Hi all. Monday morning comes early and this is a NEW Open thread for you to detail the bias. The BBC have spent the last few days salivating over the Obama visit so I took some pleasure when I was on BBC5 Live on Saturday night pointing out that no one with any sense would pay attention to this has-been Brit Hater, deployed by Cameron in a desperate effort to scare us into staying in the EU. I also think it interesting to read that Andrew Neil has discovered that there is NO queue of any Nations seeking to obtain a free trade deal with the US.
START THE WEEK OPEN THREAD…..
Bookmark the permalink.
RE: Hillsborough the fact that 96 people died is horrific and anyone seeing the pictures of that day cannot fail to be moved, apparently not long before Hillsborough, Spurs fans visiting the same ground got caught in a dangerous crush, so the powers that be should have known there was an accident waiting to happen. Also the treatment of the families was not all it could be, and it seems some sort of covering of official ars*s went on. It seems the victims at the front who turned up on time and sober, paid the price for the behaviour of the latecomers.
Having said that, as someone else pointed out on here, the events at Heysel in 1985 and Hooliganism in general, brought about the introduction of fences at the Football.
As to the treatment of the families, the families of the Marchioness disaster which took place in the same year as Hillsborough, were also treated appallingly. Some of the Marchioness victims having their hands removed etc, the lack of information, the general lack of care and support given to grieving relatives, and the perception that they were not getting the full story of what happened. However they have not had the same outpouring of sympathy it seems.
My final point would be to point out that even after the terrible events of Hillsborough, certain sections of Liverpool support still seem to think its o.k. to bunk into matches, they did it at Istanbul, Athens and at other grounds in this country, surely they must realise that steaming into an enclosed space without a ticket could lead to a dangerous crush.
So if lessons are needed to be learned by the authorities, then a certain level of personal responsibility by match going fans, should be taken too.
“Personal responsibility”. That’s a term I haven’t heard for a while.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36095659
I see the BBC is abusing it’s neutrality again and shilling for the refugees.
The BBC really are a fifth column, in our midst.
They are coming for you Scotty:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=435_1461624303
And many Gay activists continue to protest against ” Isalmophobia”. Idiots.
But the gay activists who support the ROP have to want the destruction of Israel.
You see hating Jews is their insurance card against being chopped up.
Peace and destruction, mmmm
GWF,
Yes, and it won’t work. Idiots !
For anyone in any doubt about how much the BBC should be trusted:
http://order-order.com/2016/04/26/bbc-did-reveal-hillsborough-verdict-yesterday/
Be interesting how the BBC ‘tell it often enough’ version fares against the lying eyes and ears of viewers.
Maybe a capture of the footage would resolve this? Would it need an Fyi? Would the BBC refuse, for the purposes of….?
I notice that the BBC accounts are audited by the Audit Commission who are part of Government. I would prefer to see an audit by an independent firm of accountants. Although, come to think of it, that might not make much difference. All the pigs snouts seem to be in the same trough these days.
I hope not.
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/audit-commission
Mr M,
OK, but just transferred to other similar bodies, so not trustworthy I suspect.
I know what you mean.
Comments could be going better.
This one resonates:
realarthurdent
“This is a response all too familiar to anyone who has ever complained to the BBC about anything.
It believes it is institutionally incapable of making a mistake; it is incapable of admitting it has made a mistake and, most of all, it is incapable of saying sorry.”
No excuse.
I expect their official response will be that they were reporting that a majority verdict had been reached on the question of unlawful killing and not that there was a majority verdict in favour of unlawful killing. However when I saw it I read it as that a majority verdict had been reached in favour of unlawful killing, like most people it would seem. A sneaky way of getting the verdict out? Perhaps. Inept at least
I have been away since Friday and have regularly tried to log into not this site and failed. Assumed the site was down. However having been out to the supermarket I have returned to find Mr D reading biasedBBC posts on my iPad . Said he had two attempts to access these pages. Anyone else had trouble?
Deborah,
It has been slow on and off for the last few days. I am not a computer whizz but this site does seem rather strange compared with others which are quicker and more efficient. Maybe someone here with more knowledge can comment .
Agreed, Deborah. It has been all but unusable at times.
I can explain, but it’s not very interesting.
Biasedbbc’s servers are in california, near san fransisco.
Simply, the further you are from the server, the longer server requests take.
Australia takes on average 335 millisecs to send data (32bits)
USA about half that (126ms), but local servers (UK) take about 35 millisecs to answer a request.
Requests to Australian servers take 10 times longer than requests to local (UK) servers! If too much time passes the request will auto time out.
But it’s not just distance that causes the problems. It’s the number of servers your data has to pass through to get to and from you. The further away, the more servers your data is passed thtough. A request might travel 90% to you, then is confronted with a downed server. It has to turn back and find another route. Like a mouse in a maze.
That’s why you can be waiting for a response for a long time. You can see this when looking at Australian newspapers etc.
Hope it helps. It is a fragile system at heart.
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse ……..
Dear God, oh no!
http://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/664538/Great-British-Bake-Off-Nadiya-Hussain-own-show
Yet more evidence that the BBC is beyond hope of redemption. It has now reached the point where its reaction to criticism is to thumb its nose and do even more of whatever it was that upsets its critics.
She must be in line for a Dame hood or something important in the honours list.
The BBC has become positively surreal. In view of some people’s concern about Prince Charles’ suitability to be King, maybe Nadia could be our next Queen ?
Well, Nadia is not a Catholic so yes, I suppose she could be our next Queen…
The BBC admitted that they ‘fixed’ the result for reasons of Diversity.
Having ‘fixed’ the result, she now gets her own programme! ‘Fixing’ is cheating. How many would have watched had they known the result was already decided?
And she’ll be paid how much? This amounts to a criminal deception committed by the BBC with the Licence Payers being victims. Again!
Would the BBC perhaps have done the same for a UKIP supporter from Clacton? Possibly not…
> The BBC admitted that they ‘fixed’ the result for reasons of Diversity.
Presumably you’ve got a link for that? Because if such an accusation were true, it’d be easy to find supporting evidence via Google – and yet it’s not.
I’m sure it’s not yet another case of an insecure, bigoted Biased BBC contributor being so desperate to be right that he makes up lies so that he has something to rail against.
So getting that link will be incredibly easy to get, won’t it?
Jerrod, I’ll find the link but it won’t make any difference to you. I’ve realised that you are only here to disrupt and troll. Sad case…
> Jerrod, I’ll find the link but it won’t make any difference to you. I’ve realised that you are only here to disrupt and troll. Sad case
In other words, you can’t find the link so you’re going to attempt to insult me instead?
Find the link, or admit you made it up. Be a man, not a weasel.
Well here is one they did earlier …………………..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7005053.stm
Now Jerrod, please tell us why are you posting on this site?
> Well here is one they did earlier
So, nothing to do with the matter at hand, then. Poor old taffman, reduced to following me around again.
I’m sure you think the attention you keep paying me is supposed to be flattering, but really it’s just as annoying as a pathetic twelve-year-old following around a crush and annoying them because they fancy them, and not getting the message that they’re just not attractive.
Jerrod,
Everything reduced to sex then ?
Jerrod you are being mustelidist! There is no call for that sort of thing in today’s society. Mustelids are part of the ecosystem as we all should be.
In the UK stoats, weasels, polecats etc have traditionally suffered from a bad press. People like you and Kenneth Grahame have a lot to answer for. Mark my words.
The choice of contestants were certainly ‘selected’ for a ‘representative mix’ for that reason its not a massive leap of faith that to believe the above isn’t possible. Its called positive discrimination, but you would know about that…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3262328/Great-British-Bake-producer-admits-finalists-chosen-representative-mix-Britain.html
> its not a massive leap of faith that the above isn’t possible
It wasn’t presented as a “leap of faith”, it was presented as fact. Which it isn’t. Dover Sentry lied, and he’s relying on people like you to obscure his lies. Don’t fall for it, Geoff. For once, do the decent thing and stand up for the truth – instead of allowing your prevarication to let another lying little shit off the hook.
Jerrod
Do you think that Al Beeb is biased ? A simple answer Yes or No would be suffice .
Please Note , no insult from me.
> Please Note , no insult from me.
And as usual, nothing to contribute to the matter at hand. But that’s you down to a T, isn’t it? You can’t contribute anything but are pathologically attracted to me, so you keep butting in in the hope that someone, anyone, will take notice of you.
I’m not interested, taffman. Go find a blow-up plastic figurine to bother – it’ll be a true meeting of minds.
And as usual, nothing to contribute to the matter at hand. But that’s you down to a T, isn’t it?
Well in the interests of contributing to matters in hand, are you ready to answer this yet?
johnnythefish
April 25, 2016 at 4:35 pm
In catch up mode I noticed in the last Open Thread that Jerrod had slipped and slithered his presence back into the hallowed confines of Biased BBC with a relatively innocuous little contribution.
I’m sure he thinks we’ve forgotten why he went AWOL 3 weeks ago.
So just to remind him, it was because he was presented with the inconvenient Biased BBCesque opinions expressed by the black former head of the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission, Trevor Philips, about the failure of multiculturalism and the unacceptable practices of the RoP. The going rapidly got tough, so Jerrod went shopping.
Once again he has proved able to break taboos which too many liberals in the UK are keen to continue enforcing in the face of all available evidence.
In other words, Philips articulated the same fears about Islam that have been expressed countless times on here – views for which Jerrod comes up with such scintillating counter-arguments as ‘obsessed little bigot’ and ‘prejudiced little worm’, in other words continuing to enforce the very taboos that it seems only Philips is able to break – basically because he’s not white.
So, Jerrod, may I take this opportunity to ask you again: what kind of obsessed little bigot and prejudiced little worm is Trevor Philips?
> So just to remind him, it was because he was… [johhnythefish’s delusions snipped]
Tell me, when people walk away from you in real life because you’re behaving like a nutter, what reason do you tell yourself?
Never mind, eh. I’m sure whatever I say, you’ll make up some other nonsense. So why bother wasting energy on someone who clearly has no concept of reality.
Jerrod
So , Why do you bother ?
So, Jerrod, may I take this opportunity to ask you again: what kind of obsessed little bigot and prejudiced little worm is Trevor Philips?
– and again, I’ll ask you, and I’ll continue to ask until you answer.
P.S. Less of the name-calling, if you don’t mind.
And by your own standards, johnnythefish, ‘Dover Sentry” has now disappeared after being unable to provide evidence of his claim. Surely you must be going after him next? Or are your fellow bigots exempt from your dogged pursuit?
Silly me. Must remember to be a lying, moronic little shitbag the next time I don’t want to have to deal with lunatics like taffman and johnnythefish follwing me around like two juvenile little puppydogs. Apprently, being a stupid bigot grants you immunity from their particular brand of trolling.
My oh my, you really have got ‘issues’ haven’t you? I can almost hear your foot-stamping and cries of tearful rage from here.
Calm down lad, and don’t act so surprised when after constantly insulting people with the childish name-calling you use as a substitute for mature debate you will eventually get some back in return.
And by your own standards, johnnythefish, ‘Dover Sentry” has now disappeared after being unable to provide evidence of his claim.
My view? No, it doesn’t look like he’s been able to provide evidence but, let’s face it, the BBC do have form on fixing competitions don’t they? And would you trust the BBC after 28gate??
Oh, and by the way, you still haven’t answered:
So, Jerrod, may I take this opportunity to ask you again: what kind of obsessed little bigot and prejudiced little worm is Trevor Philips?
Jerrod
Still no reply to my simple question ‘do you think that Al Beeb is Biased?’, only a convoluted meaningless reply and abuse from you . You accused of others of abuse and yet you dish it out like confetti yourself .
Is Al Beeb Biased YES or No ?
Can you possibly answer that or is the question offensive to you?
Jerrod, PS.
You are not a very good advert for your idol, Al Beeb. In fact you are doing them a disservice.
Fact is that she was chosen for her beliefs, ie she is a Muslim.
Now on that subject what is your take that 52% of British Muslims believe that homosexuality should be made illegal ? Are you still supportive of them and their religion ?
> Fact is that she was chosen for her beliefs, ie she is a Muslim.
Did the BBC fix her win, Geoff, yes or no? Easy question for a man of average intelligence to understand. Do let us know if you need time to find one to help you.
Can you say for sure that they or other establishment echelons didn’t? And can you provide proof? All very convenient.
You didn’t answer my 2nd point….
Taffman,
Lefties do not think the BBC is biased. For them it is the status quo, it is normal. So they do not really understand your question .
Good old Grant, always telling us what “lefties” think. While ignoring the likes of Dover Sentry, who clearly lie through their teeth to justify their own bigotry.
But hey – why should Biased BBC commenters tell the truth, eh. The truth just gets in the way of delusional conspiracy theories, and where’s the fun in that. Far better to make any old shit up, and decry anyone who calls them out on it!
Jerrod – are you going to call Trevor Phillips a bigot for what he said?
Jerrod – are you going to answer Geoff’s question…
Now on that subject what is your take that 52% of British Muslims believe that homosexuality should be made illegal ? Are you still supportive of them and their religion?
> Can you say for sure that they or other establishment echelons didn’t? And can you provide proof? All very convenient.
I think it’s rather for Dover Sentry to prove that they did, don’t you? After all, he’s the one who made the initial allegation with zero proof.
Which, again, would be obvious to anyone of average intelligence. And again, do let us know if you need help finding someone to help you.
You’re a tedious tit! I believe he was referring to the fact that the selection process was fixed, of which I have supplied the link, so anything is possible and you cannot prove otherwise.
Now just answer my fucking question re a certain religion and their views on homosexuality.
Jerrod,
I have nothing personal against you. I do not know you, but I have some respect that you come on this site and blow against the wind . ( Slight misquote from a Paul Simon song ).
However, I have two questions for you :-
1. How old are you ?
2. In your life, have you ever done anything to contribute to other people or society ?
> You’re a tedious tit! I believe he was referring to the fact that the selection process was fixed,
In his words, “The BBC admitted that they ‘fixed’ the result for reasons of Diversity.” The result can only mean the overall winner.
Again, anyone with average intelligence would understand that. You, clearly, do not.
Now, rather than swearing, would you care to find any evidence to back up Dover Sentry’s claim, or are you going to be adult enough to admit that he was lying?
Or are you going to continue to try and change the subject, in order to avoid the ugly truth that yet another Biased BBC commenter has had to resort to spinning lies in order to justify his pathetic bigotry? Are you going to let your pig-headed boneheadedness let yet another lying little shitbag off from admitting his own failures?
How does it feel, Geoffrey, that other people use your stupidity to hide their bigotry? Always assuming, of course, that you have the intelligence to realise that other Biased BBCers are exploiting you in such a manner. Which given your form is, I realise, a long shot.
Getting annoyed are you Jerrod? How satisfying for us all. Now be a good boy and go back to being a fascist.
> Getting annoyed are you Jerrod? How satisfying for us all. Now be a good boy and go back to being a fascist.
Still not found that evidence which backs up your lies, eh.
No wonder you’re calling me a fascist. You’re ashamed that you’ve been called out, but you’re too much of a coward to admit that you’re a sleazy, bigoted little liar.
You haven’t got the balls to admit the truth, so you’re flinging names at me. Carry on all you want: the more names you call me, the more you’re effectively admitting that you’re just a sad little man who made up some nonsense in order to try and defned your own tawdry little fantasy.
No amount of calling me names will turn your lying into the truth. Admit it. Go on, for once be a man instead of a weasel. Break the habit of an all-too-sad lifetime that’s dominated by your own sense of crushing inadequacy. You may find that telling the truth isn’t as scary as you apparently believe.
Jerrod,
My apologies . I should have said ” In my opinion “. Why would I want to try and tell Lefties what to think ? Their thoughts are carved in stone and immutable. In my opinion.
I think it may be significant that Jerrod has been tasked to defend the BBC on their decision concerning the ‘bake off’ woman and her projected path to glory. Who knows?
But Jerrod aside, there is something among philosophers of science which can be described as a logic of plausible inference. Not inference to facts, but an inference concerning something that sounds plausibe… you know, worth looking into, worth entertaining and see where it goes. To be plausible it would have to be capable, if true, of explaining something.
So we have a problem: Muslims are not integrating, becoming radicalized, standard theories from the BBC etc is that we non Muslims need to do more, recognize that they are really good chaps.
Meetings might be held with Government, Home Office Ministers and the media, the BBC.
A good idea emerges from their brainstorming session: lets have a Muslim winner of a bake off competition, sell her as a lovable cuddly Muslim, who will become a national treasure.
I don’t have minutes of the meetings out of which this proposal may have emerged. But is it not a plausible conjecture, something a hot shot journo might chase up? And whilst the article announcing the projected series is rather bland does it not appear from the comments that there is an agenda?
So if it were true that a government/BBC approved fix took place, it would explain how a winner who should have been eliminated earlier from the competition, and why this winner gets to bake for the Queen and gets her own programme, and will be awarded something in the honours list.
A plausible conjecture indeed.
The BBC don’t distort the truth, do they?
> I think it may be significant that Jerrod has been tasked to defend the BBC on their decision concerning the ‘bake off’ woman and her projected path to glory.
Nope, not at all. I’m just sticking up for the truth that Dover Sentry seeks to subvert, because clearly no one else on Biased BBC is adult enough to do so.
> I don’t have minutes of the meetings out of which this proposal may have emerged. But is it not a plausible conjecture, something a hot shot journo might chase up?
“Here’s a conspiracy theory I cooked up because it took up less energy for me than being an intelligent adult would. Because I’m so desperate to fit in, and the only way I can integrate with Biased BBC is by being a halfwitted idiot who’s prepared to make up any old shit in order to justify my tawdry little prejudices.”
Trouble with conspiracy theories is that the people proposing them never have the slightest bit of evidence to put towards them. And that’s the case here. As ever. Poor little GWF – how sad it must be to have to resort to fiction in order to pretend you’re not a pathetic little individual who’s not adult enough to admit that he knows Dover Sentry lied. What a snivelling coward GWF must be.
Jerrod – was the BBC’s 28gate nightmare a conspiracy theory that somebody dreamed up?
Somehow it is not possible to give a reply to Jerrod’s ill written response to my post. A lot of name calling and an inability to understand logic and how decisions are made when making research proposals. I can conclude that your insults cover gaps in your argument and suggestions regarding my need to fit in. Piss off you uneducated troll.
> an inability to understand logic and how decisions are made when making research proposals
By which you mean “using pseudo-science burblings to try and pretend that a delusional little conspiracy theory is anything other than the ramblings of a bigoted little twerp”.
> A lot of name calling … Piss off you uneducated troll.
So “name calling” is unconscionable when you perceive me doing it, but it’s okay for you? Ah, there it is: the Biased BBCer who wants standards from others that he has no ability to uphold himself. What a pathetic show of hypocrisy.
> an inability to understand logic and how decisions are made when making research proposals
By which you mean “using pseudo-science burblings to try and pretend that a delusional little conspiracy theory is anything other than the ramblings of a bigoted little twerp”.
> A lot of name calling … Piss off you uneducated troll.
So “name calling” is unconscionable when you perceive me doing it, but it’s okay for you? Ah, there it is: the Biased BBCer who wants standards from others that he has no ability to uphold himself. What a pathetic show of hypocrisy.
Jerrod, Try to understand, you may describe what I said as pseudo science bullshit’, but do you understand anything about logical inference in science? I refer you to Norwood Hansen or a little further back in time to C.S. Pierce. A couple of bullshitters. There is a world of difference between a conspiracy theory and a theory of plausibility. Something that might help you in your search for truth
Goodbye
I understand that Ladbrokes stopped taking bets on the winner of the latest bake off after some strange betting patterns emerged.
I don’t watch the show and am not sure how the winners are chosen, I assume they are judged by other bakers and it’s not a public vote. Maybe someone who works for the Beeb tipped a mate off about the result.
I’m not sure if its pre-recorded or not, but if people are being tipped off this might indicate either a rigged result or just a dishonest person working for the BBC, fancy that.
Or possibly the punter just took the very sensible view that it was well worth a punt on the Muslim girl, she might well be an excellent baker, and worthy of the prize or she might have got the nod in the name of political correctness, after all the Beeb are very hot on shoving diversity down peoples throats.
How odd, Jerrod, that you can get so animated about a bloody cake competition yet don’t have a single opinion to offer on the very disturbing findings of the recent survey of Muslims – especially considering you’re gay – the worrying attitudes from which were so eloquently covered by Trevor Phillips. These are the same attitudes, by the way, that have been covered by posters on here many times over and for which you label us ‘obsessed little bigots’ and ‘prejudiced little worms’.
So, I’ll ask you again:
So, Jerrod, may I take this opportunity to ask you again: what kind of obsessed little bigot and prejudiced little worm is Trevor Philips?
johnny,
In my opinion Lefties cannot conceive of someone with black skin not towing the Leftie line. It is the racism of the Left. Patronising black people. It makes me sick !
The comments at the end of that article are probably NOT what the BBC are expecting, but they do convey the thoughts of many people. Other winners have had to make do with book deals, and in fact who can actually name any of the other winners ? the Beeb have cut them loose as soon as the series ended, no, our national identity is gradually being eroded away. I just wonder how many are of ethnic origin around the ‘ideas’ table at the Beeb , if you get my drift.
It was said that the photo of Obama in front of a ‘diversity’ audience was not representative of Britain. I once kept a list of all the unprounceable names gracing our news programmes, – am now doing the same for the number of tv dramas and companies who promote mixed race relationships in their tv advertising – which I barely see in ‘real’ life, but then, I don’t live in London.
Never watched the program, but interesting that one commenter says that she should have gone out in the first week, as she didn’t finish the task.
If true, this shows the worst aspect of tokenism, it just just couldn’t happen could it, Immediate accusations of racism would ensue, so as in many cases in modern Britain positive discrimination takes place and some more deserving individual doesn’t get the ‘job’…
The obnoxious Alex Salmond on Daily Politics today made a statement to the effect that the Leave campaign had shifted the argument to sovereignty because they had lost the argument on the economy. Completely unchallenged by the pointless Jo Coburn and Frank Field who was there, apparently to support the leave side of the argument. Obvious nonsense, of course but am I alone in thinking that the Leave campaign really need to get themselves better organised to counter this kind of blatant misinformation. I know they are up against the Government and a terrifyingly powerful propaganda organisation, who can make any lie seem like a consensus of opinion, but so far I have been disappointed with their efforts. For God’s sake step up.
The Leave campaign is largely made up of Tories. Many, I suspect, are there to undermine it: why else would the Electoral Commission award them Official Status on the somewhat dubious basis that somehow it better represented those who wish to leave? Those that aren’t are too loyal to their own party (or their own future advancement) to seriously rock the boat.
The Leave campaign need to pick the ground for the battle against the Remainiacs, instead of just reacting to whatever lies they spew out.
They need to start setting the agenda of the debate – let the Remainian scum bleat their fictions and untruths about the economy all they wish; this referendum (IMHO) will be won by the Leavers if they fight it on the damage done to our country by immigration, the unceasing loss of U.K. sovereignty and the immense corruption and misfeasance of the EU bureaucracy itself.
It will be difficult for the Leave campaign to get its message out as al beebus, ITV and Sky all show extraordinary parti pris against them; yet there is broad support in the country for us to get out – I have spoken to many people, from many social backgrounds, about the referendum and very, very few will be voting to stay in.
A thing which I find so annoying, is the way in which (to my knowledge) only one major newspaper, The Express, has come out in 100% support for us to get out.
Why don’t the likes of The Mail, The Sun and The Telegraph? When for year upon year, in article after article they’ve been screaming about how bad the EU is – they should be in the vanguard of Brexit support.
I think they will up their game, especially after the local elections on 5 May. Here in Scotland it’s all about La Sturgeon et al and suspect it’s the same in Wales.
I certainly hope Leave get their act together a bit more; agree they need more air time but, as someone else said, that’s a bit tricky with the MSM all baying to stay in a corrupt club!
I can report that my local paper has an online poll to see who will be voting in or out in the referendum. This has been going on for a couple of weeks now and the current split is 63% out, 29% in with 8% undecided. Unfortunately there is no indication of the number of voters in the poll, but I live in a fairly safe Labour seat so this might suggest that a lot of Labour voters will be going against the official party line on the EU.
There are many traditional Labour voters who realize that it is they who are most directly affected by immigration from the EU: competition for jobs; council / private rental housing; schools; doctors’ surgeries; the stagnation and reduction of wages etc etc.
That is the supreme irony – the party which one would expect to be the most anti-EU of all, since Britain’s membership negatively effects the people they supposedly represent the most, is (ostensibly) the one whose MPs are most in favour of it.
We know msm will do nothing to favour Leave, so they (Vote Leave etc) must get more savy with social media campaigns. This would also help target younger voters who I suspect are more inclined to the Remain camp.
I don’t see why separatist Celtic fringe politicians who seek to undermine our country , always it seems from a left wing perspective, should be given so much prominence by the BBC. Salmond is a truly odious individual who doesn’t merit hour long guest slots on shows like the Daily Politics.
As for Coburn, her left wing anti government bias is on show all the time , especially when Andrew Neil isn’t there to make her look like the rank amateur that she is. A good example today was her fierce interjection that we have to show passports therefore we have border controls. ISIS must truly find that complacent attitude hilarious as they send their sleepers in using false papers or see us accept British nationals back from Syria without the resources to track them or the will to throw them in jail and lose the key .
It’s 30 years since the nuclear ‘accident’ at Chernobyl and the BBC are ‘remembering’ (celebrating?) it in their usual fashion.
Of course it’s an excuse to beat up one of their bogeymen the nuclear power industry, which they have a strange wariness . paranoia about.
One thing they aren’t going to tell you, is of course the truth !
STEEL YARD !
Ever heard of it? probably not, yet Nato reporting name Steel Yard, or to give it it’s official Russian name the Duga radar array. It was an attempt to create an over the horizon early warning radar which the Soviets did not have at the time. Power levels were very high – hence the need for a power station up the road at Pripyat .
Amateur radio enthusiasts named the signal the Woodpecker, which some might be familiar with, and it led to reception problems with TV & radio broadcasts in Western Europe (and Russia too!).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duga_radar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pripyat
A terrible disaster which proved to everyone, just how little the left really cared about its people, which it seemed to view as expendable.
I would have thought the BBC would be holding it up as an example of the failure of the Soviet system ?
Indeed, Grant.
“Costing The Earth” this afternoon was about the evils of nuclear power. I can’t comment on the details as I didn’t bother to listen to most of it. There was an early bit on Chernobyl killing thousands and when I worked through the frequencies a little later they were talking about Fukushima. My last visit coincided with a piece about how German industry now uses renewable energy. I almost stayed with that last bit as everyone else is telling me how many coal fired power stations Germany is having to build.
I wonder if we could persuade the BBC to rely on renewable energy to power its buildings and transmitters – it would be cold, dark and silent when the wind didn’t blow and the sun didn’t shine..
The hypercritical Germans are quite happy to buy the Czech’s (nuclear) electricity.
If the Hillsborough disaster had not occurred, would all the subsequent safety improvements to grounds, removal of barriers, all-seater stadia, better crowd control etc, all magically have happened through a sequence of enlightened voluntary changes over time?
Or would we have carried on with what was the perceived best options for the time – until a different disaster with similar underlying causes, had occurred?
Discuss.
Because it took the sinking of the Titanic to ensure there were as many lifeboat places as there were passengers on the ocean liners, and 24/7 manned wireless telegraphy, and permanent ice patrols………
The Muslim, Labour MP Naz Shah has now resigned over her sensitive idea of transporting Jews out of the middle east, after all the Nazis weren’t entirely devoid of good ideas to her way of thinking. She had been PPS to the nations favourite Commie John McDonald.
I have already posted about her comments and her mind boggling attempt at an explanation for her anti-Semitism along with details of her extraordinary background.
However, what I didn’t know was that she is, and remains, a member of the House of Commons home affairs select committee, which is conducting an inquiry into the rise of anti-Semitism. I know! So much ammunition for Have I got News for You that they might as well give over the entire program to her.
So far, not a squeak from the BBC website. Imagine if a UKIP guy or someone representing Tory scum had said something like this?
The guardian, thankfully, talks it more seriously than the BBC. And so they should:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/26/bradford-labour-mp-naz-shah-quits-john-mcdonnells-pps-antisemitic-facebook-posts
It’s been reported on Radio 4, but with so many caveats as to excuse the Fascist nature of the Labour party.
It was all “well she said this at the height of the Gaza conflict” (so understandable then?)
“She doesn’t believe it now”
She will go full throttle to engage with the Jewish community (God alone knows why they’d trust her !)
An intimation she was gone from post quickly because John McDonald forced her out.
It was a constant stream of mitigation on behalf of an obvious anti Semite, and an increasingly Fascist Labour party which contrary to the BBCs desperate attempts to disguise the fact is becoming increasingly Fascist in its politics.
Ms Shah wants to transport the Jews from Israel to the United States, eh? I wonder if she thinks that relocating groups of people is a solution that might work in other cases? For instance, how about relocating 1.6 million people of Pakistani background from the UK back to their country of origin, would she be in favour of that? By a strange coincidence, Pakistan only came into existence at about the same time that Israel was re-established so perhaps there are some similiarities.
I couldn’t give a f**k if she was in favour of it or not – she should be on her merry way along with all the rest.
The BBC post went online 4 hours ago. Naz Shah MP quits role over Israel post on Facebook As she made her apology 5 hrs ago that is a very reasonable delay. I guess in Bradford West, formerly held by George Galloway, one can’t go wrong when attacking Israel.
deegee,
It is a start but that evil bitch has to resign as an MP. If Corbyn is serious about anti-semitism , he would sack her . There should be no room for racists like her in the UK. I shall look forward to Jerrods comments .
And now Guido informs us that she has compared Israelis to Hitler. Is Corbyn going to expel her from the Party?
http://order-order.com/2016/04/26/naz-shah-compared-israelis-to-hitler/
The number of racists within the Labour party is truly shocking. Maybe these incidents will get the Beeb interested in looking at a certain London mayoral candidate.
Why do so many Arabs choose to live in Israel ?
The BBC’s first female TV DJ Joan Edwards has sadly passed away she was famous in the 1950’s for a program called “Housewives Call the Tune” on the BBC.
She was later the personal assistant of John Travolta for 16 years.
What has the BBC done to remember its former ‘star’? Absolutely nothing! While it can mourn the passing of some black African singer no one has ever heard of, white lives simply don’t matter to the Fascists, even if they were pioneering women, who you might have thought might merit a mention.
“The BBC’s first female TV DJ Joan Edwards”
If “TV” had meant transvestite we’d have wall to wall coverage.
I think the fact that I made the alternative TV connection so quickly means I still watch too much BBC – Newspeak is getting to me.
If its already been mentioned, I apologise. But a great article in today’s Mail by Littlejohn, re the audience at the Obama Q & A. I particularly liked this paragraph………
“What a motley crew, though. It made your average BBC Question Time audience look balanced. Needless to say, there was the obligatory number of women in Islamic headgear, without which, no televised gathering can be broadcast”.
It really is an article that hits the nail on the head.
Just read it at mailonline – good article, thanks for posting about it.
Leo McKinstry has a good article in the Expressonline about Obama’s visit too.
Trolls are best ignored.
Never should be fed.
Grant – I shall look forward to Jerrods comments .
I look forward to them as well – especially when there are a lot of comments to go through and not much time. Then my progress is quicker as I just scroll right past the crap he writes.
That’ll at least make it easier to spot that Dover Sentry hasn’t been able to find any evidence to support his assertions.
You would have thought that, given how eager Biased BBC commenters are to show how superior they are to us mere mortals, they would stand up against a clear liar. Maybe they’re not the big men they claim to be.
Maybe they’re just pathetic little bigoted cowards who would much rather lie to themselves and each other than live in the real world. What say you, TrueToo? Is cowardice the reason you let people like Dover Sentry lie, or is there another reason?
Annoyed are you Jerrod? Had a taste of your own medecine? In 1936 you would have been a member of the Hitler Youth.
Still not able to come up with a link to prove your assertion that the BBC fixed the result of Bake Off, then. So you just call me names instead. How very big of you.
I’m not annoyed at all: more amused that someone who clearly likes to portray himself as a big man is, with every post, exposing himself as a tawdry little bigot who’s too much of a coward to admit that he lied.
Poor, pitiful little Dover Sentry, getting all upset that his lies haven’t worked. Diddums.
Jerrod, it’s been proved that the result was fixed. Get over it and whilst doing so have a go at growing up. It might help you recover your sanity.
Dover Sentry,
“Jerrod, it’s been proved that the result was fixed.”
Yet neither you (“I’ll find the link”), nor anybody else has been able to find the so called “proof”.
How strange.
It’s quite obvious you mis-remembered something you read about the finalist selection process; thought it was something to do with how the winner was chosen; and jumped to a convenient conclusion.
So why not just admit you made a mistake? Would that really be so terrible, just this once?
Jerrod,
In response to the personal insults you hand out here, may I call you a stupid twat?
Yes, I know this is an insult. But the difference is that I am calling you a stupid twat because you are a stupid twat and that is the correct description for you.
If differs from the insults you dole out to others because your insults serve as the missing premises in your arguments, which reveals you to be a stupid twat.
As for your style of argument I suggest you, and others, look at posts in the leftish blogs and FB pages, where the standard comments in response to to arguments are one or two word insults.
You see Jerrod, you really belong with the stupid twats
> In response to the personal insults you hand out here, may I call you a stupid twat?
You can call me what you like, if it makes you feel better. It’s not as if I care what you think, is it? After all, you’re the sort of person who wilfully turns a blind eye when someone like Dover Sentry lies, so it’s not as if you’re a person of principle, is it?
Jerrod, Gis a kiss
Well fixed or not and I don’t really give a shit about it BUT her cake for the Queen’s birthday was a right pile of fucking shit
Jerrod, the BBC do have form, don’t you know:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6449919.stm
The hosts of BBC children’s programme Blue Peter have apologised to viewers after the results of a competition were faked last November.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6904516.stm
The BBC has suspended all competitions after an inquiry unearthed a fresh batch of faked phone-ins.
And then there was the biggest fix of all – 28gate – proving the BBC to be the most untrustworthy, lying leftist bastards we already knew they were!
johnny,
The rule is simple. Do not trust anything emanating from the BBC.
And still no link to prove Dover Sentry’s assertion that the Bake Off results were fixed. Just two stories that are each nine years old.
Dover Sentry lied. Who will be the first of Biased BBC’s usual coterie of hypocritical arrogant halfwits to have the guts to admit it?
Hello Jerrod, have you got an anwer for me yet?
So, Jerrod, may I take this opportunity to ask you again: what kind of obsessed little bigot and prejudiced little worm is Trevor Philips?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3262328/Great-British-Bake-producer-admits-finalists-chosen-representative-mix-Britain.html
And did you see the pathetic attempt at a cake to present to the Queen on her birthday? My dog could have baked a better cake, and he is now blind. The best won the competition?
> My dog could have baked a better cake, and he is now blind.
My dog could make a better case than you for justifying Dover Sentry’s lies. And my dog doesn’t exist.
Now, can you prove that Dover Sentry was telling the truth, or shall we take it as read that you’re happy for one of your fellow bigots to lie if it reinforces your own prejudice?
Does anyone really lose sleep anymore at being called a bigot or racist ? Some might say that being classed a royalist is the ultimate insult, – personally I would hate to be categorised as tight fisted. Name calling from evil bitch to ugly hag is all a bit juvenile (coming no doubt from ‘respected’ business men or global Ebay tradesmen in their daily lives) and clearly refers to the female gender, but have noticed there aren’t any ‘fat bastards’ or ‘balding cretins’ being mentioned.
And these Beeboid trolls invariably set themselves up as clinical psychiatrists with their constant use of ‘paranoid’.
Jerrod, it’s been proved that the result was fixed. Get over it and whilst doing so have a go at growing up. It might help you recover your sanity.
> Jerrod, it’s been proved that the result was fixed.
No it hasn’t.
Still waiting for you to provide the link that says it was. Perhaps you should expend your energy finding it, rather than in telling me to grow up?
I did mention earlier that Ladbrokes suspended betting on the bake off winner, due to dodgy betting patterns.
Of course that is not conclusive proof that the programme was rigged, but it is suspicious and does at least raise the question that someone who works for the BBC might have used inside knowledge to gain by it.
Large gambling companies tend to be quite hot on that sort of thing, and probably know a fix when they see one.
Although of course as I stated earlier its not conclusive proof, that would be pretty hard to come by as someone would have to own up to wrong doing.
Still waiting for you to comment on the BBC’s wagon-circling on ‘stories’ and ‘sources’ and ‘critics saying’, ‘what is has learned’, etc.
Perhaps a bit more serious from the world’s supposedly most trusted media news monopoly funded unique to the tune of £4Bpa and essentially unaccountable, especially with a Press Office who makes claims that are unsupported by reality.
Seems disappointment is the order of the day.
Which is the more serious.: having your cake or a social engineering, policy-shaping, agenda-driven propaganda and censorship entity with the UK in its thrall?
Hello again Jerrod. Still struggling to understand as you’ve not enlightened us yet….
How odd, Jerrod, that you can get so animated about a bloody cake competition yet don’t have a single opinion to offer on the very disturbing findings of the recent survey of Muslims – especially considering you’re gay – the worrying attitudes from which were so eloquently covered by Trevor Phillips. These are the same attitudes, by the way, that have been covered by posters on here many times over and for which you label us ‘obsessed little bigots’ and ‘prejudiced little worms’.
But don’t worry, you’ll have more opportunities!
You still haven’t grasped that intelligent people steer do their best to steer clear of you – a man who’s so obsessively deranged that you brought your paranoiac anti-Muslim sentiment into a discussion about North Carolina’s bathroom laws – have you?
If you want people to respond to your every utterance, try making them a little less obviously demented. On the other hand, if you insist on continuing to behave like a petulant, screaming toddler who’s getting more and more upset that the world around him isn’t treating him as their centre of attention, then you can hardly expect to be treated like a functioning adult.
‘…intelligent people steer do their best to steer clear of you…
Clearly intelligence operating on a higher plane than most.
A game of Ultimate Brane Strip Scrabble with Mr. Pinder is thus demanded.
To be fair to Jerrod, it’s a hell of an admission that he thinks intelligent people steer clear of you, when he clearly doesn’t.
Fair play Jerrod, we all agree with your self-analysis.
> To be fair to Jerrod, it’s a hell of an admission that he thinks intelligent people steer clear of you, when he clearly doesn’t.
Well I try. But touché – although your comment isn’t as smart as you clearly think it is, at least you’re trying.
Now, could you turn what you clearly believe is a tremendous intellect on finding justification for Dover Sentry’s assertions that the BBC fixed the result of the Bake Off? The poor fool clearly can’t, so I’m sure he’d appreciate the help of someone who likes to think they’re clever.
Jerrod,
Apart from on this website, do you have any friends in real life ?
Oh dear Jerrod. Prove to me that Dover Sentry was not telling the truth. And please, look up the meaning of a ‘bigot’.
And for what it is worth, I do somewhat feel for your fortitude when on this site. But then you would understand that, being a bigot yourself.
> Prove to me that Dover Sentry was not telling the truth.
Dover Sentry made the initial assertion: it’s up to him to prove it. This basic fact is understandable by anyone of average intelligence. I assume that includes you, and you’re just ignoring it because you know that his lie chimes with your own prejudice, and you can’t bring yourself to admit it in public.
After a long absence, back with a bang. Such volume. Such tenacity.
And all over a cake. With a forgetful poster on a a blog forum who, I do agree, should always be ready to support assertions if challenged.
“…made the initial assertion: it’s up to him to prove it. This basic fact is understandable by anyone of average intelligence”
An excellent precedent. And given this is a forum about the BBC and its vast powers, sadly too often misdirected or abused, could you please share what happens when you have taken them to task, on substantive issues and matters of life or death?
If not, why not?
Many have.
And too many times they are fobbed off with ‘sources who say’ needing protection and the need to rely on editorial integrity as a matter of belief. Or if persistent face expediting excused by the notion that licence fee payer funds need protecting to pay for Botney’s pension and not backing stuff up. Often all waved away by exemptions under a catch all ‘purposes of’ clause deployed at whim.
Last time you asked about this I directed you to the relevant site. Never heard back as I suspect what is there didn’t suit.
Very BBC.
Back with the pre teen attempted insults when they think the heat has died down about those muslims not particularly in favour of poofs survey findings
Well we havent forgotten
Good job they dont live in Pakistan eh?
The point is Bake off 2015 participants were manipulated to ensure various PC demographics were represented.BBC admits this.Participants were chosen principally belonging to a particular group not for any skill in baking.
As a long time fan and baker,i bacame annoyed because the baking skills of some of the contestants were non existent and the tasks set were less difficult than in previous years I assume to accommodate this.
I watch for the skill on display not to be given a PC lecture by the BEEB It just goes to show no programme is beyond the reeducation department of the BBC.
It just goes to show no programme is beyond the reeducation department of the BBC.
Absolutely! Every department from current affairs to children’s programming were represented at the 28gate climate religion meeting the BBC spent hundreds of thousands in legal fees trying to hush up (having refused a FOI request).
Weren’t they Jerrod? Jerrod?? Oh, JEEEERRROD………………………!!!!
Been a good day to miss out out on the BBC guff about Hillsborough and the NHS doctors strike.
So much for “seeking closure” eh?…all the BBC and their grief thieves on Merseyside want to do is repick the scabs and wave stumps-both real and imagined.
Four years after Heysel, it was common knowledge that pissed “fans” without tickets caused the crush by getting in late, not paying and then causing a panic/stampede which ended up killing those who`d paid, been in the ground early.
That they got hideously pressed up against railings came about due to endemic pitch invasions and mass brawls on pitches-so the FA/League and Government at the time came up with the railings and ID card scheme. The railings were there because fans had already nearly brought to game to an end with hooliganism(so all concerned wanted the railings).
The rewrites and arse covering of the authorities is a shameful scandal alright-but not one ambulance man, police officer caused the crush-incompetence and inexperience in a new and scary situation is NOT something that deserves the self-righteous judgements of hooligans who now want compo to cover their own shameful roles in what happened.
Am sick of Bloody Sunday, of Hillsborough and -God forbid-Orgreave to come.
All of these happened under the Tories…hence the Lefty bile and efforts to get brownie points from surfing on cadavers.
Whereas Aberfan?…Chinese cockle pickers…and Mid-Staffs…well, who cares?…all happened under Labour, might upset their union paymaster puppets.
Of course-if Hillsborough or Deepcut can shaft the police and army-well good for the BBC.
And Liverpool will bring back The Sun boycott?…so a win win for the idiot left, or so they think.
If only a Liverpool NHS Trust could give us a football team, one of who might have had a relative at Hillsborough…then we could just dwell on THAT story for a few weeks, and save the endless, tedious never ending mawkings of the Scouse-centred Left, who get their dog biscuits on cue from Billy Butler on Radio Merseyside there at the BBC.
Solid post cH.
In recasting my mind back to the Hillsborough tragedy, I am genuinely sorry for the people who lost loved ones. I feel greatly for them.
I also remember my thoughts as events unfolded. My initial thoughts were, it’s those Liverpool fans again. Those hooligans who in a European Cup final decided to fight many innocent supporters form Juventus and crushed 39 of them to death and injuring 600 in the Heysel Stadium a few years earlier in 1985. The advent of the fences came to the Heysel incident and the hooligan element prevalent in football at the time.
At Hillsborough many Liverpool supporters turned at an all ticket match without tickets.Many began pushing.
The organisation of the authorities was very poor. The blame is, to my mind to be shared, the Liverpool fans who arrived without tickets and tried to get in by pushing, trying to jump over the Lepping Lane walls and the authorities for both poor planning and organisation in not expecting so many fans to arrive without tickets.
In my experience in life, blame is is never attributable one way.
As for Heysel, this is a scar on the Liverpool supporters that they and the BBC refuse to talk about. The story of Hillsborough is intrinsically linked. I don’t think Hillsborough would have happened but for Heysel.
i don’t believe any Liverpool fans were convicted of manslaughter at Heysel. They should have been. Only a ban on all English teams taking part in European football for five years.
I repeat, the BBC should report that,
‘As for Heysel, this is a scar on the Liverpool supporters that they and the BBC refuse to talk about. The story of Hillsborough is intrinsically linked. I don’t think Hillsborough would have happened but for Heysel.’
I also disapproved of the families showboating outside of the court house.
Crying tears one minute and then having fun by jumping up and down and singing the next. Their apparent grief showed a of being genuine. No dignity.
chrisH,
“Four years after Heysel, it was common knowledge that pissed “fans” without tickets caused the crush by getting in late, not paying and then causing a panic/stampede which ended up killing those who`d paid, been in the ground early.”
It wasn’t “common knowledge” it was a catalogue of lies that ignorant fools such as yourself lapped up like a mother’s milk.
And still when the lies have been proven to be lies, you would rather be ignorant and a fool than admit to yourself that you were wrong.
It’s both sad and pathetic, chrisH.
Part of the verdict is that “behaviour of the supporters did not contribute to the dangerous situation at the Leppings lane turnstiles.”
The match tickets stipulated that spectators should have taken up their positions in the ground by 15 minutes before kick off at 3pm….we are asked to ignore the fact that there were supporters trying to get into the ground after 2.45pm and we are asked to believe that the demeanour of all the supporters trying to get in late was that of a Sunday school outing.
Sorry to all concerned, but that is not believable in the context of a late 80s football crowd.
Those killed were innocent, there was admitted police incompetence, and it is unbelievable that late arrivals did not “contribute” to the deteriorating safety situation. This will no doubt be further explored in any further trials.
I remember reading this in 2012, just remembered where it was. Some strong words.
I’ve no idea whether or not it is accurate, I’m merely offering it as an alternative viewpoint. They seem to be in short supply these days.
Liverpool Expects This Day – Sick Justice!
The Toady programme at about 8.45 this morning amplifying the theme of Liverpool having been ‘abandoned’ by government in the 1980s (psst – remember The Sainted Margaret was in power so undeniably malign and evil). They don’t emphasise the left wing activities of professional agitators like Hatton, not that chippy leftist Liverpudlians needed much incitement, the constant strikes and the forced bankruptcies of companies like the Bendix washing machine company which was located there to try to alleviate local unemployment.
(Currently watching the brat Owen Jones decrying ‘Thatcher’ on Sky news!)
This jury decision, which was obviously politically pre-ordained, has effectively rewritten history.
The initial cause of the disaster was the rampant, drunken, hooligan behaviour of a large group of Liverpool fans who were late and ticketless, and who stormed the turnstiles. The situation was then irredeemable, and the police were damned if they did open the gate, and damned if they didn’t.
The jury gave a majority verdict of 7-2. 6 of the 9 were women who had never attended a football match, but were biologically geared to show support for families who had lost loved ones.
To find that the drunken Liverpool fans were not in any way culpable absolutely beggars belief. The response of the emergency services, both police and ambulance services was entirely commensurate with the standards of the day. To judge by modern day standards is clearly wrong. To demonise one man who made a decision which could never be right, and which is held to have caused the death of 96 people, is in itself abusive.
It will not end here. David Dukinfield, an absolutely broken man, will seek a judicial review of the inquest decision. He will be charged with multiple corporate manslaughters by the CPS who know that, in a criminal court, there is little reasonable prospect of a conviction, but they do not have the bottle to make the decision they should.
I understand the anguish of the families. I won’t say why. But the jubilation of the media and seemingly the whole of Liverpool that justice has finally been done is sickening. Justice for whom? And the drunken Liverpool fans who caused the tragedy will walk away.
Many, many lives were ruined that day. And not just those who very sadly lost their lives and their family members.
The fans who were crushed were innocent. The fans who crushed them were guilty. The police weren’t able to protect the innocent from the guilty.
The BBC are pushing emotion over reality.
I thought that Mark Easton’s interpretation of today’s verdict (Radio 4 up to 18:30, at the end of the news) was poor.
Aside from the predictable bias, the very fact that he is allowed to make a summarizing comment shows the problem with the BBC now. If, many years ago, there was lots of impartial but dry information with no context or explanation, the pendulum has now swung too far the other way: we have too much advocacy and personal comment masquerading as explanation for the listeners. This is editorializing at the expense of impartiality.
Easton situated the verdict within the context of a changed society where deference to authority has gone, the police are questioned and casual condemnation of groups such as Liverpool football supporters is no longer possible. Yet we are supposed to defer to the new elite in the BBC, letting them do our thinking for us, while ritually condemning groups such as Trump supporters, Pegida or the EDL. Plus ca change …
Mustapha,
I have no idea why intellectually stunted creeps like Mark Easton think we are in the least bit interested in their opinions. Worth no more than the proverbial man in the street.
Mark Easton speaks for the new, progressive order, of which the BBC is the spokesperson.
pete ongyo,
“This jury decision, which was obviously politically pre-ordained…”
Please explain how that works “pete ongyo”? What sort of massive, paranoid conspiracy do you have to construct in order for that to become credible?
As a matter of interest “zero”, have you ever had occasion to request BBC CECUTT or DPA to explain how things work?
If not, why not?
If so, please share.
No “conspiracy” but a combination of lawyers presenting evidence to discredit police, not so difficult when one of the commanders admitted lying…..and then there’s the courage required to dissent from the received wisdom and the pressure of the expectation of hostility if the case had shed any doubt on the Liverpool supporters behaviour.
On this occasion, there didn’t have to be any dramatically bad behaviour on the part of supporters…turning up later than the ground rules recommended with or without a ticket, combined with poor police command and control was enough.
But for some reason….who can tell why….late arrival ( the tickets advised being inside the ground on the terrace by 14.45) has been discounted as a contributory factor.
This whole sad affair and the eager way in which it is reported supports the key liberal/progressive assumptions…….Authority is bad and things are better now than they were. That’s just another useful coincidence.
To be honest Zero, The fact the verdict that Liverpool fans’ behaviour at the Leppings Lane turnstiles had no bearing on the tragic outcome, makes a complete mockery of the whole inquiry.
There were problems with the amount of turnstiles yes. The same nearly happened the previous year with Spurs. There were problems that they were not funnelled into the side pens. There were problems that they did not have keys for the exits onto the pitch. But to say that none of these fans should share any responsibility is a joke. So yes it is politically motivated and now I dread Chilcot.
Take time to watch this video and say it isn’t so.
http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/media/VID0002.html
.
“He will be charged with multiple corporate manslaughters by the CPS who know that, in a criminal court, there is little reasonable prospect of a conviction, but they do not have the bottle to make the decision they should.”
I’m not a legal expert but if a prosecution goes ahead and his defence does in fact mount a defence, details ignored by the inquest might emerge. If the CPS prosecutes to appease the fans, it could turn out to be an own goal. This isn’t over.
Seems to me that these inquests and reviews are a bit like Budget speeches – ignore the hoo-ha on the day and wait for the detailed analysis to emerge.
Very true, the role of late arriving supporters in generating the operational leaderships problems in the context of an unreliable communications system, loss of control and compounding poor decisions preceding the match will doubtless be presented in any defence.
Thank you. I agree with all of this. It is defying logic to say, as most of the jury did, that the actions of grossly irresponsible Liverpool fans contributed to the disaster [they were, of course, the primary cause], for if the late-coming, ticketless fans outside had behaved properly, there would have been no crisis. Does anyone suppose that such a disaster would have happened at a rugby or cricket match, or outside an Olympic arena, or at a religious convention, or indeed at a football match fifty years ago when people behaved properly? No, it is inconceivable. So now we have, in Orwellian fashion, history rewritten and the big lie fully established. All I hope is that those of us who refuse to be indoctrinated will make our voices heard.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161817/Obamas-grandfather-Stanley-Armour-Dunham-tortured-British.html#comments
This news story about the David Maraniss book tells how Obama’s African grandfather Onyango was not tortured by the British, despite exceptionally embroidered family stories.
He was from the Luo tribe and had been in the Kings Own African Rifles. All along I felt the story wasn’t right, given his service and tribe.
Obama’s Indonesian step-father apparently had similar stories told about the Dutch and his father.
Were they all repeating a meme about racism or trying to impress gullible Americans?
Whatever the reason, family histories are notoriously unreliable, especially when people are also trying to create an image for themselves.
NB The Daily Mail link uses the name of the wrong (the white) grandfather.
Framer,
It really exposes Obama as the big liar we know him to be. This should be a lead story on the BBC . LOL !
I think I have seen Jerrod – he was sitting at a corner table in a pub, mumbling away to himself, nursing a half pint of beer, and there was a void around him similar to a nuclear fallout zone. I think we should treat him in a similar fashion.
David Vance,
“it was undeed a terrible event and I feel sorry for all those bereaved families BUT the relentless MOPERY emanating from Liverpool and the BBC’s slavish coverage of it was over the top”
http://biasedbbc.tv/blog/category/liverpool/
Now might be a good time for you to apologise David…
Golly, looking at the overnights it seems the drought is over.
Like some bizarre minor topic relay race whilst the real event is ignored, a slew of No. 38 Jerrod’s now gets followed by the night bus convoy of zeroes.
Apology demands of course are very ‘in’ in certain quarters.
http://order-order.com/2016/04/26/bbc-did-reveal-hillsborough-verdict-yesterday/
Of course, like so much BBC editorial being obsessive versus watertight in oversight based on value to the narrative, there are those who must be pressured to apologise relentlessly, and those who it is accepted never apologise, ever.
It seems mostly a matter of belief.
No apologies from supporters arriving late though eh zero?
Compare and contrast….Bolton, Glasgow, Bradford, Heysel, Hillsborough.
I have one simple question for the brainless and integrityless individuals who believe, or claim to believe,the verdict imposed on this “jury”. If there were no ticketless Liverpool fans, or only a handful at most, then there would have been space for them all so why was there a crush?
The amount of tickets sold would reflect the number of spaces available – so the crush MUST have been caused by many thousands who had no ticket and had no intention of paying.
Because the side pens were half empty and there was no funnelling/directing of people into the side pens. The number of turnstiles were inadequate for the number as was proved the previous year with Spurs.
The fans are still responsible in some way but it was a very difficult situation.
http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/media/VID0002.html
Pigs are scum, Liverpudlians are unbearable. Don’t care about it.
But South Yorks Police, though eh. My my. Wait another 25 years and one of their commanders might take the fall for the thousands of underage white girls getting passed around by Pakis. Aye.
Saw some lovely BBC bias in this fawning article about Bouncy’s new album (a masterpiece, of course): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36133284
“Above anything else, critics and fans are describing Lemonade as an ode to female black empowerment.”
Followed by pics of proud mamas, including that of Michael Brown.
They missed out this video:
(Go to 2:50 for some food for thought – “How can you steal a car if you leave your keys, leave this car runnin’…that is not stealin’!’)
Who do you think y’all foolin’ BBC. Lol
That still suggests a shoo in victor for the next GBBB.
Fascinating new reflection on recent social history carried on the BBC this morning. It turns out that soccer fans of the 1980s have been ‘exonerated’ of any associations with hooliganism, drunkeness or ticketless bunking into grounds. Gosh I must be miss-remembering. Oh wait… that’s just the supporters of one single club.
Next up, punkrockers didn’t dress oddly, dye their hair or jump up and down to loud music.
Lanky lightweight Dan Walker ‘hesitates’ to flash us the front page of the Sun newspaper – but he’s brought a copy with him anyway – which it seems provides an altenative for readers from the otherwise all pervasive big story.
OK BBC I get it, I get it. There does come a time when the sermon becomes so prolonged and unctuous you just want to leave your donation and slip away.
Everything is doubleplusgood compared to the past. Trust and obey the new consensus that saves us from the evils of the past.
Seems transparency and substantiation is all the rage here with newly refreshed Flokkers.
Just popped back to a favoured site and this is the latest example of the £4B state media monopoly in action:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/content_request?nocache=incoming-802894#incoming-802894
This coming from the BBC Press Office, on current form, can it be believed?:
ExtraGear – still sounds a bit un-inclusive…. wonder what other titles were rejected… how about FifthWheel?
Hi Gear?
Lo jacking?
Overdriven?
Full Reverse?
Differential?
Spare Wheel?
Clutching at diversity?
Up the creek with a paddle?
Backfire..?
Dump valve?
This is fun!
In the spirit of balance, this gem from a BBC audience member…
Thank you for that clip Guest. If you want to know where BBC bias comes from look no further. The standard of university education has apparently sunk so low that the foolish boy can’t even see the idiotic contradiction in his own statement. Clearly Orwell is much too “controversial” for the school curriculum these days. These are the brain-washed morons who are recruited by the BBC to provide it’s world class service.
Andy Burnham has called for those senior figures deemed responsible for the Hillsborough deaths to be prosecuted.
I trust, in the interest of consistency and fairness, he also puts himself forward to be prosecuted for the 1200 deaths he was responsible for at Mid Staffs Hospital.
Eight-year-old memorises the Koran
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36146637
Not much text on the article promoting Islam but I would have thought a BBC “journalist” (who found the news on Facebook) could have added a comment such as “…8 year old Maariya Aslam was the same age as Mohammed’s wife when he first had sex with her”
Or does the BBC only promote the bits of Islam they want you to hear?
I see the bbc is still promoting child abuse. Poor girl, being made to learn the Koran at just 8 years old.
Shameful yet typical.
I think this is a perfect example to prove that people do not find religion for themselves. Instead it is forced upon them usually by their parents.
Tabs
Does the bBBC actually employ ‘journalists’ these days?
Interesting story though, as usually the biased BBC like to feature opposition to placing any learning demands on primary school age children.
For example note the column inches available to the different sides of this story.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35904242
But the current example is a ‘celebration’ of the RoP, so obviously special rules apply.
Absolutely no hint that this is a waste of time when she could have been learning something useful ! I wonder how they would report anyone stupid enough to memorise the Bible ?
Living in France with no access to BBC , I rely on this site to keep me abreast of the Bias on the Beeb . I always visit here before going on the news website and I was struck not by the bias but the hypocrisy. On their newspaper review they are pointing out that the Times and The Sun do not have Hillsborough as their front page………how many times do we have to search for information on trials regarding the mass rape of female children in towns and cities across the UK????? According to the Beeb obviously not important enough to be headline news but must be hidden away under regions. I also remember them reporting NOT on the march down to Downing St where wreaths of poppies were kicked about. Rant over , I’m smiling now about how they must be spitting over the Trump at the moment and just waiting for the Hilary wagon to be pushed even harder.
Degee replied to my Naz Shah comment above saying:
“The BBC post went online 4 hours ago. Naz Shah MP quits role over Israel post on Facebook As she made her apology 5 hrs ago that is a very reasonable delay.”
I think Deegee makes an important point but his premise is wrong on this occasion.
He’s correct in saying we might at times be more circumspect on this board and not jump to conclusions with the BBC.
However, the BBC has the biggest news gathering resources in the country, possibly matching any in the world. Yet the Naz Shah story was established in The Times, The Guardian (the link I used when I first posted) and the Telegraph web pages’ hours before the BBC posted it on their news web pages. Indeed, I published details on here at least an hour before the BBC ran the story.
I honestly do not believe there would have been a delay had the story concerned a Tory Scum MP, who was second in command to such a high ranking MP, (John McDonald, shadow chancellor in this case). The BBC would not have waited for an apology/explanation before running with the story – often saying the ‘poor sod the media has its teeth in has yet to reply to the allegations’ else ‘is unavailable for comment.’
Moreover, I heard a reporter’s view of the Naz Shah case on The Eddie Mair Live Show, starring Eddie Mair. The journalist was at pains to remind the listeners of Naz Shah’s apology/explanation which ran as follows:
‘This post from two years ago was made before I was an MP, does not reflect my views and I apologise for any offence it has caused.’
Ought not the BBC ask, and I am just saying ‘ask’, why the post being made 2 years ago is a defence? Why the fact she said it before she was an MP mitigates the offence? If it doesn’t reflect her views then why did she say it and why not retract it? Indeed, even if she made it at 2 am after a good night at the pub, she had the opportunity in the morning, when compos mentis, to clarify it. Her apology is for ‘any offence caused,’ i.e. not for what she has said. Those are the measly mouthed words of someone avoiding an apology.
Naz Shah, you are a racist, mindless, Islamist fanatic who is destroying the labour Party. Sorry if any offence was caused.
I posted somewhere on the site already that this story has been buried on the BBC website under Politics. If you look today you will find no reference to it at all on the news section, even drilling down to the England section. But you will learn Lenny Henry is to be nominated for a BAFTA, so you lose some but win some!
Imagine if it had been a Jew saying something similar about Arabs. It would be headline news on the BBC for weeks. Yes, Naz Shah is an evil racist. If Corbyn was serious about anti-semitism he would kick her out of the party, but he is not serious because he himself is anti-semitic. Lying scumbag !
Exactly Grant, or if the words had been said by a Tory MP or a UKIP councillor they wouldn’t be off the tv. Whole tracts of radio 5’s airwaves would be discussing them ad infinitum.
As that intellectual giant, Jo Brand points out, a black person cannot be racist to a white person.
Scribbling,
What a dozy cow Jo Brand is. By her definition Prince Philip’s comments about “slitty eyes” in China would not be racist. If I go to an African country, I can call them niggers because they are in the majority and have the power. How can anyone be as stupid as Jo Brand ?
Anyone heard the words “Naz Shah MP” in any context this morning?
No, me neither…lots about the divisions over Brexit in the Conservative party though and some mutual backslapping between Chris Patton and Nick Robinson on Today about the BBCs “overbalanced” reporting of the referendum. Apparently when voices of authority like the bank of England and the IMF speak of the advantages of EU membership the BBC is “trying too hard” when they put up a “tory backbencher whom no one has ever heard of as balance”.
The complete opposite of the BBCs Hillsborough narrative which tells us never to trust authority but always to trust the little voice of dissent, especially if it`s brought to us by a tearful Alan Green.
Yes, I heard the Nick Robinson, Chris Patton interview this morning. There is something about Patton that really gives me heeby jeebies. Kieth Vaz is another one. I always feel like I need to have a good scratch whenever I hear either of them. Today Patton was in full creepy mode; praising the BBC for its “impartiality and honesty.” Dear lord, is he on drugs? Does he never listen to Any Questions? Watch Newsnight? Question Time? Is there any need to mention their (so called) comedies?
He compared the Beeb, favorably, with the rest of the media, informing us how rare their high standards are.
You have to ask what the point of this “interview” was. Surely not just to wheel out this oily, pompous, self regarding sleaze ball to tell the nation how honest and wonderful the BBC is?
Time for a much needed scratch!
Jeff,
Chris Patten has been a failure in everything he has done. Yes, there is something creepy and revolting about him.
I don’t know if other readers have noticed that the debate over the EU membership referendum is concentrated entirely on economics?
It has long been UKIP policy that the only good side of the EU is as a trade alliance and it is the rest of it which is so egregious, and objectionable.
Today we have yet another comment this time from the OECD that there would be no economic benefit to us leaving (although they don’t say anything about detriment either)!
The Brexit side desperately need to take this argument away from economics and into the politics, the ever closer union, expansionism, ‘uman rights, the list goes on & on. Simply allowing the remainians to control the agenda is going to lose the vote.
We all know that Obama is deeply ignorant about business, trade and economics, but I think that tariffs between the UK and USA currently average about 3 %. So what is his point ? Is he suggesting there will be a Trade War ? He won’t be President anyway. It is all just bullshit, aided and abetted by the British Bullshit Corporation.
Speaking to UKIP today, they are aware of the issue, but the problem is in the electoral commission allowing the Tory party to control both sides of the debate. There is no way vote leave – a Johnny come lately group should have been made the official opposition when UKIP were the obvious choice, and it has led to suspicions of Tory party manipulation if not downright corruption.
Whereas Obama might not understand business & economics, it’s all the Tories care about. Lack of democracy, mass immigration, expansionism is not seen as an issue at all.
How much money must Patten be on?
MP’s / government minister’s pension, Governor of Hong Kong pension (huge I should think), EU commissioner’s pension and he’s now Chancellor of Oxford University – I don’t know whether that position is remunerated but if it is or isn’t the privileges attached to the position (I presume) will be generous to say the least.
No wonder this execrable@sshole is in favour of the endurance of the status quo.
Patten would sell his soul to the devil for money. If he has a soul. A total useless low-lifer if ever there was one !