Nicholas Watt had been seen as the favourite to succeed Patrick Wintour, Sky News‘s Anushka Asthana and Observer economics editor Heather Stewart were offered the role as a job-share, after applying together.
Happily Watt appeared to be gracious in defeat. While he tweeted that he was ‘disappointed’ to miss out on the role, he said he was looking forward to working with the ‘formidable duo’.
Alas word reaches Steerpike that Watt may not have much time working for Asthana and Stewart after all. Mr S understands that Watt is being lined up to join Newsnight as the show’s new political editor. He would fill the vacancy left by Allegra Stratton — who is also a former Guardian employee — after she stepped down as political editor to join ITV News as their National Editor this month.
Strikes me, and I know many of you share this view, that the BBC is the broadcast version of The Guardian,
“Lancashire Police have “condemned” a “misleading” report by the BBC, claiming a ten-year-old Muslim boy’s family had been investigated after he accidentally wrote that he lived in a “terrorist” house in his homework, when he meant “terraced”.
The police said there were genuine concerns about the boys “safety”, which “the reporter was fully aware of this before she wrote her story”, however the BBC’s version of events was picked up by every mainstream news outlet in the UK, and seized upon by Islamists and opponents of the government’s new anti-terror laws.
“The level of debate about this story today is not warranted given the facts and misrepresents the role of all the agencies involved”, the police said.
The original report by BBC Asian Network claimed that police “over reacted to an innocent mistake”. It was based around a brief statement from police, simply stating they had investigated, and lengthy interviews with sympathetic family members.The family denied all wrongdoing, claimed that incident had arisen from a spelling error in a boy’s homework, and that the unfortunate incident had left the boy “traumatised”. The BBC did little to question this account.”
Friday arrives and so does a new Open Thread to see us off into the sunny uplands of the weekend! Here you go, DETAIL the bias as you see it.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
Zelazek April 19, 2024 at 7:22 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024Yes, there is something weird about the BBC's obsession with Taylor Swift. In addition to the fanfare on the national...
Zephir April 19, 2024 at 7:21 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024Also getting stuck in a Slayer moshpit when they arrived on stage didn't go down well.
G.W.F. April 19, 2024 at 7:12 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024https://twitter.com/i/status/1781286141053767973
Scroblene April 19, 2024 at 7:10 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024It's happened already, Fed, and our income tax has reduced our private pension, by around 18%, and it's only two...
Zephir April 19, 2024 at 7:04 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024Corey Taylor being the vocalist regarding the above post. BTW not a great place to take a girl on a...
Zephir April 19, 2024 at 7:01 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024Ever seen a calm islamic extremist ? it's not in their DNA. Give them an AK47, an Israeli or American...
Eddy Booth April 19, 2024 at 6:53 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024"LIVE US calls for calm after officials say Israeli missile hit Iran" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-68830092 Israel and ...
Scroblene April 19, 2024 at 6:53 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024Devout Jewish men wear a kippah as a sign of their devotion. They don't need to go shouting it all...
Zephir April 19, 2024 at 6:45 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024I was there at Knebworth and the energy, showed me, I may not share the love of the music, but...
Philip_2 April 19, 2024 at 6:44 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024If you ever wondered how GB News was de-funded by the politicals elite by obscure links to BBC Verify type...
