The Telegraph tells us……

BBC charter review consultation hijacked by left-wing campaign group

The Culture Secretary has been forced to revisit the consultation on the future of the BBC

John Whittingdale, the culture secretary, is to launch a new study of public attitudes towards the BBC, after a consultation into the future of the corporation was hijacked by a left-wing campaigning group.

It has now emerged that 177,000 submissions – 92 per cent of all responses – were sent via 38 Degrees, a “campaigning community” that specialises in organising mass-emails to MPs. The group told its three million members that ministers planned to “rip out the heart of the BBC”, by forcing the corporation to take adverts and ending its independence from government –neither of which are proposed in the green paper.

Not only did 38 Degrees organise the massed response but damningly ‘guided’ the answers that people wrote to the review….which you might think completely undermined any appearance of credibility and honesty…..

The group told its members that it had “translated” the “gobbledegook” questions in the consultation into plain English, and gave them a crib sheet advising people how to respond. One question in the green paper asked, “How well is the BBC serving its audiences?”, which 38 Degrees told its members to answer as “Which parts of the BBC do you particularly love?”.

A question asking whether the corporation had a negative impact on any of its commercial rivals was described as: “If you value having independent news that comes without adverts, you could write about that here.”

Caught Nolan last night (11:34)…thankfully at tale end of a discussion on immigration.

Nolan then went on to Google and tax…..we had Edwina Currie putting up an excellent and reasoned defence and someone from Labour who didn’t have a clue about the corporate tax system in the UK but that didn’t stop her declaring emphatically that Google wasn’t paying its legal tax requirement….a classic claim from her was ‘I don’t know but I don’t think so.’

Nolan also seemed rather unversed in said tax system and declared, when Currie said Google were paying what was legally required and were based in Ireland, that this inconvenient legal fact was a ‘red herring’ and that Google weren’t paying what was morally right for them to pay.

Morally right?  Wasn’t that Labour’s mantra…ala Hodge the Dodge?  Always knew BBC journalists were the new priesthood…and scarily think of themselves in that way.

Salmond dreams of more Naughtieness

Jim Naughtie treated us to his syruppy pro-indendence tones this morning on the Today programme (08:42-ish) as he told us that there was ‘an enticing prospect’ of Scotland voting to stay in Europe…whilst England voted to leave.

Enticing for who exactly?

Naughtie also told us that Nicola Sturgeon was ‘exceptionally cautious’ about raising the prospect of another independence referendum, LOL… but…she may be ‘pushed’ into that position if the EU vote, in the UK, went against the Scot’s wishes.  Which is curious as the Today blurb, and indeed Sarah Montague in the trail for Naughtie’s piece, tells us she ‘has indicated she will push for a second independence referendum if Scotland votes to stay in the EU while the rest of the UK votes to come out.’

Sturgeon ‘Pushing’ for a second referendum doesn’t sound too much like ‘exceptionally cautious’ or being her being ‘pushed to’ ask for a referendum.

Hmmm, and he saw no contradiction in all this…Scotland voted to stay in the UK and therefore should abide by the result of a UK vote which is based upon a UK wide electorate not on a regional basis. Seems that Sturgeon, and Naughtie are just trying to slyly build a case to justify another referendum.  The polls ask the question ‘Should the UK stay in the EU?‘ not should Scotland stay?

Support among Scots for the UK remaining in the European Union is at its highest level yet, an STV poll has revealed.

Why did Naughtie play a clip of Scotland’s National Socialist blackshirts attacking Farage to illustrate how Scotland is so anti-EU?  One, I don’t think those National socialist bootboys are representative of Scotland and two, was their thuggishness in support of the EU or just racism against someone who is blatantly English?….after all Salmond has based his entire career upon anti-English rabble rousing, hate-mongering.

Liked the claim that tourists coming to Scotland were sent here by the benevolent EU commissars and that they paid for the pontoons that allowed the tourist to come ashore….well they paid for it with money sent to the EU by the UK….the EU takes its enormous cut which it generously gives in lavish quantities to its bureaucrats before handing what remains back to us whilst demanding we thank them for their charity.  Would it not be better we cut out the troughing middle-men and just send the money direct from the UK government?   I’m sure tourists would still come to Scotland whether or not shipped in by the EU en masse.

Naughtie tells us that the debate on the EU is ‘complicated’…a narrative that the BBC’s other pro-Europe lobbyist, Jonty Bloom (see later), likes to peddle.

It’s a rotating door between the left wing press and the BBC.  The Spectator reports;

The Guardian set tongues wagging across Westminster in December when its editor Katharine Viner appointed two women to share the role of political editor. Although the paper’s chief political correspondent Nicholas Watt had been seen as the favourite to succeed Patrick Wintour, Sky News‘s Anushka Asthana and Observer economics editor Heather Stewart were offered the role as a job-share, after applying together.

Happily Watt appeared to be gracious in defeat. While he tweeted that he was ‘disappointed’ to miss out on the role, he said he was looking forward to working with the ‘formidable duo’.

Alas word reaches Steerpike that Watt may not have much time working for Asthana and Stewart after all. Mr S understands that Watt is being lined up to join Newsnight as the show’s new political editor. He would fill the vacancy left by Allegra Stratton — who is also a former Guardian employee — after she stepped down as political editor to join ITV News as their National Editor this month.

Strikes me, and I know many of you share this view, that the BBC is the broadcast version of The Guardian,

Seen this?

“Lancashire Police have “condemned” a “misleading” report by the BBC, claiming a ten-year-old Muslim boy’s family had been investigated after he accidentally wrote that he lived in a “terrorist” house in his homework, when he meant “terraced”.

The police said there were genuine concerns about the boys “safety”, which “the reporter was fully aware of this before she wrote her story”, however the BBC’s version of events was picked up by every mainstream news outlet in the UK, and seized upon by Islamists and opponents of the government’s new anti-terror laws.

“The level of debate about this story today is not warranted given the facts and misrepresents the role of all the agencies involved”, the police said.

The original report by BBC Asian Network claimed that police “over reacted to an innocent mistake”. It was based around a brief statement from police, simply stating they had investigated, and lengthy interviews with sympathetic family members.The family denied all wrongdoing, claimed that incident had arisen from a spelling error in a boy’s  homework, and that the unfortunate incident had left the boy “traumatised”. The BBC did little to question this account.”

Friday arrives and so does a new Open Thread to see us off into the sunny uplands of the weekend! Here you go, DETAIL the bias as you see it.

I notice the BBC are running a programme entitled “Trump and the politics of paranoia” – not that they are in way biased against Trump and are slavish media whores for Hillary Clinton.

So no one knew what was going on and no one can be held responsible.

Senior figures from the BBC are “very likely” to be called before MPs to explain whether changes were made in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal. Jesse Norman said the culture select committee, which he chairs, “needed to be satisfied the culture has changed”. The report into cases of sexual abuse by the former BBC presenter is set to criticise the corporation, according to a leaked draft.  BBC chief Lord Hall said lessons would be learned from a “dark chapter”.

Wonder could that happen today inside the BBC? Questions on a post card.

At LAST. The BBC finds a Conservative that it can like.

His name? Crispin Blunt.

A Conservative MP has told the House of Commons he is a user of the popper recreational drug and a ban on its supply would be “fantastically stupid”. Ex-minister Crispin Blunt said users of the drug were “astonished” by talk of a ban and respect for the law “would fly out of the window” if it happened. Supplying the drug, which is popular with gay men, could be outlawed under the Psychoactive Substances Bill.

And WHY is this drug so popular?

“It is reported to have short-lived effects on sexual experience, specifically that they may make an orgasm feel like it lasts longer; may make an erection feel stronger (although some men have trouble getting an erection after sniffing poppers); and may make it easier for some people to have anal sex by helping to relax the anal sphincter muscles.”

Yip. I can see why the BBC like this Blunt.

Here’s what the BBC doesn’t want you to see following its misreporting in the case of the ten year old ‘terrorist’.….the BBC moved straight in and tried to use the case as evidence to prove the ineffectiveness of the anti-terrorism Prevent programme….something the Muslim ‘radicals’ are desperate to neutralise…..did the MCB feed the BBC the story of the schoolboy in the knowledge that the BBC is a willing accomplice when it comes to publishing stories about Muslims ‘under siege, alienated and marginalised’ and that it would be more than happy to help undermine the anti-terrorism programme?

This report is no longer available from the BBC…….

404 – Page not found

‘Terrorist house’ case raises doubts over Prevent strategy

By Dominic Casciani Home affairs correspondent

• 20 January 2016
• From the section UK

A police investigation into a 10-year-old Muslim schoolboy who wrote that he lived in a “terrorist house” when he meant “terraced house” is the latest in a series of incidents that have raised questions about schools’ obligations to prevent radicalisation.

The relatively new duty on public bodies to prevent people being drawn into terrorism sounds simple in theory, but critics say it’s already proving to be incredibly problematic.

The government’s view is simple: the duty is about protecting people from harm – and schools should come up with guidance that meets the reasonable expectations of the law, just as they must already do to combat sexual or physical abuse.

If a teacher comes across suspected evidence of radicalisation, they must refer it to a senior figure in the school responsible for pupil safety and wellbeing.

They, in turn, must decide whether the matter needs to be referred up to the local authority which chairs a multi-agency team looking at potential cases of extremism. That referral could lead to a visit from the police.

Little experience

Some schools are confident they have come up with plans to identify and confront radicalisation – but have they got the balance right?

One London family is already trying to bring legal action after their son was questioned about the Islamic State militant group. He had talked about “ecoterrorism” in a classroom debate about environmental activism.

The measures have also caused huge controversy in universities. Many of them fought fiercely against the proposals in Parliament, arguing that they would breach free speech and academic inquiry.

Months after the measures were implemented, Staffordshire University apologised to one of its own students, who is studying security and terrorism, after he was questioned about reading a related academic text.

So the advice on the “Prevent duty” – and how to implement it – is entirely new territory for many teachers, lecturers, social workers and educationalists who have little experience of radicalisation and terrorism.

Ministers believe that, given the right support and training, teachers and others can get it right.

But critics – and there are many – say that the “Prevent duty” being applied in education is already causing serious harm to individuals who are being viewed with suspicion.