Here you go, a new Open Thread. Anyone catch former Labour MP and good pal of Sinn Fein Chris Mullins on the Today programme this morning insisting that relatives of those killed by the IRA in the Birmingham Pub bombings needed to “move on”? Charming. And no pro IRA bias, no way….
MID WEEK OPEN THREAD……
Bookmark the permalink.
According to reports, the 18 Albanians washed up on our shores have/are being interviewed by the Border Control (?) officers – well, at least 15 of ’em anyway. The other 3 have claimed asylum so have been released while their applications are being processed i.e. money to live on, accommodation, access to health care. The ‘asylum’ laws have got to be changed – there is no reason on earth why we should accept asylum claims from anyone leaving France, no-one excepted ! its bloody insane ! All the propaganda being spouted that ” we’ve always been a welcoming nation” is rapidly becoming a sick joke.
Michael Gove: EU rules left UK powerless to stop terror suspects.
BBC jaw-droppingly ignores this announcement by UK Justice Minister. How can this be justified?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-michael-gove-says-european-rules-left-uk-powerless-to-stop-terror-suspects-a7060821.html
BBC ignores GMB’s Tim Roache on immigration – despite saying that immigration was “right, front and centre” in the minds of his members. Utterly ignored in TWO articles about his speech. No agenda there, then…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36431469
http://web.archive.org/web/20160602081344/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36430606
Buried by the BBC: ‘It would take a “modern miracle” for PM to meet immigration target’ says the Home Affairs Committee.
A Home Affairs Committee report later said it would take a “modern miracle” for David Cameron to meet his “no ifs, no buts” pledge to cut migration to under 100,000.
Buried under today’s main headline news: We can control migration inside EU, says PM
Got to say it listened to BBC news at half five and they actually seemed to cover the EU debate quite fairly even mentioning that “The Moron” got laughed at on a Sky news debate when practicing his normal doom mongering.
I wander whether the BBC is now picking up the national mood or was it maybe trying to prove it is being even handed by telling a little of the truth before Toady kicks in with its normal dishonest and disingenuous style.
A lot of news outlets are concentrating on the E.U. criminals that we cannot chuck out.
No one has yet mentioned if the latest wave of enrichers flooding into Europe will get leave to stay and the all important E.U. passport. This means that they will have the same right to turn up wherever they like, as the rest of our European neighbours.
Given the events in Cologne and other places, coupled with the fact that most of them appear prepared to break the law to smash their way into their country of choice, if we don’t get out now, we’ll be obliged to take anyone who decides that Germany isn’t for them and they fancy a bit of English culture.
Beeb concerned about young fish getting addicted to the plastic dumped in the sea this morning.
Priorities !
Nigel Farage mentioned it – again, and again, and again…
A Home Affairs Committee report says that voters will “question the point of the UK remaining a member of the EU” due to delays in sending home convicts from the Continent.
The BBC is clearly far too busy reporting fake MP tweets to report the conclusions of a mere government committee…
Sky News were doing so well.
I thought Faisal deconstructed Cameron last night, of that there was no doubt.
However they sh@t the bed this morning when they invited David Miliband to speak for remaining.
Isn’t he the failed politician brother of a failed politician who then abandoned the UK for the USA when it became clear that he was a failed politician? It’s a bizarre choice of commentator but desperate times call for desperate measures I suppose.
Taking a break from shagging the witch Clinton perhaps
Imagine the mutant offspring from that……the stuff of nightmares and horror movies
I thought the most remarkable and eye-catching aspect of Miliband’s performance was his jacket. Surely for one so highly placed in the charity business, on a very comfortable screw indeed if figures are to be believed, DM could afford a more suitable size? Then again, perhaps he’s trying to identify with the working man – though thinking that the 1930s is the right period could be another error of judgement. As one who was active at the time, could Polly Toynbee offer advice?
Indeed. Seeing the serial losers: Brown, the Miliband brothers and John Major speaking up for “remain” shows how far out of touch with the mood of the public, the remain camp really are. Even the BBC had to admit it on the 10 o clock news last night. They played it down somewhat, but they did comment that the mood coming from the public is much more sceptical towards remain and their spokespeople, than for Brexit.
We have had weeks and weeks of the Remain camp, utilising all their tools, from using government departments to strong-arming international bodies to scaremonger, to inviting the President of the United States to all plead with us to allow them to keep abusing us. Even after all that, Leave are leading in the polls again.
Now we are into the Purdah period, the campaigns have to remain equal. The BBC have been a bit more impartial than they were. The government cannot use departments of state for propaganda.
The leave campaign have weathered the storm. The remain campaign have thrown EVERYTHING at us that they could. They have no more new scare stories. I mean, where can they realistically go to for more fear, after they raised the spectacle of world war three?
We have taken all they have to throw and we are leading coming into the final straight, and WE have more ammunition which we have kept dry, ready for the final week’s battle.
We are going to win. Yesterday was a turning point. Cameron was laughed at, by the public, on national TV. Corbyn attacked the remain campaign. The remain campaign is empty of ammunition. It is hopelessly split and in total disarray and now open panic is setting in.
The Leave campaign is united, composed, gaining traction and the people of this country are becoming more passionate and more determined by the day to free this country from the anti-democratic, inept, incompetent, corruption of the EU, in order to embrace new opportunities to engage with, co-operate with and trade with the wider world on OUR own terms, democratically, freely and with the “consent of the governed”.
We are leaving the EU. Leave will win this referendum.
‘The Leave campaign is united, composed, gaining traction……..’
I’d say it would be fair to add: Despite lengthy, consistent and concerted attempts to fracture, divide and split their power-base. Had the playing field been level from the outset – let’s say, for the sake of argument, from South Thanet onwards – public opinion, and the result, would be beyond doubt.
If only this were true! While the leave campaign has slightly improved over the last week, to say it is united or composed is stretching the truth a bit, I’m afraid to say!
Until we here sensible discussion about a plan to leave the EU, rather than just negative comments about how awful the EU is, most people are still going to vote for [what they perceive as] the safe option.
The tragedy is, the leave campaign are throwing this referendum away by mindlessly banging on with such rubbish as “we’ll have 100 million extra per week to spend on the NHS”. Whilst, superficially this will sound great to most people (who know little of the issues as they get their information from the BBC), they are just as likely to be persuaded by an ‘expert’ from the other side, saying “Oh no we won’t”.
People will not be persuaded by merely shouting simplistic claims and counter-claims when they have no way of judging the truth of either case. Leave seem to think that whoever shouts the loudest is bound to win!
Sensible people will want to hear how we could leave the EU, even if we don’t get everything we want immediately.
It takes a plan of action to persuade any sensible person to embrace change. Leave just don’t get this.
Question for today
So, you’re a large corporation, in fact a giant of the British banking sector, with a somewhat tarnished reputation in the eyes of the public (Halifax – HBOS). In a cost effective way how do you get the BBC to parrot the name of your bank all day in news broadcasts but at the same time avoiding mentions of banker bonuses? Instead get the liberal media to associate your brand name with virtue signalling and social justice warrior-hood?
Answer: play into a liberal media meme – specifically, publicize a survey you’ve conducted into children’s pocket money, which allegedly highlights the supposed “Gender Pay Gap” as starting young with boys apparently receiving 12% more in tuck shop money than their sisters. Job done.
Because, never mind the methodology of the survey or possible skewing factors such as braggadocio by the lads, you know full well any mention of certain inequalities and the BBC will be over it like a bonnet. Like a dog with a bone.
Mind you, it’s only certain inequalities that matter like “Gender Gap” – you can bet your pink pound to your bottom dollar there’s unlikely to be tears and tiaras at the BBC at the mention of a “Bender Gap”
Go into Westfield some time and marvel at the number of designer handbag, clothing and jewellery retailers – no survey here into the “Spender Gap”.
Don’t we see surveys into US wealth which show rather more than half in the hands of women? But then that’s down to divorce law and the biological reason women tend to live longer than their husbands and become wealthy widows – the liberal media can’t dwell on that kind of inequality.
BBC Morning TV. Business News at 08.55.
A discussion on the ‘Gender Gap’. The gap between a boy’s pocket money and a girl’s pocket money.
Of course, studies have shown that boys receive more pocket money than girls and it’s sooo unfair.
A reason suggested was that boys are more pushy….
Is this business news?? Is it a sexist workplace agenda item????
Can’t wait.
Comments going well.
Sure they can sort it in post on the day if the audience fail to deliver.
A thought occurs.
Given the unique way the BBC is funded, in this cradle of free speech, democracy, education and information, to stay legal anyone opting not to pay the BBC tithe cannot watch critical political debates live.
I wonder how any MP or MEP of any party feels about that at such a crucial moment in the UK’s political history?
Nigel giving it large on LBC:
I’ve recently got a DAB radio in my car, which means I can flit between Radio 4 and LBC. What has struck me listening to LBC is that callers appear overwhelmingly anti-EU, contrasting sharply with the fare dished up on the BBC where the public’s concerns about the EU aren’t really acknowledged other than through the prism of the usual politician-speak.
This is frightening if true. From Breibart, the first few paragraphs read…
The European Commission plans to attack citizens’ right to online privacy, insisting that state-issued ID cards should be used to log into platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, and even Uber. The Vice President for the Digital Single Market on the European Commission, former Communist Andrus Ansip, is behind the next European Union (EU) raid on personal freedoms, promoting the idea of using national ID cards to log in to online services.
This is the link: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/02/former-commie-ec-commissioner-calls-people-log-onto-youtube-national-electronic-id/
Leaked documents from within the European Commission revealed a call for the roll out of a more extensive use of national ID cards across the EU. The documents have since been uploaded to the Commission’s own website.
Frightening indeed. And it seems to be true… CENSORED: Facebook deletes a Gatestone author’s page!
Mike, Thanks for the link to Gatestone. Looks like some interesting reading there?
My honest opinion about the remain and leave arguments? Both options carry a large amount of risk.
Leaving the EU leaves us open to the possibility of electing idiots who could do serious damage to our country.
Remaining in the EU leaves us at the mercy of an incompetent, corrupt and profoundly anti-democratic foriegn political entity which is overseeing a continent which is suffering from increasing levels of chaos.
Given that there is great risk on both sides, I choose the option that retains the ability to mitigate against that risk, and have the ability to quickly react to events and change course to mitigate negative outcomes.
Only the Leave campaign retains that option.
Geyza, “in reality, the choice in the EU Referendum is between known unknowns set against unknown unknowns.”
Which is which? 😉
I hear Richie Benaud (courtesy of Mike Yarwood or Rory Bremner or both) : “Silly, question reallleeeee.”
‘The possibility of electing idiots.’ – Almost a certainty that they would be idiots. But so long as we vote leave, they would be our idiots.
Agree. Last night I was at another of these ‘get-togethers’ that get organised around the county to ‘explain’ the EU Ref or ‘answer’ questions, or ‘guide’ folk in the ‘correct’ way.
They have tended to be thinly-disguised propaganda efforts depending on who is doing the organising and who they invite as guests, moderators or audience.
And so far, thanks to the internet and sites like this, I have gone seeking further information but usually find I know more than any present, especially the debating panel.
Last night’s had a twist to it, in that it was not a debate but a sort of facilitated discussion, where folk arriving were placed in groups from ‘Strongly Leave’ to ‘Lobotomised scented candle shop operators and eternal students’.
The everyone was mixed up and was asked to ‘create’ three reasons under each camp for various topics, like sovereignty, security, trade, etc. No arguments were to be made, or tolerated.
Lovely theory, but totally impractical. Which may explain why, for the first time, the ‘voting blocs’ at the start were the same as at the end, because no one who knew anything was allowed to correct anyone who knew zippy. By sheer coincidence, the split was 80:20 again, but this time for Remain. All agreed this was a great result, if unsurprising as it turned out the venue owner was an Greenie whose only concern was the EU shovelling cash at solar panels, and had invited all her chums… who were not subjected to nasty contrary opinions.
I may…. have rather harsher the mellow at the end with a few questions to the organisers.
The first was to ask why each table had a glossy leaflet entitled “The EU: your questions answered” on them, and that alone, when at the back it had the logo of the ECR http://ecrgroup.eu/about-us/the-ecr-in-the-european-parliament/ and was promoted by the West Midlands Conservative MEP team.
The second was about some ‘prompt’ cards placed on each table with ‘Remain’ facts, ‘Leave’ facts and ‘Background’ facts.
I asked why there were four from ‘Remain’, two from ‘Leave’ and three ‘Background’ ones.
Seems that is how it worked out. I’ll bet.
Finally I asked about one of the ‘Background’ cards.
Here it is in its entirety:
Background – B13
The European Arrest Warrant (EAW)
When one EU country issues an EAW, all other EU members are required to arrest a criminal suspect or sentenced person named on the warrant and transfer them to the state which issued the EAW.
I suggested that was pretty close to advocacy and would better apply under ‘Remain’.
Much bluster ensued, and my asking what systems existed with other countries and how extradition within the EU has worked out in practice was censured as not being in the spirit of the evening.
Ironically the event was titled ‘Do you let others think for you?…’ as part of a Talkshow series organised by http://openupuk.org
They seem well funded and not very independent at all.
A bit liked a certain broadcaster.
I should also add that, in the spirit of ‘democracy’ being tested by the now pervasive culture of ‘politics of the least bad’, should ‘Leave’ prevail I am under no illusions that the vast majority of clowns in the UK messing this great country up will still be in place, actively undermining anything they can touch to get their way or simply screwing up per usual, for at least two years and likely a lot more.
However, I at least if we leave we can weed them out and purge them eventually.
Delingpole has an article in the Spectator that most here would agree with.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/sound-and-fury-2/
I agree with everything the God Emperor has to say.
Through laziness or ineptitude I can’t find the link someone put here on a conversation involving Douglas Murray. Apologies to the poster. Where Murray spelt out an interesting aspect of BBC bias.
It is the issue of attempting to be ‘impartial’ by attaching moral equivalence to opposing sides of a situation where no moral equivalence should be accepted.
To take an example. Suppose there was a discussion about flying hijacked planes into skyscrapers. In the interests of ‘impartiality’, the bBBC would find someone who wanted to justify such actions and then give them equivalent airtime to the person who would argue such action as beneath contempt and a crime against humanity.
By repeating this process time and again, hugely minority positions are thus given wholly disproportionate platforms, airtime, and credibility overall. Just look at how much air time Al Beeb gave Abu Hamza in the 2000s to show the moral equivalence of extremist Islam – before he was extradited to the US and became a convicted criminal. Go back far enough and look hard enough and you’ll find bBBC ‘impartial’ interviews with spokespeople from the Paedophile Information Exchange, that friendly group supported at the time by Liberty as I recall – when Harriet Harman worked there.
A modern example? How about coverage of the student’s union resolution to close all prisons and presumably free all prisoners because they are racist institutions?
Invariably these minority positions are from the left or defended by the left.
A good exposition by Douglas on BBC bias about which we should keep continually vigilant.
Apparently that nice Mr Juncker’s reply to a query on how and why the French seem able to adapt or ignore fiscal rules the rest of us are forced to comply with to suit themselves was: ‘Because it is France.’
That could be his and the EU’s epitaph – if widely publicized, of course. Over to you B-B-B-BBBBCCCCCCC…..
This BBC?:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/02/bbc-spins-cameron-using-tweet-parody-tory-mp/
Envy of the world education and information, Impartial to a fault.
I note that the unfavourable (to the PM & his campaign to Remain in the EU) Daily Telegraph front page is missing from the BBC News page of their web-site. Bias? Couldn’t be, could it?
The BBC have declared today to be “BBC Music Day”.
When we all gather around Aunties pianoforte and “celebrate” music, as they`d like us to do.
From Tineh Tempah to Duran Duran via some old stuffed shirts fro the classical or operatic field-you know, to show how diverse and funky the BBC are at Radio 3.
No-day of silence today from me-no music unless I play it myself, no BBC input whatsoever musically.
Who the hell are the BBC to declare a “Music day”?…who`s funding that big fat drum of theirs to beat up a storm at the front of the cultural procession…as if they don`t drown out all competitors when it comes to news…they want us all now to shtep in time with them for the day.
Piss off BBC-you have not played a note in your lives, spend all your time puffing up the safe, the pleasing, the tickbox minorities and licensed deviancies-and your bloated fat corpse has long cast a dark shadow over REAL music…and no number of Macca thumbs up interviews on how he wrote “Yesterday” will EVER make you credible in terms of music.
You prescribe the playlists, you banish a Blackburn and throw drugs at IXtra…you employ Jools Holland when the corpse of Paula Yates would ask better questions of guests.
No-go see a folk band who sings up for UKIP…and let me know if the BBC would ever let them do the same on THEIR airwaves.
Tim Healys finest 100 seconds!
BBC Music Day or Lord Hall’s shabby half-hearted epitaph – or to quote his look-a-like “It’s good, but it’s not right”
I switched off early as News Channel ‘took it to the bridge’ this morning with some Welsh non-male voice choir on the Severn Bridge.
Be honest Baron Birkenhead and celebrate what you actually want to celebrate – BBC Box-Ticking Day
Right, time for a chorus of “The sun has got his hat on”, and a selection from the black and white minstrels.
“We’ve kind of got to tell a lie. We’ll go back into history and there will be black people where, historically, there wouldn’t have been, and we won’t dwell on that.
Never ever ever let the truth get in the way of a good story.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36442982
“We’ll say, ‘To hell with it, this is the imaginary, better version of the world. By believing in it, we’ll summon it forth’.”
Delusions of grandeur, the BBC is going to change the world with a hokey sci fi series, good grief, how deluded are these people, and on so many levels too.
Nice of them to admit they lie and re write history all the same, maybe they think we haven’t noticed that this practice is also applied to news coverage, seriously, what alternate reality do these people inhabit?
And that is why I’ve given up on Dr Who after 40+ years. Because they are more interested in ensuring minority over-representation in unsuitable areas than in producing coherent storylines.
For me, the “jumping the shark” moment was the introduction of the lesbian lizard who had to refer continually to her wife.
The river Seine has risen 6.2 metres because of fears of Brexit.
Which-so George Monbiot, Tony Juniper and Roger Harrabin have calculated(with thanks to the UEAs fiddlesticks modelling department) is exactly the volume of tears that has been shed since Al Gores ” All-too Convenient Troof” film was forced onto the nations schoolkids in 2006.
The tears are-need I say-produced by the worlds polar bears and Arctic hares, on hearing that there was no agreement on stopping Gaias sniffles in 2009 in Copenhagen-with only limited whoops, hugs and hollers in Paris last winter 2015.
Any excess tears and waterspoutings would be due to the crying Matterhorn and other victims that comprise the Alpine Community of mountains and small hillocks, who weep at the loss of snow and such.
This is the BBC-London Calling-and this is science in 2016.
Only pastel crayons allowed for the colouring books at the World Yoony of Eco-Fashizm…
Is that because the French are pissing themselves?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/02/labour-booing-jeremy-corbyn-strategy
“Labour must stop booing the media – they’re Jeremy Corbyn’s best hope”
When she uses the word ‘media’ Guardian hack Ellie Mae O’Hagan is in fact referring to the BBC political editor Laura K who was hissed by Labour activists at a recent Corbyn presser.
Is any further comment required re BBC in-built leftist bias? When push comes to shove the Left knows the BBC loves them. The BBC’s only wrangle with Corbyn is their worry that he is electoral suicide. They support the team just doubt the man in charge. You know, like Roy Hodgson and England.
#bbcFreeGreenAds ex-UNClimate Chief Chrisitiana Figueres is NOT in the news.
BUT R4 World at One at 1.18pm has just decided to give her a free slot anyway
cos there is always BBC time to spread GreenReligion and ClimateDoom
..Now she saying the Paris evidence ….it seems like an under estimate of the seriousness !
..Wow we are surprised she went for the “even worse than we thought” angle
…..”urgency of the transition”
Is the presenter challenging like a proper journalist or feeding lines ?
Yep the latter eg. “so more migration problems like the one in Syria”
CF is now banging on about “increased female participation”
The tiny news angle now seems that she maybe going to stand for the job of New Secretary General of the UN
..handy the BBC gives her campaign a free ad. #CrookedChristiana #CrookedBBC
…………………..
End of Item ..They move onto Wales eco man Rob Penn who going to tell us about loss of species
recorded report from Welsh woods ..where he describes DISEASE destroying ash, and sweet chestnut
“apocalyptic” says the presenter
..fungal diseases….no Global Warming angle actually mentioned
The interviewer was none other than the vapid Martha Kearney. I’m sure she is a perfectly nice woman, but surely there must be a knitting programme on one of the Freeview channels that is in need of a presenter of her calibre?
Ah I get it, The NEWS prog was at the Hay festival ..so there are million Green/Left celebs hanging around
There’s Hay On Earth, a subdivision of the Hay Festival
I note how Tata has no money to pay British Steel pensions …yet can sponsor a green left arts festival
A panel of Climate Alarmists was featured on The Hay version of Inside Science as per presenter Adam Rutherford’s GreenReligion
Prof Steve Jones, Marcus du Sautoy, and science journalist, Gaia Vince, to discuss what the future holds for humanity and the planet, what we can know, what we can predict, and what is to come.
#bbcClimateDoom #GlobalWarming
I turned off when Chrisitiana Figueres was introduced by Martha. There had been a lame link of climate change to the flooding in Paris.
Wonder why scientists who question the hysteria are never heard.
As if you needed any more incentives. Jamie the Chief Executive of JPMorgan has said that there could be 4,000 job losses at his investment bank if there is a vote for Brexit.
So not all doom and gloom then.
See Ya,….. J P Morgan, make sure you pay your tax money on the way out.
Do you think the British Public is incentivised to save investment bankers jobs ?
That’s the bank that played such a valuable role in the last great economic collapse that it was fined $13 billion.
Personally, I wouldn’t lend it 10p.
I’m sure the 4,000 could find jobs aplenty in the fields of Lincolnshire.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/ztvdg82
The anti British BBC thinks it’s wrong to dress to dress up as a Crusader at a sports event
Un-Blinking-Believable
Typical lefties’
Just voted on it out of spite. Judging from the current result and the questions they have shot themselves in the foot again. 15% are against the idea completely and 27% would not dress up but were ok for others to do so. Those were the negatives. The rest were ok with it .
Normal rubbish from BBC.
They’re thinking goes something like this.-
Let’s put seeds of doubt into people’s minds. Let’s promote anything that is anti British. Let’s do anything we can in order to destroy British culture and history. Let’s make Britain a Muslim state of the EU.
Drip,drip,drip,……
I am thinking of going as Ed Balls the Younger at a party.
Bet the BBC would not be asking any questions about that.
yes, interestingly, most people in the survey think Muslims ought not dictate how people who aren’t Muslim should dress. Anyway shouldn’t the people of Austria be upset at how Muslims dress, which is the same as when they carried out the Islamic crusades leading to the twin sieges of Vienna?
When I voted the results were as follows:
Yes, it’s my right to dress however I choose
25%
Yes, it’s a bit of harmless fun
35%
No, but it’s ok if others want to
26%
No, and I don’t think it’s right for others to do so
15%
“Conquest and pillaging in the name of Christianity” Amin is quoted as saying.
Is it my or his history lessons that have been forgotten?
Answers on a postcard …
Showing my age there!
I tried to vote but as I live in France no can do ,Mr Kitty and I will be wearing the full Crusaders outfit for the footy, obviously we’re knuckle dragging Neanderthals and will be downing litres of Stella Artois even worse to muslim eyes we live on a naturist site and can spot a suicide bomber as it tends to stand out against bare flesh.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36442982
‘Steven Moffat said the show had “no excuse” not to feature a more diverse cast, adding it would be “amazing” for it to have two non-white lead actors.’
Does anyone know why it would be ‘amazing’ to have two non white leads?
Because Moffat knows which side his bread is buttered.
I can’t see any problem in Dr Who being played by a black man, nor his assistant either. Best people for the job and as it’s not a historical character it doesn’t matter. I do, however, object that they feel the need to make the character black for political reasons, totally barring white minority actors due to their race. This is apartheid. Real apartheid. Apartheid in reverse is still apartheid, and the BBC have yet again shown they are apartheid and racist, as well as the already proven anti-semitic. What a lovely bunch of people these BBC nazis are. (And did I accuse them of being apartheid?)
I couldn’t amend my post. But I meant to say that I believe in the best people for the job irrespective of who or what they are.
When people ask me who my favourite Dr is I always answer that he’s the same man so how is there a choice?? The question of black or white Dr is irrelevant as the Borg say but can they the actor make me the viewer believe they are ” The Doctor “.
> I do, however, object that they feel the need to make the character black for political reasons
Just as well nobody’s even suggested that, then.
So Jerrod, whats your opinion on Al Beeb’s Bias ?
Why not black Daleks?
Or Muslim Daleks?
Spike Milligan already had that one covered
Gb123. Many thanks for this favourite.
The very first time i saw this sketch, on its original release I laughed so much I ached.
Sheer brilliance from our greatest creative and comic genius.
Though as this site is about bias, why the hell has Barry Cryer not got a knighthood?
Brilliant 🙂
Enjoy it while you can, the EU will be censoring it soon, no doubt…
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8189/social-media-censorship
It dawned on me that the BBC love to do modern adaptations of plays and history to push their agenda. I have just thought of one piece of history that could be adapted to represent what should be said to The EU and all the Brussels establishment.
“It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.
Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter’d your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?
Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil’d this sacred place, and turn’d the Lord’s temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress’d, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.
In the name of God, go!”
Oliver Cromwell – April 20, 1653
I love that speech, would love to have a copy framed and on my wall.
One of the finest speeches in our language. My history master made us learn it by heart. He was of the opinion that we missed the chance of getting rid of kngs and princes and all the rest for good and should have done so in 1649.. I have come to think he was right. I doubt whether today’s young even understand the words so poor is our public discourse now.
An English republic would have been something and who knows it might have changed this country for good and consigned our class system to oblivion.
It’s “You can’t make it up” time.
Caught a bit of Feedback on R4 at 1630 Friday.
Featured and feted was a programme about Healthcare in Bradford, specially chosen because 50% of new births are British and 50% are of Pakistani origin. This fact raised no comment at all btw!
Then we learned that the bBBC had complete freedom in the making of the programme. Good. That meams any bias can be directly attributed to those responsible.
Then we learn about high incidences of diabetes and a special mention for children whose parents are cousins of each other.
Yet throughout, there was not even a teeny weeny mention of the outside possibility that the ethnicity and cultural aspects of the local population just might possibly be a major factor.
Heads in the sand, in total denial, deliberately ignoring the elephant in the room, just so the multi culti PC narrative can be maintained.
Absolutely disgusting, as journalism, as reporting, and as evidence based reporting. Total bias.
The same programme quoted Norman Smith in his opinion of BBC coverage of the referendum.
Naturally, he was happy with it-indeed , he said that the BBC had an innate bias…towards impartiality.
But of course Norman.
No further questions yer honour….
To Norman that would be an impartial assessment – but then, even his forehead goes into spasms in an attempt to get away from that shrieking voice.
Norman Smith “I wasn’t aware that the BBC gets any EU funding” min 11:30
What @BBCNormanS BBC News Assistant Political Editor, “wasn’t aware that the BBC gets any EU funding” ? Is that statement credible ?
– They have a trick of mentioning only £3 million funding for the last year . not the bigger amounts from previous years so Roger brought up a Tweet (which I can’t find) with that recent number.
– 2013 the EU paid out €6,100,987 EU accounts state for 3 projects Development Cooperation Instrument (€1,125,987); EIDHR: (€643,164); European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (€4,975,000) most went to BBC Media Action, which “uses the power of media and communication to help reduce poverty, improve health and support people to understand their rights.”
– £3m shown by The Spectator FoI response confirms that BBC staff applied for, and accepted, about £3 million of EU funds between April 2011 and November 2013
confirmed By an MP in the Telegraph
– £20,152,022 (€24,435,906) BBC World Service Trust for 2007-2012 (old name for BBC Media Action)
If I give $20m to a millionaire’s pet charity could he really insist that would have no influence over him ?
– Earlier £141 million preferential loan from the European Investment Bank (EIB) to BBC Worldwide.
– A new £2.5m since 2012 “2013/14 the BBC took £878,000, while in 2014/15 it received £778,000. The broadcaster has received £476,000 in the current financial year, but that figure is expected to rise. ” booked as “projects undertaken by BBC R&D.”
– New Brussels cash for BBC film… about ‘disaster’ of the EU breaking up DailyMail
– Then BBC tried to double down in parliament and talk about a total of £35 million all for BBC Media Action ..smokebomb ?
– The BBC’s response seems provided by Vicky Pollard “Yes but, yes but, see they are charity divisions or commercial divisions sir”
But media stories arise talking only aout a recent the recent £2m another smokebomb which makes it look like EU money to BBC is small.
– It’s unbelievable NormanS had heard all these news reports.
……because 50% of new births are British and 50% are of Pakistani origin. …….
Which makes the 50% of Pakistani origin, now British.
Question: (don’t stop to think) What does a British person look like ?
Those that I’ve asked the question, without exception have replied ‘white’. Admittedly I didn’t ask anyone of ethnic minority; but despite attempts to be inclusive, multicultural, Lenny Henry and the Beeb, the mindset is still that Britishers are ‘white’; but with the breeding pattern of migrants here and in the future, how long will it take to think of us as anything else ?
I heard the original programme on Tuesday I think it was. Full of utter bollocks just like the Feedback comments from the leftie luvvies…
They mentioned but totally glossed over the issue that the majority of people of Pakistani “Heritage” (whatever that means) in Bradford have children with first cousins “or other close relatives”! NHS is apparently “learning” how to help them with their congenital defects and dying children. No suggestion that maybe the practice of in-breeding is wrong and maybe that’s why it wasn’t allowed in “British” culture…
What a marvellous thing that out our stressed out NHS can prioritise treating the congenital defects of children produced by the cultural preference for inbreeding among certain of our communities.
Feel enriched! Celebrate the multiculturalism! Embrace the diversity!
As you wait to get a GP appointment or do your 4 hours plus in A&E, or try and get a GP callout for your aged parents.
It is legal here for cousins to marry; I don’t think the risks are terribly high of birth defects if it is just the one generation (I believe Darwin was the product of a marriage between cousins) the problems arise when folk have been doing it for the past thousand years – which is why they have such monstrous freaks appearing in labour wards in Saudi Arabia and other delightful Islamic places.
Its called inbreeding Sluff never a smart move.
I am sure if it was a white population say living in the Appalachian or the Black mountains (no offense Taffman ) Aunty would not have wasted any time in telling it as it is.
However as it is a “ethnic” population Aunty reverted to her usual default position and played “tiptoe round the opium poppies” sorry I meant tulips! Dont want to upset anyone!
Listened to a bit of this sorry excuse for a programme myself last week – had to leap on the off button after ten mins too much moronic compassion and “understanding” not enough hard headed anal ysis. Unfortunately Aunty does not seem very interested in the ” ysis” part these days.
Oaknash
I dont think that we are allowed to use the word ‘Black’ any more.
😉
I have been a radio 2 listener for a long time, but not so much in the school holidays when they have the covering staff. Quite often I wonder where some of these ‘DJs’ come from – what qualifications etc. Case in point, Richard Bacon, covering for Simon Mayo’s show. I was wondering who he was, before deciding that I couldn’t listen to his smug ramblings and guffawing and then looked him up on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bacon_(broadcaster)
So it appears that he has someone on his side, given the list of transgressions – fired from Blue Peter for taking drugs, making inappropriate comments. Some people manage to sneak back in – reminds me of Jonathon Ross.
On another of my favourite pastimes, Springwatch (!!), interested to hear Chris Packham discussing Britain’s forest, or lack of it when compared to other European countries. They didn’t go into the reasons why, though….lets just build more houses.
There are inappropriate comments, transgressions and supporting filth like Doug Stanhope. Bacon returns.
A horse faced, feminist, lefty, transsexual Labour MP, gets a platform to espouse staying in the EU on HIGNFY.
Just another day at the BBC.
> A horse faced, feminist, lefty, transsexual Labour MP
Well, she’s not transsexual, but even if she were, it’s nice that Biased BBC’s line up of male supermodels feel confident enough in their own skin not to need to insult other people’s looks… oh.
How do you know what another person identifies as? Are you some sort of cis-nazi?
How do you or “Voice of the Mysterons”? Or are you some sort of obsessive hypocrite who seeks to apply standards selectively without bothering to apply them to yourself?
“How do you or “Voice of the Mysterons”? Or are you some sort of obsessive hypocrite who seeks to apply standards selectively without bothering to apply them to yourself? ”
No, I just like asking questions which trolls can’t answer.
So tell me why you think defending Voice of the Mysterons’ assertion is a valid use of your time?
Or is he/she just one more vapid little runt of a Biased BBC commenter whose prejudiced views you’re too cowardly to stand up to?
Hahah! This prat is everywhere!
Get thee back to the the BBC! Be gone troll, be gone! Back to Broadcasting House! Avaunt! Avaunt!
Let’s see.. might just work.
Jerrod:
I can use my time any way I want. Winding you up is easy, but also quick.
Jerrod is an ‘attention seeker’. Typical behaviour a failed drama queen .
‘Munchausen by Internet’
The weekend overnights are so refreshing to savour the unique commitment to civilised debate so often bemoaned by some as lacking in others, at other times, from atop the highest of steeds.
The stupid, it never sleeps.
Surprise surprise the BBC troll is a fan of this disgusting man-hating individual.
He also believes Europeans invented slavery, Neil Kinnock is a socialist and Hilary Clinton is a feminist.
> He also believes Europeans invented slavery, Neil Kinnock is a socialist and Hilary Clinton is a feminist.
DavidS – as that’s the current alias under which you’re masquerading – do you recall when you asked about whether I believed Europeans invented slavery, and I told you it clearly didn’t matter what I thought because you’d decide what I thought without need for any proof?
Thank you for proving me right.
Oh Scott, stop it!
Sorry if this has already posted But have only just read this and had to share
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/03/weve-got-lie-well-go-back-history-will-black-people-historically-wouldnt-wont-dwell/
What was it that Orwell said?- ‘the many who controls the past controls the future’ etc.
Doublewhatsyrname – L0ve it the BBC always sticks to the facts! I think this smacks of a fat bloated Mao Tse Tung swimming the Yangtze in record time or the dear leader of Korea (or was it the great leader) being a talented basket ball player (maybe it was competitive cheese eating) – anyway it was a crock of shit and I am afraid this is what our beloved state broadcaster has become.
I hear the the next Dr Who episode is entitled Dr Who and the Wan#erons think the whole creative department of the BBC (I think this includes their news editorial dept as well) are having walk on roles on the episode – could be worth a watch!!!!
Interestingly Orwell may have been paraphrasing Mao who more pithily said
‘The past must be made to serve the future;- either way the so-called-BBC have taken it to heart
Compare and contrast:
BBC: EU referendum: Exit would boost jobs and manufacturing, says Gove
Telegraph: EU debate: Michael Gove condemns ‘job-destroying’ elites and ‘racist’ immigration rules as he appeals to Britons to back ‘Project Hope’
Interesting to see what the BBC left out of its rather skimpy summary of Gove’s interview – for example that Gove got a grilling from Faisal Islam, whom Gove accused of being on the side of the elites, and the destruction of the UK’s fishing industry by the EU.
Funny that.
Faisal Islam came across as a real supercilious toad. He seemed particularly fond of sacrcastically calling Gove the “Lord High Chancellor”, as if that somehow meant he was a hypocrite for standing up for ordinary people.
… as opposed to David Cameron, I suppose, that well-known old-Etonian “man of the people”…
I’ve already deleted the Cameron debate for some strange reason but I have the distinct impression that Gove had FAR more interruptions than Cameron. I’m hoping that someone was counting.
Really off Islam now. That irritating smirk deserved a slap.
Had to laugh at the Cambridge “intellectual” who thought that EU decisions were made democratically. His face was a picture of misery after Gove’s dismissal.
Yes, I thought Islam was over theatrical and playing to the camera, attempting to show himself as a heavyweight – but like most of today’s political interviewers, can’t hold a candle to the ‘Master’ Robin Day ! (please Google if you’re too young to remember). He clearly revelled in the laughs he got with Cameron, so followed with the same tack. (and I agree Maria, – about the slap !)
“please Google if you’re too young to remember”
If only!
ps: I used to watch Tonight presented by Cliff Michelmore.
Actually, in some ways, I’m glad I was born when I was …. in some ways.
I’m sorry but I think you guys are plain wrong.
Faisal had such an easy time taking Cameron apart on Thursday because he was lying. Most commentators agree that Faisal did well.
Gove was not lying so Faisal had nowhere to go. To avoid screams of bias by the remain side he HAD to be more combative. To be honest I didn’t think he laid a glove on Gove and it was obvious Faisal realised it.
Don’t forget, Cameron got the question “which comes first WWIII or global meltdown?” and had no response.
I thought Gove got off to a shaky start when Faisal went for him about naming any economists in support of Brexit. I was a bit perturbed that Gove didnt answer! I can name some off the top of my head: Patrick Minford, Roger Bootle and Ruth Lea plus why not throw in an ex Chancellor Lawson who is actually respected unlike the no marks Major, Lamont and Brown. They should be much more assertive on the economic case for Brexit, look at the basket case which is the Southern Eurozone.
“Most commentators agree that Faisal did well.”
But wasn’t that before the Gove debate?
Time after time Cameron fell back into his habit of lecturing his audience, or waffling, as one member of the audience said. If my recollection is correct, he was able to do so largely uninterrupted. I don’t see that as being “taken apart”.
In many cases, Gove had barely started to answer his question before Islam leapt in. Fortunately, Gove had sufficient steel to plough ahead, but that’s not the point.
Sorry mate that question was the game changer. After that the audience were laughing at him.
My comment was about the uneven treatment handed out by Islam. The audience’s reaction is irrelevant, Islam did not interrupt. He should have finished Cameron off.
Do you really think that if Islam had landed a knockout blow on Gove, he would have backed off from that point on? I don’t think so. As Englands Dreaming points out, Gove got off to a shaky start but the pressure he imposed on Gove was still relentless.
IMO, Islam tried to prevent Gove getting his message across by interrupting as soon as he had started to answer a question. Not a good interviewing technique if you genuinely want to know what the interviewee thinks.
I’ve already deleted the Cameron debate…..
This is why god, if there is a god, gave us YouTube:
If that’s the same god who gave us Cameron, I’m not particularly grateful.
Not on the BBC: Leave takes the lead in the polls… the FT poll of polls should now be showing a 1 point lead to Leave, at least according to their published criteria – although it looks like the overall total hasn’t been updated with the latest polls yet. I’ve calculated it using several different weightings for the most recent 7 polls (excluding the two outliers) but whichever way I run it I get Remain 42.6, Leave 43.7 (or thereabouts), undecided 13.5.
https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/01/claim-corrupt-google-suppressing-eurosceptic-website-says-founder/
if Google is suppressing political views in this manner then it requires a major inquiry.
A more pressing enquiry would be if Breitbart got a conspiracy theory that has a basis in fact.
Searching for [EU Referendum] using non-personalised results, eureferendum.com is the sixth result on page 1 on Google, excluding a block of Google News based links at the top of the results.
Breitbart does link to EU Referendum via its old Blogspot domain, which now consists of only a “this page has moved” link to the current site. This link _does_ exist in the rankings which Breitbart describes – but it’s appropriate that a page consisting solely of a redirect link ranks lower than the page it links to. Which, to repeat, is on the first page of Google results.
So it seems Breitbart is not being honest with you. And, to be frank, it’s far from the first time. It’s not exactly got a great reputation for being nonpartisan and reliable.
Jerrod
Far more importantly, is Al Beeb being honest with you and us ? Because we are forced to pay the tele Poll Tax even if we don’t watch the bloated, Euro funded, over staffed quango .
‘Pressing’ indeed.
‘Biased Breitbart’ has a nice alliterative ring to it.
You could be frank David to Edward’s Alan.
Well worth creating to inspire comment all night long among the stupid on shifts and the competition for audience is reduced. Especially those with a vital grasp of what is truly non partisan and reliable. Just ask Lord McAlpine’s family, or the Queen, or those in the Middle East surprised to find their dead get ported across countries as much as down neighbourhoods.
Which, given Breitbart is in comparison not exactly uniquely funded by the public by state compulsion, such an audience may be.
Let us know how it gets on.
Jerrod, I don’t normally bother to read your posts but I happened to read this one. You completely miss the point about Breitbart and , as you put it , honesty. Unlike Google, or even more so the BBC, Breitbart is not a public service , or in Googles case a private company masquerading as being a service for the public good. Breitbart has no duty and makes no claim, to be impartial and can choose to angle stories and news in any way it chooses. I realise that the liberal left, I assume you are a member, don’t like the fact that their control over the news agenda is being eroded by the internet and are fighting back by trying to impose rules over what we can and can’t write and read on sites like this. Exactly as G Orwell expected. But I think you have to face up to the fact that the digital age will sweep away the left’s control of the media and the people will be allowed to read and write what they want.
> Breitbart has no duty and makes no claim, to be impartial and can choose to angle stories and news in any way it chooses
Including being dishonest, so that mindless sheep who want to believe a conspiracy theory can do so without bothering about the truth. Got you.
> But I think you have to face up to the fact that the digital age will sweep away the left’s control of the media and the people will be allowed to read and write what they want.
You’re already allowed to write what you want. Just as I’m allowed to think what I like about the quality of your thought process, if you can call it that.
Stop being so bloody paranoid all the time, and you might find that the world you’re living in isn’t quite as vile as you seem so desperately to want to believe.
Jerrod, try contributing in a civilised manner instead of just issuing vituperative personal attacks on serious contributors. Tell us why the BBC is so worth keeping in its present form.Or perhaps you want to change something about the BBC, because you think it has flaws? If so, tell us. Tell us why you think the BBC is unbiased. I’m sure that such contributions would add something worthwhile to these threads. But leave out the personal attacks.
> Tell us… tell us… tell us…
You’re doing quite enough of a job of attempting to change the subject without my help, so pardon me if I don’t jump to your orders to do so, you patronising twerp.
Do you think it’s acceptable for Breitbart to lie, if that lie helps someone with prejudices reinforce those prejudices?
‘..pardon me if I don’t jump to your orders to do so, you patronising twerp’
“So tell me why you think defending Voice of the Mysterons’ assertion is a valid use of your time?”
‘Patronising’ also having its unique exemptions in certain circles? Do tell.
Where’s Stevie Nicks when needed?
I should have known Biased BBC’s expert on being patronising – he’s never anything else, after all – wouldn’t have been able to resist sticking his beak in.
And of course, he has absolutely zero to contribute to the original subject of discussion. As absolutely bloody usual – all he has to offer this world is being a vacuous, judgemental idiot. Pretty pathetic, really.
Oh Scott you theatre loving, LGBT, sad little man, you.
Jerrod,
I suppose that having earlier broken my usual policy of ignoring your posts and responding , I must respond to your reply. Most people who visit this site believe that the state funded BBC has a duty to be impartial but that it blatantly isn’t and leans heavily towards the liberal left. We believe that it manipulates the news to suite its various narratives and will lie through its teeth when necessary. These are our principal objections to its continued existence as a publicly funded body. The Guardian , which I find equally misguided, is a private company and can publish whatever it wishes , true or untrue, sane or insane. The same is true of Breitbart.Please don’t bother to reply as I don’t have time to bother with your posts- they are all so predictable.
Ah, I see. If a site which you and your kin quotes every single time it chimes with your own prejudice, it’s okay if it does so by lying. Got you.
Biased BBC: where lying bigots try and claim the moral high ground over everyone else, even though they lack the intelligence and self-awareness to realise how hypocritical that makes them. Vance must be so proud, that the only people he can get to join his little rabble are liars, hypocrites and fools.
Cripes, the entire weekend ready and waiting to swoop. Keeps you off the streets I suppose.
‘the only people he can get to join his little rabble are liars, hypocrites and fools’
A volunteer is worth ten press’d men, so those three must be your floor. And in your case all rolled into one. Dark looks round the halves of shandy on break at that rather careless bit of inclusivity tonight.
> Cripes, the entire weekend ready and waiting to swoop
Says the hypocrite who just can’t help hopping on every thread to give everyone the benefit of his idiocy.
Hypocrite: Someone who conveniently forgets their faults to point out someone else’s.
Biased BBC’s motto, isn’t it?
Certainly better than “you don’t have to be a lying halfwit to post here, but if you’re not you won’t fit in”
We do not see things as they are, we see things as *we* are.
Jerrod, Brietbart is indeed partisan and has no claims to be otherwise. Like the Guardian, The Telegraph and other news sources it presents the world in its own favoured light. Hence I used the word ‘if’.
This site is for those of us who feel the BBC has its own style of partisanship on specific issues.
Remember we now know that Facebook censors what Zuckerberg regards as ‘hate speech’. Though some would say his idea of ‘hate speech’ was open discussion about the negative impacts of uncontrolled immigration.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/26/mark-zuckerberg-hate-speech-germany-facebook-refugee-crisis
Some would say that there are many dribbling racists who can’t tell the difference between honest discussion based on facts, and grubby little assertions plucked from the transom of what they mistake for their mind, believing every utterance they make must be automatically worth bleating to all and sundry. Who believe that a lie told to reinforce their own bigotry is better than the truth.
Some would say that Facebook isn’t the only site that has problems with such people, and there are some sites run by vain egotists who are more concerned with their traffic than telling such people to shut up and behave like grown ups.
Some would say.
Jerrod, I thought you would be in Rotherham today, supporting the comrades against the peaceful protest from the Nazi Pegida
Bless
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32690757
‘More than one person has told me this is on a par with… The promises were made after what some would say…’
firstly, welcome to an adult debate where there is a free movement of ideas, some of which may make you stamp your little feet and squeal loudly. I suggest deep breaths and long chats with your therapist before replying.
I’ll try to winkle out your arguments from the bin bag of your words.
It may indeed be true that there are some groups which we would all like to see denied access to publicity. There are compelling reason to be wary of racist groups pedalling their wares.
However, I do find myself concerned at internet communicators, such as Google or Facebook, and most certainly the BBC news web site, appearing to be comfortable with left wing extreme views but baulk at right wing views.
As an example, at the last Conservative conference, women entering it were spat on and threatened with acts of sexual violence including rape. I feel this was treated very differently by the BBC than had, say, Daily Mail readers performed the same actions. Not that Daily Mail readers can probably get it up any more, but you get the gist of my concerns.
“We can control migration inside EU, says PM”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36437329
But where have we heard that promise before …………………………………….
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-pledges-to-control-and-reduce-immigration
The voice of an used car salesman?
Buried by the BBC: Theresa May says EU’s free movement rules make controlling immigration “harder”.
Home Secretary Theresa May said last month that the EU’s free movement rules make controlling immigration “harder”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36392341
Buried more thank half way down the article. I see what they did there.
(Thanks taffman for the link)
Not on the BBC: Three quarters of the public want to see immigration reduced and half of them want it cut by a lot
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/377#
Net immigration doubles since 2010
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics
Jerrod
More illegal immigrants/migrants heading this way and the European Parliament still can’t come to a decision about what to do. Over to you Mr Car Moron .
You really could not make it up …………….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36443326
What’s your wise words on this Jerrod ?
Jerrod doesn’t deign to answer questions from racist morons, he just enjoys insulting people who are his intellectual inferiors, ie everyone on the site.
Probably to send an armada of little ships across the Channel to pick them up off the beaches – with all the luvvies, Pixie Cooper and Bob Geldorf in the first boat !
Its gonna be ‘Dunkirk in reverse’ !
As we are asked to vote for democracy, a little reminder to us about those that fought hard to hand it to us …………
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36401663
Philosopher and poet Cassius Clay has died.
BBC 24 news coverage going on and on and on.
Examples of his poetry and wit all over the place. Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde and Rudyard Kipling must be kicking themselves.
No mention so far as to why he changed his name to Mohammed Ali, and who he was associated with at the time. Still, ‘The World’s Greatest Sportsman’ has to be granted a fair bit of leeway I suppose.
Personally, if I see the poor man’s sunglasses removed and replaced one more time…..
‘E was blick, innit!
Will they be showing ‘that’ interview
How refreshing to see an interview with a conversation of substance. Graham Norton please take note.
Wow Ali being incredibly politically incorrect and opposing mixed marriage “why would I want my race diluted” etc. whilst Parkinson desperately tried to push the PC line.
I don’t agree with Ali on this, but it would be wrong to hide that speech.
.. Though pity that video does have a propaganda bit added to the last minute.
His apologists, especially at the so-called-BBC, are keen to gloss over his views
Claiming that he moderated them in later life what evidence of that there is I don’t know, but evidence of his even more extreme views off camera have not entirely been memory holed , but very nearly
As has his involvement with ‘the nation of islam; during the time of the ‘Zebra killings ‘.Something else the BBC don’t want to talk about
BBC Radio 4 is interviewing George Foreman on the death of Mohammed Ali, and they’re absolutely determined to talk about ‘racism’ in the USA and by white people. Foreman is having none of it and tells them that Ali was bigger than being Black and that didn’t matter to him.
Not to be de-railed the interviewer comes in on a different tack – but he told a lot of people that didn’t see themselves as beautiful, that they were. Foreman came back that he made everyone see themselves as beautiful.
Why on earth do these Fascists do this? To drive a wedge between someone on the grounds of race when it’s so blindingly obvious that the interviewee has no edge to him, no chip on his shoulder simply creates what they claim to be so opposed to.
Since the start of the referendum campaign PM has been running a nice little bit of ‘bias by boredom’ each night.
We get a manic questions, supposedly from a listener, “Will I be thrown in a Spanish jail if I’m on holiday abroad and the fools vote leave?”, etc. Then comes the calm reassurance that nothing will change for two years or more anyway, (and the subtle message repeated over and over, ‘why change, leave things as they are’).
Friday’s performance went a stage further. Someone asked if we would regain control over our fishing grounds if we left. Then followed a most peculiar supposition. “Well we could, of course, claim a 200 mile limit”, (but what about the Channel, how silly would that be?). Then the downside, ‘but we wouldn’t be able to fish outside the limit’. More clever thoughts. ‘How would we stop the buggers, I mean what would we do if a Spanish factory ship turned up?’. After all we are a little nation and rely on the EU for our protection and we only have two rowing boats for a navy now. Besides we haven’t got a fishing industry now, (why?), so it would be silly to leave all that water unfished wouldn’t it. Far better just to leave things as they are!
IIRC We could presumably stop the Danish trawlers that rip up the sea bed for sand eels to use to feed their fish farm fish, which I believe does not actually help normal fish stocks to flourish!
I am lost for words:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/03/watch-bbc-brexit-report-used-eu-backed-prof-independent-trade-expert/
This so-called trade expert interviewed by the BBC, who in fact is no such thing, would be well employed reading some sensible economic analysis on EU matters. One example is quoted below:
“the EU places protective barriers around manufacturing and agriculture, but leaves services largely unaffected. Inside the EU, the prices of manufacturing and agricultural products are higher than world market prices.”
Taken from
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-economic-case-for-a-brexit/
I would recommend this site for some better analysis than the BBC can muster. Certainly, I would be very dubious about any argument that the EU keeps food prices lower than they otherwise would be. BBC please note.
Only 3% of guests on Today over the past decade have been Eurosceptic
From that same article:
Last month, a report showed that just three per cent of guests invited to talk about the EU on BBC Radio 4’s flagship Today programme over the past decade were Eurosceptic.
The Institute of Economic Affairs also found that an episode of BBC Two’s Newsnight that focused exclusively on the EU question had 18 guests in favour of remaining in the EU but just one who wanted to leave.
Ryan Bourne, author of the report, said: “Given the BBC’s funding mechanism and reputation, this could have an important impact as the UK prepares to vote in a referendum on membership of the EU.”
No kidding.
No pun intended, Old Goat 😉 Thanks for the link.
So the muzzo’s have banned a gay sauna in Luton, I am in turmoil, cried myself to sleep last night in my half and half pyjamas last night (Allah on the front/Freddie on the back) . Personally, I am all for the gay sauna , flatten the damn mosque. What you say BBC?
Anybody noticed the increasing use of the word ‘controversial’ on BBC news? They seem to be using it when describing something or someone that they don’t like. To me it sounds like an editorial policy to use this word which is employed to suggest something bad but without actually saying anything negative. It’s very subtle but once that you notice the frequency of use it’s quite blatant.
Things which the BBC think are ‘controversial’
Nigel Farage
Fracking
Trump
VoteLeave
Christian bakeries with christian principles
Things which the BBC do not think are controversial
M*sl1m invasion of Europe
Pakistani rape gangs
Transgender bathrooms
Regarding Fracking. It isn’t controversial to scientists, engineers, geologists or those who have safely worked with it since the 1940s.
But it is to actress’ like Emma Thompson, dress designers like Vivienne Westwood and daughters of 1960s pop stars like Bianca Jagger.
Oddly, you’d think for balance, the BBC would occasionally interview someone who knows about the subject.
SS -Still hanging on to my IGAS shares they will be a goldmine one day
So is the BBC pro-boxing today? or is today going to be an entire day of Brixton activist bus drivers in the 1960’s who met Muhammed Ali – maybe they can link it to Sadiqs dad was a bus driver too dontcha know
Like the No. 38 bus, they may get even keener as more ‘news’ arrives. Or not.
http://www.skysports.com/boxing/news/12040/10301275/amir-khan-keen-to-represent-pakistan-at-olympic-games-in-rio
The Khan ‘family’ diaspora will be pleased.
All that bullshit about waving the Union Flag didn’t mean much in the end did it? He’s as British as any Pakistani muslim will ever be.
Just a thought: Unlike US polls, UK polls never give the margin of error. Why? I did physics at Uni and if you didn’t show the error on any measurement, you got your head kicked in. Those were the days.
‘Uni’?
In my day you ‘got your head kicked in’ for saying Xville University rather than University of Xville! The other favourite was scrawling ‘UNITS!” triple underlined in red if one forgot on a lab report.
The rot was probably creeping in when a PhD student, acting as supervisor, hurried us out of the lab saying, “You only need two points to plot a straight line!”, (but how did we know it was a straight line without plotting at least three points?). Don’t question the narrative, he probably got a job with the BBC.
I was the last person to be swept away on a tide of emotion on the deaths of Prince or Bowie, but could understand the feelings of those who had enjoyed the music or seen them live. I grew up with Cassius and saw him fight at the Albert Hall – yes he was a sight to behold and had a balletic athleticism – beautiful to watch, and yes I also remember the controversy about his conversion to Islam. To be fair, because the mid 60’s was a different era, (Islam to most of us was the exotic image of Turkish Delight on the adverts), it was no big deal in this country because Christianity didn’t have any opposition , just having to remember a ‘funny’ name as opposed to the easier Cassius Clay !
Personally I think there is something really odd in people who mourn people they have never met or do not know. Turkish delight now you are talking, I get your point Islam- it was all mystical back then. Now we know the rather horrible truth.
I have no interest in the boxing at all but I did like his version of ‘Stand By Me’, which unfortunately got few plays on the radio.
He probably gave Parkinson a good living too!
Is there no bar below which Cameron cannot stoop?
Poor old Cassius isn`t even at the first stages of rigor mortis before the BBC use his stiff bodyboard for their liberal surfings.
From David Bowie through now to Ali….the BBC just see them as Buckaroo baggages in which to ladle their own liberal slops and tropes.
Listen you BBC Burkes( and Hares)
1. Clays comments about Sonny Liston, Joe Frazier and George Foreman would now have him banned from universiities, with petitions set up to no-platform the ugly racist comments that he used about all three of them. None of them deserved them-but with tickets to sell and the sporting media to feed, (with the types of pondlife like Don King in train)-Ali would say such offensive things to fellow blacks and get away with it-for he, of course was not as black and ugly as they were….and in a sense Obama, Beyonce and Umunna benefit still from this.
2. We would never have had the likes of Prince Naseem if not for Ali-so thanks for nothing-the sport became racist, bullying crude and another bridgehead for Islam.
3. He was greedy and went on too long-the likes of Holmes and Spinks only got pay packets, but brought Alis demise all the more rapid with Parkinsons from way back…a terrible irony, seeing as he`d already seen what happened to Joe Louis.
Rather like the BBC-went on to become gaga and demented in the chase for status, power and reclaiming old glories.
Yes-like Best and Lennon-a global 60s icon-but the BBCs fawning hagiography of the bloke who did more to bring Islam lapping up the Hudson River than anybody else -well it`s typical crap from the LeftyLibtards.
From Ali to Beyonces “Fourmation at the Superbowl”-via Malcolm X, Farrakhan and Sharpton?….not a legacy I`d be proud of myself.
Maybe Ali was the original ROPe-a Dope…God Bless and Keep Him, but the BBCs hagiographies on the hoof make me heave…
“Is there no bar below which Cameron cannot stoop?”
Concise answer to your (I presume) rhetorical queation- no.
No bar too low, remember the cringeworthy Helle Thorning-Schmidt/Obama selfie? Let’s hope he’s kept well away from any memorial services. Queen purring was another good one, statesman like qualities indeed. I’ll have to come clean, I did vote for him as a least worst option once, that won’t be happening again. That goes for the whole party actually, most of them come across as a bunch of pc europhile transgender toilet obsessives these days.
Limbo Dancer Dave , there is no bar below which Cameron cannot stoop