It’s hard not to laugh and admittedly I don’t try too hard.
The great and the good of the BBC who have been deriding and demonising Trump have had their pay slashed. Coincidence? LOL. They spend their time attacking the government about fair pay and equality and then find it is they who are lined up for a bit of that themselves…and it is one of their own who has caused this implosion….not before time but if only we could work out a way to cause a similar bit of blowback for all their partisan, subjective and very partial ‘news’ broadcasting. Someone leaking the Balen Report into the BBC’s bias against the Jews would be a start.
I mentioned before that Sopel had revealed to us one of his usual insightful and completely impartial analyses of what is happening in the White House claiming that it was chaotic with Trump saying one thing and then someone coming out and saying something else….this was apparently symbolic of the Trump administration and his regime and the way things now happen in America under Trump….or indeed at the BBC which announced it had cut Sopel’s pay, then said it hadn’t and then said it had.
This morning we had some more impartial insight as the BBC told us in its news bulletins that ‘the Trump administration had tried to impose tariffs’….and failed. I thought that was wrong, it was Boeing that had initiated the case against Bombardier. This was the BBC trying to push its own agenda. The BBC today presented a narrative that Trump’s great plan to put America First was failing….they were mocking him…
It’s seen as a blow to US President Trump’s “America first” trade policy.
Hmmm…it had nothing to do with Trump’s policy except by default.
And how so we know this? Because BBC reporting from last year shows it was not Trump driving this and there was no attempt to impose tariffs ‘just because’….it was all about the law.
Here’s a relevant quote from December….the tariffs could be lifted….what, not imposed regardless of the law by a Trump Administration out to slam shut its borders?
Wilbur Ross, the US Commerce Secretary, also said import tariffs on the C-Series jet could yet be lifted.
He said Washington understood “the political sensitivity” around the dispute in Canada and the UK.
However he added: “But the fundamentals remain: Even our best friends really have to play by the rules.”
The intitial ruling by the Commerce Department was a preliminary ruling that had to be examined by the US International Trade Commission (USITC). Both these bodies are government agencies.
The US trade investigation to which Bombardier is being subjected is a complex, multi-stage process.
It involves the interplay of two government agencies, the Department of Commerce and the US International Trade Commission (USITC).
The USITC effectively ruled there was an arguable case against Bombardier, moving the complaint to the next stage.
Now, it is up to the Department of Commerce to make a preliminary finding on whether Bombardier has in fact received subsides, or is selling below cost.
The USITC has now ruled that there should be no tariffs. So a Trump Administration body rules that there should be no tariffs because that is the legal judgement and the BBC tries to suggest that Trump’s ‘America First’ policy is on the rocks. Complete rubbish that is more illustrative of BBC reporter’s own prejudice and desire to paint everything ‘Trump’ as bad and hopeless.
Am I first?
Oh joy. Not a “Big thread!-buy augurs well for 2018.
Sopel Fruits…
David Hardy has a new essay
: http://commentcentral.co.uk/is-it-time-to-reign-in-the-bbc/
some excerpts :
“The BBC’s overt loathing for Donald Trump is clear for all to see and serves as a poignant reminder of the organisation’s inherent bias. A bias that serves only to guide the organisation further and further down the path to irrelevance, ”
…
“The BBC digging its own grave is not a particularly edifying sight, but on the evidence of its Trump coverage, if only for the sake of the future health of US-UK relations, it’s a destination that cannot come soon enough.”
What is offensive is a bunch of highly paid non entities arguing about their cash like ferrets in a sack on the pretext of gender pay equality.
The rest of us lesser mortals who have the cash extorted from us could care less about gender pay .
When you are at the bottom of the pile just trying to survive it doesn’t mean a thing.
I’m amazed that the general public aren’t more outraged but I guess its easier to get outraged over a silly tweet someone sent years ago.
The biggest laugh is that the screaming “wimin” thought that they would get a pay rise. The BBC could not afford to hand out even more inflated salaries, so started to trim the men’s wages instead. (If they were paid what they are worth, they would be on at least half pay. They should remember that). The BBC always said that they have to pay these exorbitant sums to keep “the best talent”. Let us see how many men leave because they are now underpaid.
I would cap the salary of ALL the bludgers at the BBC (at say £50k, to be generous for what they actually do) and see if there is a stampede to snap up this ‘talent’…grrrr 🙁
I see that the BBC has been generating fake news even about this as they claimed Sopel has agreed to a pay cut. He on the other hand categorically denies this .
When they even lie about their own internal politics what hope is there?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42827333
The BBC said Huw Edwards, Nicky Campbell, John Humphrys, Jon Sopel, Nick Robinson and Jeremy Vine had all accepted reduced wages.
BBC editor Jon Sopel had NOT agreed to take a pay cut – despite corporation naming him as one of the men who had
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5319285/BBC-editor-Jon-Sopel-NOT-agreed-pay-cut.html
BBC star Jon Sopel had not agreed to take pay cut
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bbc-star-jon-sopel-had-not-agreed-to-take-pay-cut-jjjb8wn2f
Even when all the other media is reporting that the BBC is broadcasting fake news again, and calling them out for it, they maintain their lies as if no one has noticed.
Be sure that whatever Sopel gets paid as a salary, he will be paid much more to have a house/apartment in the US, flights home, health insurance, school fees for kids, expatriate premium etc, etc.
Thoughtful: Sopel should be getting £20-£30k, max. His analysis of US politics is superficial and predictable. He thinks that saying something nasty about Trump every day equals news reporting and analysis. So do his colleagues, and there are many of them out there, leeches feeding off the licence -fee payer. If they at least did a decent job, one might consider £30-40k, But they don’t.
Trump new what Sopel was worth and called him out…another beauty!
Thoughtful: Sopel should be getting £20-£30k, max. His analysis of US politics is superficial and predictable. He thinks that saying something nasty about Trump every day equals news reporting and analysis. So do his colleagues, and there are many of them out there, leeches feeding off the licence -fee payer. If they at least did a decent job, one might consider £30-40k, But they don’t.
Trump knew what Sopel was worth and called him out…another beauty!
Sorry about the duplicate posts. Is there any way of removing one?
The most offensive part was Humphreys saying that he was happy to take a pay cut because there was less cash sloshing around in the BBC today, at least not as much as there used to be.
The implication being that instead of paying presenters a reasonable wage for the work that they do, they get paid in proportion to the amount of cash left over after the electricity bills and other fixed costs have been paid.
How about: pay news readers what it is worth to pay someone to dress up in a suit, read an autocue clearly for 25 minutes and work slightly unsociable hours (£90k sounds fair even in London). and use the leftovers to reduce the license fee.
Alex
In reality, they needn’t be in London at all – they could just as easily read an autocue from any studio, anywhere.
Let’s be fair to John Sopel . With all his cash he could do a one to one with Donald Trump interview , live , no holds barred , DT allowed to cross question him , Johm Sopel with no earpiece .
Now I’m willing to lay odds on Trump . 5 to 8 at present . That is you have to lay eight to get five . Any BBC willing ? Maxicony ?
When was the last time you saw Sopel ask a question at a WH press conference?
The only time I have seen him is on the WH Lawn doing an anti- Trump rant to camera.
Has the BrusselsBC been ‘sent to Coventry’?
AND-the luvvies slated Trimp at last years Oscars-then gave the Oscar to the wrong fillum!
Might this not be “The Curse Of Trump”?
Funnily enough-like Madges garrotting at the Brits in 2015-last years Oscars ballsup doesn`t even make “Harry Hills Howlers” or End of Year Screenwipes of Charlie Bugger?
Some things must NEVER be reshown I bet.
Suggested solution – cut Jon Sopel! We speak the same language as the US, we can hear what’s being said, why do we need this bizarre interpreter? I wonder if he gets more grumpy-faced in Whitehouse press briefings the more irrelevant he is.. I’m sure his salary could be put to good use!