Author Archives: David Vance

GAY – THE FINAL FRONTIER

By | |
17 Comments

Right, let me start by saying I abhor intolerance and violence towards ANY group of people. (Except terrorists). So reports of mob violence at a Gay Pride parade in Belgrade are concerning  – as would be the case if they were happening to any lawful parade, anywhere. But I was surprised at this comment by by BBC reporter Mark Lowen in Belgrade;

This is not the image Serbia wants the world to see. A successful gay parade was supposed to be an indication of how far this country has come from the ultranationalism and violence of the 1990s.

Really? Is the acceptance of gay parades now the marker of a civilised society? Is tolerance of public expression of a particular sexual lifestyle proof of a move away from “ultranationalism”? I missed that memo – maybe it is instilled into BBC reporters when they are young but it seems to me that seeking to equate an tolerance of gay activists in the public square with a sophisticated modern Nation is, at least, somewhat peculiar. Mark seems quite interested in this topic area, having filed a story about Albania “approving gay marriage”  I must admit that I had not realised the centrality of the gay issue to these emerging societies, so thank goodness for Mark.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

THE BIAS IS ALWAYS THERE

By | |
10 Comments

Interesting piece of analysis sent to me by a Biased BBC contributor…

“I have looked at the BBC Website Politics Home Page stories for the 3 weeks covering the party conferences. The analysis was done by reading the headline of the story where possible since this is the impression any reader of the page first gets. If unable to allocate the story I clicked on the story to read it in order to categorise it as good(in favour) or bad(adverse). 

The categories were good and bad for each of the 3 parties and the rest were allocated to Other.

Over the 3 weeks there were 496 headlines, 35% related to the Conservatives, 37.5% to Labour, 13% to the Lib Dems and 14.5% to Other.
The ratio of good stories to bad were: Conservatives – 3 good for every bad story. Labour – 6 good for every bad story. Lib Dems – 8 good for every bad story.
The coverage figures were reasonable since they equate roughly to the size of each party and/or to the current % vote in Opinion Polls.
But the content of each story was twice as likely to be adverse for the Conservatives compared to Labour and nearly 3 times as likely to be adverse for the Conservatives compared to the Lib Dems.
I would call this BBC bias against the Conservative party.”

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

SUNDAY MORNING LIVE

By | |
43 Comments

Dumbing down as ever. Pouting Suzanne Reid on Sunday Morning Live asks whether WE are partly responsible for Islamic extremism (The short answer is No, blame it on the Koran, not the boogie) and noted philosopher Terry Christian is on to argue for making Class A drugs available on prescription. Just some of the liberal navel-gazing on BBC1 this morning.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

HALF THE PICTURE, ALL OF THE TIME

By | |
9 Comments

Biased BBC Clameur de Hero writes…

“Could anyone fail buthear Naughtie giving virtually uninterrupted air-time on the Today prog thismorning to the whingeing bleat from David Walker, the (thankfully soon to beex) spinner-in-chief of the Audit Commission?

Walker clearly felt that his politically-charged rant last month in the journalPublic Finance against the wise decision of Eric Pickles to scrap Walker’snon-job hadn’t resonated enough, hence the second go this morning, courtesy ofthe ever-sympathetic Beeboids. He seemed so distressed at what he thought wasthe exaggerated misrepresentation of the number of press officers at theCommission, and appeared particularly troubled at the odium heaped upon him forthe Commission’s staff away day at the races. In the private sector, he said,events like this happened all the time.

But did Naughtie think to ask him why on earth it was that a body like theAudit Commission even needed 48 communications wonks in the first place? Nope.

Did Naughtie point out to him that if private sector organisations have awaydays, they’re not paid for by the taxpayer? Nope.

Strange. But then of course, in his day job, Walker is none other than Mr PollyToynbee, isn’t he, so not much chance this side of Hell that the Beeboids wouldask him any awkward questions.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

WORST DISASTER – AGAIN AND AGAIN.

By | |
11 Comments

Further to Robin’s post earlier today, I received this very interesting follow up from a Biased BBC contributor which exposes further deadly bias.

As you state the usual bias is there and quite clear, I do however feel the need to point out the grotesque inaccuracy of the graphic which is embedded in the story (titled “chemical breakdown of sludge”). As someone who carries out chemical research and has a degree in chemistry I was outraged by the misinformation in this graphic. 

“Red Mud” is very nasty, it is caustic and like drain cleaner, you don’t want to be in contact with it. However this graphic clearly tries to link it with cancer using misleading statements. It states aluminium oxide (alumina) “caused cancer when tested on animals”. This is news to me as I use it all the time so I did a search of scholarly articles which brought up one that states clearly they found no link! It’s also the stuff you get on wet and dry paper, so I think that might have been banned by now if there was a risk.

It then states that silicon dioxide “silica” can cause cancer and lung disease if inhaled. Yes it can, if it is very finely milled in a factory for a particular use, not in it’s natural form where it is harmless, it is what sand is made of. It is the particle size that is important and silica (as silicate) in red mud is not going to have the same danger. Lastly it states “Titanium dioxide caused cancer when tested on animals”. Again, it may be a risk if inhaled over a long period as a fine dust, otherwise it is not a problem, that is why it is also found in skin cream and toothpaste! 

The graphic makes inaccurate and scaremongering statements which would give to the lay public the impression that there is a direct risk of cancer from the red mud. So the question is where has the information come from, the journalist’s eco friends at all? I am going to contact the BBC to try and find the source of this information, especially about alumina which appears to be complete nonsense. I imagine I will be stonewalled as usual. However I was so appalled by the misinformation I felt I had to point it out to a wider audience if possible.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

WORST DISASTER!…AGAIN

By | |
6 Comments

Yesterday, it was Deepwater Horizon which – in the BBC narrrative – was “one of the worst disasters in US history”. Today, our corporation friends give the open mike to Greenpeace to blast out a superlative-filled anti-industrial eco-nut rant against the chemical spill in Hungary:

Herwit Schuster, a spokesman for Greenpeace International, described the spill as “one of the top three environmental disasters in Europe in the last 20 or 30 years”.

Land had been “polluted and destroyed for a long time”, he told AP.

“If there are substances like arsenic and mercury, that would affect river systems and ground water on long-term basis,” he added.

For the BBC, anything – but anything – that provides evidence that industrial production is nasty and dangerous is front page news; and the only people they choose to comment on such events are greenie fanatics. In turn, those fanatics make any threat to the environment a vile capitalist conspiracy. Of course, a toxic chemical spill is deeply regrettable. But that’s not why the BBC is covering these stories with such prominent, strident glee. They are tub-thumping for the greenies.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

THE YEMENI PROBLEM

By | | ,
10 Comments

Did you catch this interview with the British Ambassador to Yemen? Listen to how the fragrant Sarah manages to get through the interview with ever once mentioning the real cause of the problems afflicting Yemen – ISLAM. Instead, the issue is presented as being one of poverty. The Ambassador, sadly, goes with this whole unemployment/poverty angle which only then further encourages the BBC in its mission to ignore the real cause of global Jihad.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.