Author Archives: David Vance

Here you go, a new Open Thread on which to detail the egregious bias of the BBC!

James Delingpole is pretty good here …

Yesterday I asked of lying liar climate ‘scientist’ Michael Mann: “Does anyone take this guy seriously any more?” But the question was a purely rhetorical one. I already knew the depressing true answer having just sat, fuming, in my car listening to Mann being given the red carpet treatment on a BBC Radio 4 science programme.

“Oh Professor Doctor Mann, Sir, may it please your eminence to descend from your radiant cloud for a few precious moments and explain to us mere mortals why your amazing and unquestionably brilliant new paper on global warming demonstrates you to be even more right about climate change than you were even in the days when you won your Nobel prize?” fawned and grovelled the BBC’s interviewer from his prostrate position on the studio floor.

Perhaps I exaggerate slightly.

Read the full article – his pay off line is one I fully endorse.

Seen this?

The new series of Doctor Who will see the Time Lord joined by his first openly gay companion. Bill Potts’s sexuality will be revealed pretty much straightaway in her second line of dialogue when the show returns to BBC One on 15 April. “It shouldn’t be a big deal in the 21st Century. It’s about time isn’t it?” Pearl Mackie, who plays Bill, told the BBC. “That representation is important, especially on a mainstream show.”

Ain’t that the truth? The BBC is not interested in entertainment, it is interested in driving a narrative, creating a PC “equality” at all costs. I don’t know why it doesn’t go the full nine yards and make the Doctor a black transgender Muslim. That would give the Daleks something to think about.

Here you go, a new open thread to see us all off into the weekend. I don’t know about you but I am finding the BBC unbearable to watch at the moment as it seethes in the aftermath of Theresa May triggering Article 50. It strikes me that we will have two years now of endless bitching and moaning from the BBC (And it’s print wing, The Guardian) about how IMPOSSIBLE Brexit will be to achieve, how it will cost us the earth the moon and the stars, blah blah blah. Excruciating to endure at one level, fun at another. The BBC is desperate to ensure the “hard Brexit” (=no Brexit) narrative prevails. They will fail.

On time and ready to go, a brand NEW Open Thread on which to detail the relentless hateful visceral bias from the BBC.

Ever since the Jihadist attack at Westminster, the BBC has been pushing two parallel narratives.

1. We have to get used to living with terrorism. This echoes the thoughts of Muslim Mayor Khan
2. We will never know what was the motivation by the Islamic killer.

Both spurious nonsense, of course, but the BBC (along with The Met, it appears) is determined to ensure that Islam is disconnected from Islamic terrorism.

Seen this?

“The BBC is embroiled in a fresh Brexit bias row after a study found that just one in six contributors to the Radio 4 Today programme’s business news slot in the six months after referendum saw the result as positive for Britain.

A report by News-watch into the BBC’s coverage on Brexit covering the six month period after the referendum vote found overwhelmingly negativity about Britain leaving the EU.  The findings suggest BBC has breached its own impartiality rules, the campaign group said. There were three times more pro-Remain contributors to the business new slot than Leave-supporting experts.”

And on time, a new Open Thread for you to detail the bias as the weekend approaches…

Time for a new one of these. I couldn’t bear to watch the BBC eulogise IRA mss killer Martin McGuinness yesterday and from what I hear from others I was right to stay away from the love-in. Meanwhile, Jihad on Westminster bridge…

The comrades have been caught out yet again…

A phone call to the Allan Beswick Show on BBC Radio Manchester and BBC Radio Lancashire has been subject to an investigation by the BBC Trust.

It was found in breach of editorial guidelines for allowing a caller to speak on-air about having sex with his own eight-year-old children. Trustees were deeply troubled by the fact that the caller had been allowed on air in the first place and particularly by the fact that he had then been able to continue for several minutes talking about his crime, advocating sex between adults and very young children, and expounding what he argued were the benefits of distributing videos of child sexual abuse.

Got that? The BBC allows prisoners to phone in and advocate child abuse.