I can confirm this site has not been hacked, filmed in salacious acts, had secret meetings with shady Russian backers nor conspired to bring down America. This is all our own work….apart from the kompromat provided by our excellent agents in the field who leak the sordid details of BBC bias to us via various nefarious and secret methods….carry on the good work chaps…your country needs you…whichever country that maybe…..detail your kompromat here…
Forgetfulness, a useful quality, a quality which ensures we can stand tall in the world as it crumbles around us and we can forget that it is we who helped cause that world to crumble. ‘We’ being the BBC.
Interesting to hear the new narrative from Justin Webb on the Today programme. Now Obama’s grand tour of the UK as he was bussed in by Cameron and the Remainers was Obama ‘getting it wrong’ as he announced that if we voted for Brexit Britain would suffer his wrath and be dumped at the back of the trade deal queue. Funny, I seem to remember the BBC eagerly making that headline news during the campaign.
Then there’s Syria and that vote in Parliament….we hear from the horse’s mouth that Obama backed away from decisive military action because of the vote in the British Parliament in which Miliband betrayed the Syrian people and left them to die. Funny how Miliband never gets a mention when all this is being discussed on the BBC. Now that military action, the lack of, is a bad thing. Odd how the BBC’s presentation of events changes to suit…the BBC being part of the problem when the vote to approve miltary action was on the table, doing all it could to help block it…such as not broadcasting a video of a chemical attack on a school just before the vote, a vote based precisely on such considerations….would the film have changed the vote at all? The BBC didn’t take the risk and censored it until the vote was safely out of the way.
The ‘deep left’ Mary Riddell and someone from the Economist, the Economist which just printed a hatchet job on May, on the Today programme to discuss May, Brexit and ‘muddle’….no bias there then. The BBC failing to challenge Corbyn as he says he is not wedded to freedom of movement but, oh, hang on, demands we remain members of the Single Market which entails keeping freedom of movement…so pretty much wedded to freedom of movement just not to the truth….Jon Pienaar calls Corbyn ‘deep Left’…sorry what? The extremist ‘Far Left’ surely? The BBC once again covering for Corbyn. I’m sure there’s plenty more bias out there…..
The BBC knows that most people when asked about Islam will reveal that they have negative views about the ideology judging it unpleasant, backward, homophobic, mysogynist, anti-Semitic and violent, not to mention most terrorists are Muslim. The BBC, tasked by its Charter with maintaining a civil society and cohesion, has decided that the best way to tackle such prejudiced, ill-informed and ignorant beliefs is first to create an understanding that Islam is the religion of peace, second that ‘Muslim’ terrorists are in fact not Muslim and are distorting the beautiful teachings of Muhammed [never mind that the BBC also insists we shape our society to suit Muslim demands so that they don’t radicalise and become terrorists…if Islam is the religion of peace and the terrorists aren’t real Muslims why is that necessary?] and finally of course we have the most ingenius of counters to the terror that is engulfing our cities and countries….remind people that a thousand years ago in lands where Islam ruled supreme [due to a violent blitzkrieg of conquest and colonisation ala ISIS…nothing to do with Islam of course!] there were scientists and scholars who continued to study and develop the sciences and extend learning. This the BBC tells us was the Islamic Golden Age of Science.
What do you suppose the BBC intends we take from this? Are we supposed to suddenly dismiss all we know about Islam and its beliefs, teachings and values and embrace its culture and values just because one thousand years ago a man who happened to be Muslim by accident of birth or conquest was good at science? Are we to dismiss our concerns about terrorism done in the name of Islam because someone one thousand years ago made a better mouse-trap? Of course that really is the BBC intent…redeem Islam’s reputation…show ‘Muslims’ were good at science and somehow that must translate into having warm fuzzy feelings about Islam today which must over-ride our everyday, parochial concerns about Islamic conservative values and practices being forced upon our society…..helped along by the useful idiots who set off bombs, who aren’t Muslims remember, but erm, were radicalised because they were Muslim and alienated by a society that marginalised and ignored them.
Odd how science done by Muslims [though in fact many scientists and scholars were atheists/Christian or Jewish] is ‘Muslim’ and yet terrorism done by Muslims is not ‘Muslim’.
Perhaps that’s why the BBC does all it can to hide the fact that the Jews/Israelis are brilliant at science and have achieved astounding things from the deserts of the Middle East when all around them is backward and hopeless, and Muslim…and all despite being under siege by Muslims for over 70 years.
The BBC clearly thinks that if you knew what geniuses the Israelis are you wouldn’t believe a word that the BBC’s Middle East correspondents pump out about Israel…you know all that bad, fake news that spreads anti-Semitism around the world and makes it acceptable around the dinner table or down the gym.
BBC Watch notes that the BBC just isn’t keen on letting its viewers and readers know just how good the Israelis are at science and high tech….
The BBC’s “soft boycott” of Israel
A few weeks ago Jewish Chronicle editor Stephen Pollard drew attention to the BBC’s “soft boycott” of Israel. The term, coined by Mr Pollard, describes the BBC’s tendency to report on Israeli innovations and technological breakthroughs without mentioning that they took place at Israeli institutions and companies. Most recently, the BBC recently reported on a breakthrough in cancer treatment by the Weizmann Institute, but the Israeli origins of the research were significantly downplayed.
There are times when the BBC completely ignores Israel’s connection to a newsworthy company, times when Israel’s connection is significantly downplayed and times when Israel’s connection is specifically focused on, in cases which fit a particular agenda and narrative of Israel as a militaristic and pariah state.
In some cases brilliant Israeli inventions are reported by the BBC but their Israeli origins are completely ignored.
Following our look at the Guardian’s concerns about Ofcom’s pro-BBC bias have a look at why a genuinely independent and effective BBC regulator is badly needed…from ‘News-Watch’ as it reports the BBC’s stone-walling response to its complaint about the BBC’s constant, malicious and racist, anti-white, labelling of post-Brexit Britain as a nastier, more racist place…..[if you read Press reports on the day you will actually note that the attack mentioned below was more likely the result of drug-taking, alcohol and teenage boredom/stupidity/abandon…all of which the residents had complained of for months as the ‘gang’ had attacked many people at random previously]
On August, 31, Arkadiusz Jozwik, a Polish man living in Harlow, was killed in a late-night fracas in the pizza parlour where he worked.
In the immediate aftermath of the crime, police arrested six local youths (all under 16) but quickly released them on bail without charge. There were no further developments until this week when a 15-year-old from Harlow was charged with Mr Jozwik’s manslaughter. Of fundamental importance, it has also emerged that a race hate charge in connection with the death is not being pursued.
When news of the killing emerged, the BBC’s news operation went into hyper-ventilating overdrive.
On the BBC1 News at Six, reporter Daniel Sandford compiled a report in which the fulcrum was there were now fears that this was a ‘a frenzied racist attack triggered by the Brexit referendum’.
A few hours later, John Sweeney, on BBC2’s Newsnight – one of the Corporation’s main investigative journalists – took matters a step further in the editing of his report. He included as the conclusion so that it could not be ignored this inflammatory sounbdbite from another local Polish man:
‘But I mean, Nigel Farage, I mean, thank you for that, because you are part of this death, and you’ve got blood on your hands, thanks to you, thanks for all your decision, wherever you are, er . . . yeah, it’s your call.’
Clearly in play and being reinforced to maximum extent by the Corporation was the central idea – evident in other programmes, too, as is documented on the News-watch website here – that June 23 had unleashed a torrent of racist venom. In the BBC’s world the jackboots were now out – and on the march.
The following Monday, Guardian columnist and political activist (sorry, ‘rights campaigner’) Garry Younge was allowed to put together for a BBC Radio 4 series a barrage of sensationalist allegations in the same vein: that Britain, overnight since June 23, had become a seething cesspit of race-hate. Attacks were underway in terrifying, unprecedented volume.
On the advice of a senior BBC news executive – who claimed that the Corporation was listening to problems about post-Brexit coverage – News-watch submitted a formal complaint about the coverage of Harlow killing to the BBC Complaints Unit, focusing principally on the Sandford report.
Over seven-pages, it detailed that his approach was sensationalist, deliberately contrived to give maximum impact to the race hate claims, and also pointed out that it was seriously irresponsible and premature – in the light of the facts known to the police on August 31 and more generally about race-hate crime – to speculate so prominently either about race-hate motivation or about the crime’s possible link to Brexit.
The BBC’s response? A curt high-handed letter. It asserted that such speculation was legitimate because there had been a rise in reports of race-hate crime since June 23, and because other possible motives for Mr Jozwik’s death had been included in Sandford’s report.
The letter – which was mostly in an obviously standard format, and was so slipshod that it even spelled the name of Sandford incorrectly, omitting the ‘d’ – glossed over with what can only described as haughty arrogance the key points.
In response, News-watch submitted a second complaints letter pointing out the omissions and stating that the reply was totally unsatisfactory. That was on October 20. On November 30 (ironically, the day of the manslaughter charges were laid) came the Complaints Unit’s second reply. It states:
‘We are sorry to tell you that we have nothing to add to our previous reply. We do not believe your complaint has raised a significant issue of general importance that might justify further investigation. We will not therefore correspond further in response to additional points, or further comments or questions made about this issue or our responses to it.’The lessons learnt? The core BBC complaints process, which will remain as the conduit which will deal with most of the complaints submitted to the BBC after Charter renewal, is intrinsically and, irrevocably unfit for purpose. The Corporation remains the primary judge of what is deemed a ‘significant issue of general importance’
The second Complaints Unit letter does point out that the BBC Trust, in some circumstances, does entertain appeals. But the fact is that – as Richard Ayre, one of the current Trustees, has admitted – it has not upheld a complaint on EU-related matters in its entire existence.
Will Ofcom change that approach? Don’t hold your breath. And meanwhile, the totally inaccurate BBC assumptions about Brexit and race-hate continue to spew forth.
Is the Guardian acting as the Guardian of the media guardian Ofcom or is it actually being critical of it?
Whichever, it comes to something when even the Guardian notices that Ofcom is jampacked to the gills with BBC types which kind of makes a mockery of Government plans to use Ofcom as the BBC’s new independent regulator….
For what is this monster, as the scales drop from tabloid eyes? Its supreme chair, the monarch of the top board, is a former director of BBC policy planning. The subsidiary content board that will handle the vast bulk of BBC regulation is currently chaired by Nick Pollard, a former BBC (and almost everything else) hand recalled to the colours to report on the corporation’s Jimmy Savile coverage.
Those who sit alongside him include a former BBC news and current affairs (Wales); a former BBC head of news and current affairs (Northern Ireland); a former BBC controller of public policy; a couple of experienced BBC freelance broadcasters – and now, recruited to run the content-board show, a former deputy boss of the BBC newsroom and editor of News 24.
And if, perchance, the next row is yet another Brexit bomb, then note that Sharon White, Ofcom’s chief executive, is the wife of Robert Chote, the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility whose forecasts of post-EU financial hardship so outraged mighty media Leavers. What’s more, Sharon was a top Treasury mandarin whisked over to Ofcom on George Osborne’s watch – and just look who sits there at her boardroom side: Graham Mather, chairman of the European Policy Forum. Cue nest-of-elite-vipers diatribe.
Look at Leveson, with his almost obsessive anxiety to keep newspaper editors or political players away from press regulation. Then ask yourself whether Ofcom’s nominating committee (choosing candidates, giving ministers only approval rights for topmost posts) is Leveson-compliant.
Will it effect the deliberations of Ofcom? Consider that the Cardiff school of journalism is also jampacked with BBC types and like-minded souls, and then consider that they declared, after lengthy study and thought, LOL, that the BBC was right-wing. The BBC must be laughing their socks off.
Whatever next? Perhaps the BBC will notice all the criticism of the supposed new independent, government aproved, Press regulator, Impress…that monstrous child of the spank-loving Max Mosley…and jampacked to the gills with people who hate the right-leaning Press such as the Sun, the Mail and the Express….their greatest desire seemingly to close down all such papers…a desire expressed in quite extreme and blatantly not impartial language….as exposed on Guido and in the Press over the last couple of weeks. Just that the BBC doesn’t seem to have noticed that particular aspect of those who run Impress….kind of crucial though one might think…a regulator who hates certain publications and wants nothing less than to close them down…fair hearing or kangaroo court?
The Guardian unfortunately reverts to type as it hilariously pronounces that LBC’s/BBC’s James O’Brien could be ‘the face of 2016’. as he declares that Brexit was the Devil’s work [he being pro-EU natch] and that it is a nothing less than a darkness called ‘white supremacy’ that is feeding the monstrous populism that is on the rise across the world. Wonder what he made of the Arab Spring, that ‘populist’ uprising that was celebrated by the BBC and, funnily enough, carried out by Arabs and not the white supremacists that so perturb the imaginings of our sad little James O’Brien. Note this little post-truth snippet from the Guardian’s love-in for O’Brien...’O’Brien was one of the few interviewers to rattle Farage in the past – the then Ukip leader curtailed a 2014 interview in which the presenter tried to press him on his expenses.’ Really? No, what actually happened was that Farage wiped the floor with O’Brien and even extended the interview way beyond the agreed time…and it was his aide, not himself, that finally ended the interview/kangaroo court/lynching/crassbunkumnonsense.
Good to see that Theresa May is putting her principles into action and is making sure that it is not just the elitist, entitled, self-aggrandising BBC that gets the opportunity to broadcast and print the breaking stories which previously ensured its inherited status as the news broadcaster of choice….government media releases for all the Media.
Perhaps we are seeing a new world where the BBC is quietly sidelined and government no longer sees the BBC as the first port of call when it needs to announce policy or thinking.
Apparently, according to the Spectator [H/T Craig at Is the BBC biased?], this has gone down like a ‘cup of cold sick’ at BBC HQ as Theresa May gives her first interview of the year to Sky and to the Telegraph in print and not to Andrew Marr who was fully expecting to have first dibs.
No doubt this is why Marr, taking his revenge, featured guests of an entirely Remoaner hue on his show…I’m sure Marr was in fact only doing his professional duty and taking the chance to quiz them rigorously, pointing out the error of their ways and holding them to account as he recently published his own view that Remainers should bite the bullet and try to make a success of Brexit [which he calls ‘The Great Disaster’] noting that if the ‘elite’ blocked Brexit ‘the glossy fabric of British democracy would be ripped to shreds. Frankly, I dread to think what would follow.’
I’m pretty sure that would be the correct conclusion…civil war might well break out. The blatantly pro-EU, anti-Brexit BBC would of course be one of the first ‘up against the wall’ as an institution. No wonder Marr is worried.
Note that Marr dismisses May’s Telegraph interview as ‘glorious glossy verbiage’ [again H/T Craig at Is the BBC biased? Seems ever more proven each day, each minute]…that’s despite May suggesting something that has been redhot in the Media for days, if not weeks now…
Theresa May signals that Britain will leave Single Market so it can take control of immigration
Asked repeatedly whether Britain will leave the Single Market, the Prime Minister said that she will not try to “keep bits of membership”.
Her comments suggest that Britain is prepared to leave the Single Market and the Customs Union and apply for a good deal from outside after Brexit.
Extraordinary that Marr not only ignores that report but gliby dismisses it in such a manner. Interesting though that Marr accepts the Economist’s hatchet job on May as an honest and perceptive interpretation of her government as indecisive and lacking direction but Marr does not refer to the Mail’s takedown of that article…
A crude hatchet job on Mrs May and a cynical bid to stop Brexit
He does however like the Mail’s story about the Jewish lobby running Britain….an ‘absolutely cracking story’ according to Marr. Always interesting what catches a Beeboid’s eye.
It is now clear that Russia has been viciously maligned and defamed by claims that it hacked Hillary Clinton’s emails in order to influence the US election. Russia was merely carrying out an ‘investigation’ using skilled outside investigators in the interests of truth and honesty that it believes should be part of the electoral process.
The same way that Qatar used its Muslim propaganda ‘news’ organisation, Al Jazeera, to ‘investigate’ alleged Israeli interference in British politics and thus itself interfered in British politics.
The conversation involved Mr Masot and Maria Strizzolo, an aide to education minister Robert Halfon, the former political director of Conservative Friends of Israel, as well as an undercover reporter.
It was recorded in October 2016 as part of an investigation by Al Jazeera.
Strange how Qatar’s six months of spying on British politicians and state interference in British politics isn’t remarked upon by the BBC…or rather is classed as an ‘investigation’…because of course it is targeted at the Jews. Russia allegedly interferes in order to stop the BBC’s favoured candidate from winning the US election and the BBC reports what is in the main Democratic Party misinformation with a straight face and yet ignores Qatar’s blatant attempt to make life awkward for Israel and intended to stir up the old accusations used by anti-Semites about the ‘Jewish lobby’. This is a Muslim nation’s black op against the Jews….why not report it as such?
Alan Duncan himself is prone to interfering in Israeli politics so fair enough that the Israelis might want to tackle someone who is such a vocal and aggressive anti-Israel critic….Duncan is very pro-Arab and thinks Israel is the problem. He is fanatically opposed to Jewish settlers…or ‘undocumented migrants seeking a better life for themselves, bringing diversity, prosperity and openness to the hideously Muslim Palestinian lands’ as the BBC might, or might not, say. Why is it OK for Duncan to travel the world on the British government ticket to target Israel and not for Israel to target him? Why is it OK for Qatar to ‘hack’ British politics but not for Russia to hack US politics?
Just how true is the video? The edits and cut aways are constant and obvious….just how much re-editing has gone into the film and just how much has the time-line changed? It’s the easiest thing in the world to mash together different words and sentences to recreate a conversation that didn’t happen.
‘THE German nation, moreover, was rapidly falling under the control of its alien elements. In the last days of the pre-Hitler regime there were 20 times as many Jewish Government officials in Germany as had existed before the war. Israelites of international attachments were insinuating themselves into key positions in the German administrative machine. Three German Ministries only had direct relations with the Press, but in each case the official responsible for conveying news and interpreting policy to the public was a Jew. . It is from such abuses that Hitler has freed Germany.’
Some examples of the BBC’s reporting that clearly demonstrate its political inclinations….
Here the EU is the blameless victim as terrorists move freely around Europe…it’s not the EU’s open border policy but a failure of the selfish nation states that is a problem…we need to change the culture and have more co-operation and information sharing…ie give the EU more control….[oh…and having effective border controls will be hugely expensive…so let’s not have them eh? So Sir Ivan Rogers no?…the BBC ever keen to find something to create a negative and pessimistic tone towards anything that puts a spoke in the EU’s Grand Project]
Berlin truck attack: Can the EU stop another Amri?
Then we have Ivan Rogers…..no reference to his hugely damaging interventions in the EU reform negotiations pre the referendum in which he, a highly pro-EU mandarin, in effect said we aren’t going to succeed and so we shouldn’t bother…an attitude that he would of course have continued with had he been still at the helm of the Brexit negotiations…but the BBC doesn’t think that important…they don’t even mention his complete unsuitability for the role or his ardently pro-EU leanings in this write up on his behalf….
Sir Ivan Rogers: Former UK ambassador to the EU quits civil service
Rogers’ failure and the BBC’s own failure to mention it is odd as in this BBC report [naturally an anti-Brexit story] the failed reform negotiations are deemed a highly relevant example of what not to do…
Mr Faull warns that Theresa May’s government could be in danger of repeating the mistake of David Cameron who believed that Mrs Merkel would come to his rescue. Mr Faull was the senior European Commission official involved in the Cameron negotiations.
Here’s another example of the BBC’s finest reporting of fact….political change is dismissed as the result of some irrational, nihilistic ‘anger’ rather than people voting democratically for the policies they want….this take on the reasons people voted is purely designed to denigrate the voters, dismiss them as Clinton does as ‘Deplorables’, and to portray the voters as victims of a lack of education and a failure to understand the world, the useful idiots gulled by Fascist rabble rousers who exploit their ‘ignorance’ and emotions to get themselves elected….
2016: The year of anger
Does one emotion above all hold the key to understanding a year of tumultuous political change?
Both supporters and detractors see Donald Trump’s victory as a tribute to his knack for understanding people’s discontent, then channelling it.
“Trump gave anger the green light,” argues Arlie Hochshild, a sociologist based at the University of California. [hmmm…has she never heard of the Tea Party…or of the anti-Bush hate camapigns etc etc etc? Don’t think Trump invented ‘anger’]
‘Anger’ is portrayed as an irrational and negative state of mind….if you’re angry about something you’re a fanatic, an extremist not a reasoned and measured person who thinks rationally and calmly…you’re a victim of your emotions, emotions exploited and ‘channelled’ by the likes of Trump. Just another invented narrative created to attack The Donald and Brexit. The narrative that Trump gave licence to ‘anger’ is of course the same sort of narrative that the BBC wants to create in regard to Brexit as they now portray Britain, post-Brexit, as a ‘nastier, more racist place’.
Then there’s this fine example of reporting from Jeremy Bowen..
Five issues which shaped the Middle East in 2016
What would those five issues be? The Islamic State, Allepo, Yemen, young people and of course Israel.
Odd that Turkey’s role in the Middle Eastern mess gets barely a mention, just a quick line under ‘Aleppo’…
Increasingly the war is dominated by the agendas of the major powers that have intervened in the Syrian war. One example that affected matters in Aleppo was Turkey’s decision to make a priority of its fight with the Kurds.
That meant it needed better relations with the Russians, which meant looking away in Aleppo as Russia led the charge against its erstwhile clients, in return for Russian acquiescence in Turkey’s actions in northern Syria.
So Turkey’s influence is restricted to what happened in Aleppo? This from the BBC that races back in time to WWI and the end of the Ottoman caliphate to find excuses to blame the UK for what is happening now in the Middle East [apparently we ‘carved up the Middle East’ in a ignorant, arrogant and careless manner…it’s all our fault] but always fails to mention that it was Turkey that insisted Iraq include the Kurdish areas as it didn’t want an independent land for the Kurds on its borders.
Turkey has been attacking and murdering the Kurds for decades now, thousands of Kurdish villages have been destroyed and tens of thousands of Kurds killed….and yet the BBC only reports what Israeli tanks do…or indeed what Saudi Arabia does in Yemen…Bowen does ‘report’ on that in this piece…and has a personal opinion which he generously shares with us…
Years of war, corruption and under-development weakened Yemen before the war between the Houthis and a Saudi-led coalition pushed it into catastrophe.
Figures are not precise but one estimate is that 10,000 have been killed in the war and 37,000 wounded. Many are civilians….Every war is brutal but the one in Yemen also features the grotesque sight of the region’s wealthiest countries bombing the poorest, helped by the US and Britain…Despite all that firepower, the Saudis have not crushed the Houthis, which means that misery and death will be the fate of many Yemenis in 2017.
Ah yes, all that ‘misery and death’…but not so concerned about the Kurds’misery and death’ at the hands of the Turks.
The Islamic State was only able to operate so freely and succesfully because Turkey allowed them to slip across theTurkish border unhindered allowing recruits and munitions into the Islamic State land. Turkey also refused co-operation with Kurdish forces fighting ISIS and indeed attacked them more often than not. Turkey was on the Islamic State’s side.
Turkey has played an enormous and influential role in events in the Middle East which has gone largely uncommented on by the BBC which prefers to bring us endless tales of Israeli transgressions…never once comparing Israel to Pakistan which is not only an Islamic mirror image of Israel but is vastly more dangerous and the exporter of so much trouble around the world.
Turkey’s role in the Middle East has been massive and yet Bowen barely mentions it…then agian as the BBC’s senior Middle East editor I suppose it is too much to expect a full and proper analysis of what is happening.
The squeaky wheel gets the most grease, a lesson that Muslim agitators learnt a long time ago as a few bombs, vigorous and cynical use of the race/Islamophobia card and cries of victimhood saw the Establishment blackmailed and bullied into handing out favoured group status to Muslims in the UK….Warsi is the prime example….Chair of the Tory Party because of her talent and skill? Or because she was Muslim.
It is amusing to see the BBC’s most vociferous critics are those whom the BBC is a natural ally to, the SNP and Labour. Then again the BBC’s less than rigorous reporting on both Parties’ issues could be because of the relentless and aggressive campaigns by both parties to control the BBC’s output.
It certainly seems to work, a lesson both the Tory Party and the Brexiteers should learn.
We all know of Nick Robinson’s famous plea for his colleagues not to be critical of Corbyn, in other words not to report the truth if it meant Corbyn would have a negative Press. It seems that one of his colleagues slipped up but the BBC Trust stepped in to smooth things over…subject to appeal.
Have a look at this Corbyn hagiography by the BBC…
The Jeremy Corbyn Story: Profile of Labour leader
An extraordinary love-in that portrays Corbyn as some latter-day saint never mind his support for extreme and, as history shows, dangerous and deadly far -left politics and his liking for terrorist groups…and his refusal to deal with anti-Semitism in his party in any convincing manner.
The BBC is of course also a natural friend to the SNP as a successful SNP means the break up of the UK and an EU takeover as divide and rule kicks in and the then cut adrift nations of the once UK would seek the so-called protection of a bigger ‘state’, the EU….maybe they should learn the lessons of Greece, Ireland, Italy and Spain.
Lord Hall has buckled to SNP pressure over BBC news
The BBC’s plans for a Scottish Six news programme are an insulting lot of claptrap and a sop to the Nationalists….we’re on the brink of a cave-in by the BBC top brass in the face of Nicola Sturgeon’s strident demands for more control over the national broadcaster by her government and the SNP-dominated parliament.
The BBC has been the SNP’s whipping dog in Scotland for years now and as a result it cowers and grovels and in effect becomes a ‘State broadcaster’ in Scotland, one that is far from independent any more….from the Spectator….
During the Scottish independence referendum, BBC Scotland was regularly accused of showing bias against the SNP. The Beeb’s supposed pro-Union slant led Alex Salmond to brand its coverage ‘a disgrace’.
However, now it seems brains at the BBC are keen to get the Nats back on side. Donalda MacKinnon, BBC Scotland’s new director, has given an exclusive interview to The National — the pro-independence paper — in which she makes a play for the Scottish nationalists. MacKinnon promises to address the lack of trust felt by a ‘significant number’ of people following the independence referendum:
‘We take pride in the fact that the majority of our audiences still trust the BBC. However, there is a significant number still in Scotland whose trust we lost and I think there’s still a bit of work to be done in that regard. I think it’s part of my mission to try and address these perceptions, which may have led to that loss of trust.’
Listening to how the BBC reports the mad mutterings of Sturgeon in reverent and awed tones you have to think the SNP is well served by the BBC which never challenges her on her claim that ‘Scotland’ voted to stay in the EU and therefore its views should be considered in the Brexit negotiations. ‘Scotland’ did not have a vote in the referendum, individual Scots, Britons, had a vote…it was a ‘British’ vote regardless of nation or region, and the Scots voted to stay in Britain…therefore the BBC should question hard Sturgeon’s highly charged rhetoric, but it doesn’t because it wants Scotland to break away and the UK divided and weakened making it easy meat for the EU to pick off or bully.
I wonder if the BBC will be working hard to address the concerns of the majority of people in the UK who backed Brexit and want immigration controlled or who think Islam is a cause for concern?
