Author Archives: David Vance

HEALTH FASCISM.

By | | ,
69 Comments

I don’t smoke, never have. But then again, that’s my choice. Others exercise the same choice and do decide to smoke and I support their right to do so. I am sure it must be an unhealthy option for them but I do not wish to impose my choice on anyone else! But the rabid intolerance of the health fascists on the left has meant that smokers are portrayed as worse than rapists, lower than paedophiles. Take this BBC report – read it all the way through and you will surely conclude that it is entirely one dimensional and carries one message; if you smoke in your home, or in your car, and there are children present, then you are endangering their lives as well as your own. Parents who smoke are described as “liars” and a persons’ home is described as akin “to a workplace” which means they should go out of their own homes to smoke. The claim that passive smoking leads to all sorts of illness is repeated as if it were an indisputable fact. It’s nothing of the sort. But this is a puff of anti-smoking propaganda dressed up as if it were high science. There are issues here concerning freedom and liberty but they are neatly stubbed out by the BBC in this story. We should have a right to behave as we see fit (so long as it is legal!) in our homes regardless of how this offends Nanny State and it’s broadcasting arm. There is a serious danger that the State will extend control over what we do in OUR own private property through the calculated use of this type of story. That’s the real danger for me in this story – it’s that our liberties could be reduced to ash all in the name of making us healthier. What further behavioural modification might Labour and the BBC have in mind for us? The State has NO BUSINESS telling us what we can do in our own homes but we all know that it is intent to further regulate our activities, further limit our choices, and this is assisted by the propagandising of State Broadcaster masquerading as news.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

A MALTESE CONUNDRUM

By | |
63 Comments

. I was sent this by an eagle-eyed reader which is a BBC report on the funeral of the Grand Master of the Knights of Malta, Englishman Fra’ Andrew Bertie. The very first section of this concludes with the incongruous sentence “It is well known for the work it does in many Muslim countries.” Huh?

Let’s leave BBC world for a few seconds and objectively consider what the Knights of Malta actually does.. “The Knights of Malta benefit millions of people around the world, across Europe, to South America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia, have benefited over the years from the care and assistance offered by the Order. From a maternity hospital in Bethlehem, and specialist neurology hospital in Rome, to palliative care hospices for the terminally ill in England, Belgium and Germany, general hospitals in a score of countries, leprosy hospitals in Senegal and Cambodia, HIV / AIDS centres in Argentina, specialist diabetic centres in a host of countries, centres of the disabled, for the elderly, for children, adolescents, the homeless and drug addicts, each type of specialized institution present in scores of countries across the world, the Order is carrying out its Christian, Hospitaller mission today as vigorously as ever before in its 1000 year history.”

But for some reason, the BBC chooses to focus on a Muslim angle which does not register in any other reports of this organisation. Why it’s almost as if the BBC is on a crusade to attach a Muslim angle to every story it covers!

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

QUESTION TIME WATCH.

By | |
90 Comments

So, I settled down last evening to watch “Question Time” that flagship BBC programme for political debate. It was the usual uneven mix, with three leftists and two right of liberal panelists. We had the ubiquitous Lib-Dem Baroness Shirley Williams, a BBC favourite, who has now attained sainthood and whose every banal utterance is treated with due solemnity. Then there was Mr Bean look-a-like Labour Minister Ed Miliband. To balance we had David Davis from the Conservatives and Nigel Farage from the UKIP. I thought this provided a form of balance between right and left in terms of the political representatives but what is to be made of the sneering Marcus Brigstock, the alleged comedian, who made up the panel of five?

Naturally he was reflexively left wing but he quite clearly made an utter fool of himself when he declared that since he could not understand the Lisbon treaty, he felt the electorate was therefore not in a position to pass judgement on it via a referendum. It’s as if he did not understand the implication of his own words! Why does the BBC insist on stacking panels with this banal “Student Grant” type of left wing comedian? They add nothing to the quality of the debate and most of them just regurgitate whatever it is they have scanned in the opinion columns of the Guardian. Political debate should not be just for politicians, but the BBC’s odd idea that it must provide space for these clowns is equally unacceptable. I continue to think David Dimbleby an excellent chairman but this programme never achieves it full potential because it insists on being unbalanced in its guest list.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

A DYMOND GEEZER!

By | |
24 Comments

What rotten luck. Another BBC journalist has been caught trying to board a plane to London with cannabis in his suitcase! This time round, it’s Jonny Dymond. Happily, even though he was arrested and fined, the Beeb won’t be taking any action since the incident happened “in his own time”. (As opposed to him taking it live on camera?) I’m sure you remember that another BBC presenter, Radio One DJ Grooverider, was also caught with cannabis last month. Again, no action was taken. Is it possible that a liking for illegal narcotics is a key requirement for BBC presenters?!

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

THE JERUSALEM “INCIDENT”.

By | | , , ,
250 Comments

I just saw this story and like most others, I am shocked at this wicked act of murder that has taken place at a Jewish seminary in west Jerusalem. However from this poorly written (or is it?) BBC story you would struggle to even see this as an act of premeditated murder. Consider the language – the culprits were “gunmen” apparently. No they weren’t – they were dedicated Palestinian terrorists who used guns to kill the young Jewish students. You have to read down quite a bit to you get to the “Hamas praise” heading. Indeed Hamas do praise those who have brought death to these religious seminary, but the BBC helpfully adds that those who study here identify with the leadership of the Jewish settlement movement – who believe the West Bank should be in Jewish and not Palestinian hands. Mmm, and the BBC also remind us that Israeli forces launched a raid into northern Gaza in which more than 120 Palestinians – including many civilians – were killed. No insight provided into where this 120 deaths figure comes from, or how many were Hamas terrorists. I’m sorry to have to keep banging on this Middle East theme (will change tomorrow!) but I think this report is almost written from the viewpoint that the Jews were just asking for this kind of act of reprisal. I also notice that at the very bottom of the page this act of mass murder is described as an “incident”. Pure bloody bias.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

General BBC-related comment thread:

By | |
109 Comments

Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may also be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated! It’s your space, use it wisely.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

CRYING FOR GAZA.

By | | ,
49 Comments

Tuning into Radio 4 “Today” programme, I thought I had accidentally come across the Gaza Broadcasting Corporation. Around 7.45am, the BBC ran an item on a doctor working in Gaza, who also runs a blog, highlighting just how awful it all is for Palestinians living under Israeli “occupation.” She was give free rein to undermine Israel and the best that the BBC interviewer could come up with was the suggestion that perhaps Israel and Hamas were equally to blame for the alleged deprivation! At NO point did she choose to ask where the $$$billions of aid poured into this wretched place over the years has gone, an obvious question one w0uld have thought. Nor did she question how it is that medical supplies just cannot be gotten whereas Qassam rockets overflow in this territory. This interview was but a trailer for the main news item at 8 o’clock which was a sustained attack on Israel, care of the Shamnesty International, Save the Children etc cabal. In true form, these left-wing charities blame Israel, exonerate Hamas from any responsibility, and the BBC laps it all up. If you can force yourself to read this page from the BBC this morning, I think we must settle on the fact that when it comes to the Israel/Palestinian issue, the BBC is not just biased, but an active participant in the Palestinian propaganda campaign.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

A STATEMENT OF INTENT.

By | |
77 Comments

Right folks, time for a little clarification regarding my input, content and intent here on Biased BBC.

1. I was INVITED to write here. If any of you have an issue with what I write take it up with the site owner. I write it as I see it and could not care less if that offends some tender wallflowers out there. The BBC deserves MUCH harsher criticism than I provide!
2. The frequency of my posting here seems to concern some. If this was some gentle site where a few posts went up each week, then that’s not how I see it now going forward. There are loads of issues to take up with the BBC and frequent posts are a natural way for me to cover these. There are also other colleagues here who can publish posts whenever they want, and there is no grandstanding going on here on my part. It is extra work for me but I will provide stories whenever I want. So can others.
3. If BBC employees no longer come here to engage, that’s their problem, not mine. I suspect that some of the trolls that infest this site may be BBC employees, but either way, why should I concern myself about how the BBC feels? I have treated each of them as courteously as they have treated me, and I would be more than happy to talk to any of them. Another way of looking at it is that when their rancid bias is laid bare, they’re not so keen to make excuses.
4. I note the comments of my “tabloid” style. Thanks.
5. I see the BBC as a biased, often unprofessional, left of centre and a gross propagandiser for the State. It shows shocking moral relativism, comes across as wanting to be the friend of the terrorist, and appears to delight in undermining all things British. It is shot through with political bias. I WILL hold it to account in my way and if some readers feel unhappy about that, don’t blame me, blame the BBC!
6. Providing content here is done in my spare time when I am not writing on my own blog. It’s a labour of passion. I get a bit despondent when I hear some of the whingeing from certain readers as if I were somehow being recompensed for doing a job that’s not quite up to their high standards.
7. This site may need moderation insofar as I do agree there are some serially disruptive elements who specialise in spinning threads off-topic. I don’t have the time to do it but perhaps the site owner may want to think about this? One way to cut down on the disruption would be to insist on registration. That is what I have done on my own site, A Tangled Web. At a stroke it has removed all the trolls, and means genuine readers can log-in and engage in a civil manner. My site readership has gone UP since I took this measure and it is one way to restore stability and balance.
8. In the main, I am very impressed by the majority of B-bbc contributors, most of whom have the BBC rumbled and so it is for you that I will continue to post here.

That’s my final word on the subject. My aim is true.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

IRAN IS WINNING

By | | , , ,
81 Comments

Here’s a fascinating insight into Beeboid thinking concerning Iran. The headline announces that “Iran claiming victory despite sanctions” and it covers the Mullahs response to the effete sanctions, passed by the UN Security Council on Monday, which extend the two previous ineffectual tranches of sanctions aimed at tightening the economic and trade squeeze on Iran. The BBC asks Mark Fitzpatrick, a nuclear proliferation expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, for his view and he suggests that the UN Security Council has failed to achieve its stated objectives. The BBC goes on to quote the Supreme Tyrant Ali Khamenei declaring that Iran had “honestly and seriously achieved a great victory”, for which he praised the country’s political leadership. By way of balance, ahem, the BBC then allows well know peace-maker Iranians President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to weight in with his take: “Everyone has understood that Iran is the number one power in the world. Today the name of Iran means a firm punch in the teeth of the powerful… ” I’m guessing you know who he is referring to – and so do Al Beeb. They just love anyone who hates the US, eh? The bit that really gets me is when the BBC author of this report, Paul Reynolds then editorialises that “it remains unclear as to what Iran can do with its “victory”. Wiping Israel “off the map” would appear to be the stated objective – has Paul forgotten what Ahmaddie said a while back? It’s all about finishing what Hitler started for the Mad Mullahs – and yet the BBC seem perplexed about it all! Maybe they believe, along with the Fabulous Baker boys stateside, that Iran can be a force for stability in the region – once Israel is gone of course?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

OFF THE RAILS

By | | , ,
63 Comments

. The BBC is a prime cheerleader for those who seek to use “climate change” as a convenient excuse for limiting our freedoms. I notice it carries a glowing report this evening suggesting that the UK needs a “modal shift” from road to rail if greenhouse gas emissions from transport are to be curbed. The Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) says changes are needed to government policies on transport pricing, energy and town planning. A train journey can produce about one tenth of the carbon emissions generated if the same trip is made by air. The report’s authors say substantial investment in the railways is needed. And as part of the war on motorists, we read Cliff Perry, vice president of IMechE’s Railway Division and a former head of Thameslink under British Rail declare “Eighty-five percent of transport emissions come from roads, so if we are serious about doing something, we must hit road transport.” I bet.

But since when did AGW become a fact rather than a theory? Why does the BBC continually imply that AGW is undisputed science? Government is determined to tax us for using our cars and this report, given all due prominence by the BBC, is just one of many designed to create the right mood music to help support what will be further strident impositions on the motorist who dares to travel without government approval. Doing Brown’s dirty work seems all they are good for!

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.