Author Archives: David Vance

WE ARE THE BALLS APPRECIATION SOCIETY…

By | |
79 Comments

Anyone catch the Today programme this morning and the BBC doing it’s very best to extract an apology from Hague for Osborne suggesting that Ed Balls “had questions” to answer over the fixing of Libor? My goodness but Ed must be happy with his pals at Broadcasting House and their valiant attempts to protect his good name. I mean the very idea that those people in the Labour Government with responsibility for the economy and banking could have ever even contemplated discussion on such an obscure issue as LIBOR is just an outrage, right? Cough.

Who do the BBC think they are fooling with their rush to embrace the thoughts of Paul Tucker? His opinions are afforded Papal infallibility. He could be right, of course, but he also could be wrong. The latter idea is dismissed by the BBC as it moves to undermine Osborne. Even worse, the witterings of Conservative  Andrea Leadsom are now given national import since they may damage Osborne further.

The LIBOR scandal is awkard for the BBC and Labour but the idea is that it was all perfectly innocent, nothing to see, just evil bankers doing what they do, and just when will Osborne apologise for impugning the good name of sociopath good egg Ed Balls?

GOOD NEWS IS BAD NEWS….

By | |
22 Comments

As has been brought to my attention, the BBC hate reporting any good news for the Coalition! The headline here is that Government cuts have proven to be more effective than planned, resulting in even lower spending. However the BBC’s desire to spin this as a negative has resulted in them posting an opinion piece in place an objective report. Everything from the seventh paragraph from the bottom is just political slant.  The entire section subtitled “finances vs growth” is conjecture intended to re-balance a positive story for the coalition.

Hat-tip to Sam.

SUTTON TRUST

By | |
11 Comments

Amazing amount of favourable publicity afforded to the Sutton Trust’s latest report on the Today programme this morning. Also used as an opportunity to mock Michael Gove. Yet isn’t the Sutton Trust a reliably left wing organisation? Why DOES the BBC get so excited about it’s press releases? Is it because any opportunity to somehow “do down” Gove is grabbed with relish? If our children really ARE lagging so far behind overseas students, perhaps the BBC might choose to square that with their adulation of the teaching “profession” and the NUT? Maybe this is evidence we need to sack poor teachers? Oddly, the BBC never goes down that line, for some reason.

ARMED FORCES

By | |
38 Comments

I’m wondering if the British Army which the BBC seems ever so concerned about today is in any way related to the British Army which the BBC routinely likes to run down as bloodthirsty mercenaries at every possible opportunity? Each time our brave soldiers go into battle, the BBC has been there to demoralise them; to undermine the legitimacy of the operations; to offer propaganda for their enemy. But today, when it comes to job cuts imposed by the Coalition, they are EVER so concerned. A cynic might think that this is empty  posturing by the BBC.

THE RICHNESS OF POVERTY HUSTLING

By | |
44 Comments

Wonder did anyone out there catch the debate on Today this morning  concerning the claim from the Kids Company that there are “at least one million” kids in Britain who are starving? Well, when I say debate, it wasn’t.

Instead we had two people, one from Netmums (who else? Yawn) and another from Leon restaurants who came on to agree that the one million starving figure was, if anything, underplaying the monumental scale of the problem. This suggestion that we have huge numbers of children in the UK  at starvation level is a constant theme in BBC reports and it always can be tracked down to the Poverty Industry sticking out press releases based on the most spurious “research” and the answer is always the same – more Welfare benefits please.

During this particular interview (7.48am) when it was suggested that good food awareness might help, one of the poverty hustlers explained that whilst this might have some merit how would it help a single mum, maybe a sex worker, stressed out on crack cocaine and thus unable to feed their kids. The BBC interviewer didn’t bother asking how a Mother can afford crack cocaine but not food for their kids. The Poverty Industry can always rely on the BBC to run with its contrived and vacuous headlining.

LOVING BOY BASHAR

By | | ,
4 Comments

This was brought to my attention and I wanted to share it with you. It seems that although he is a genocidal thug who likes to murder his own people, the BBC has a SOFT SPOT for Syrian tyrant Bashar Assad. Surely not, I hear you say. I mean, what could he have said that might not sound too good that the BBC sees fit not to tell you? The answer is here.  And then here. An utter disgrace.

NEW KID IN TOWN

By | |
21 Comments

Well, I see the BBC have appointed a new Director General, on about half the salary Thompson was on, but still more than twice what the Prime Minister earns! Lucky we don’t have a recession on….hang on a moment…

George Entwistle, the BBC executive in charge of the coverage of the Queen’s diamond jubilee, has been named as director general of the corporation, beating competition from Ofcom chief Ed Richards and the BBC’s chief operating officer Caroline Thomson.

That would be the disastrous Jubilee coverage? Excellent news – failure rewarded.

Mr Entwistle, who currently heads up BBC Vision, the unit responsible for all of the BBC’s output on television and online, will replace outgoing director general Mark Thompson in the autumn, on a salary of £450,000 a year.

See first sentence.

A relatively low-key intellectual, Mr Entwistle joined the BBC in 1989, and has wide-ranging programme-making experience, including as editor of Newsnight. He has done stints as head of current affairs, where he also had responsibility for the BBC’s investigative documentary strand, Panorama. He was also Controller of Knowledge commissioning, which put him in charge of all of the BBC’s factual programmes.

What’s this “low key intellectual” nonsense about? The lower the better based on his “high intellect” predecessors, I suppose.

Thoughts? Has he Labour links?