I was entertained by the BBC running “leaks” that the Government’s changes to Welfare were not working as planned on the same day as it provided a clarion to Miliband’s planned changes to Welfare. BBC – Labour’s little helper. I like the way the BBC managed to skip over the fact that Comrade Ed seeks to remove all benefit for young people from “wealthy” homes. Casual class war and effortlessly sanitised by the BBC

Here you go, a new Open Thread to see us off into the weekend! Over to YOU…BBC been bothering you with its bias? Detail it all in loving detail HERE1

The BBC run this bit of anti-Israeli propaganda:

The Christian family refusing to give up its Bethlehem hill farm

Lots of emotive language and phrasing used by the BBC to create a sense that the Israelis are oppressing these people, these victims.

The BBC could have saved a lot of time and effort and just recycled this old trope:

A picture is worth a thousand words…..and that pretty much sums up the BBC’s article.

The BBC though doesn’t bother with other unwanted ‘settlers’, this time in the UK:

Angry villagers warn of riots unless police act on Roma: Residents say they will take law into their own hands if authorities do not take action over anti-social behaviour

Hexthorpe has a population of 3,300 and 500 Roma residents, most of whom are said to have arrived since January when entry rules to the UK were relaxed.

Villagers claim Roma groups are fly-tipping and leaving litter in the streets. They say they make so much noise at night that elderly residents have to sleep with ear plugs, while others are scared to go outside.

The meeting also heard allegations of assault.

Paul Adams, 44, who works in advertising, said: ‘They don’t care about the village or our community. All they are here for is the benefits.

‘They are here to play the system. They are loud, aggressive and intimidating. They gather in groups in the park and on the streets. They’ve attacked people, threatened people. People are intimidated just leaving the house.

‘They throw rubbish everywhere, literally out of their windows into their garden, in the knowledge someone from the council will have to clear it up. It is degrading for the street cleaners to have to be treated that way. What these people need is educating in how to be part of the community.’

He said the problems had hit local house prices too warning: ‘It will come to a point where blood will be spilt if things don’t improve.’  

Wonder whose side the BBC would take in that dispute?

Meanwhile elswhere the BBC has been promoting East European immigration, once again selling us the benefits without mentioning the downsides:

Pole to Pole

No guessing what, or who, this is about…curious the Poles moan loudly about any reports of compatriot’s bad behaviour in the Press but have no complaints about a positive press from the likes of the BBC.

The aim of this programme is not to inform or add to the debate on immigration, it is pure hype, selling the sizzle, polishing the Polish.  Its sole aim is to create a warm fuzzy feeling in the listener’s heart for the good old Poles, so hard working, so intelligent, so nice, so paying taxes, so not claiming any benefits…..once you realise what warm and wonderful characters these Poles are, how much they add to the economy, how much culture, creativity and vitality they bring to staid old Britain, you’ll welcome them, in their millions, with open arms.

The whole premise of that narrative is of course missing the point.  The Poles are, or many of them, undoubtedly all those things, but the issue is numbers of immigrants and whose job are they going to be undercutting, whose house are they going to be living in, whose school place will their kids be taking, whose hospital bed or GP slot will they occupy etc etc.

All issues the BBC doesn’t like to emphasise.  It just likes to emphasise the positive, even if the positive is more often than not merely positive thinking, an immigration policy based on the optimistic belief that it’ll all turn out alright, eventually…and in the meantime….

Even the Poles themselves thought immigration had gone too far saying:

‘I wouldn’t call it England anymore…you have gone too far.’

At least the BBC let that comment through without being blue pencilled.

Radio 4 followed that up with this today:

Hail Marys and Miniskirts

Yet again telling us how great the immigrants were, this time Irish in the swinging 60’s.

Can’t help being suspicious this had a subtext beyond championing immigration as it revolved a great deal around the extremism of the Catholic Church in Ireland…..any coincidence coming just after much debate about Muslim extremism in British schools and society?  Are we supposed to say  ‘What a nightmare the  Catholic Church is…maybe Muslims aren’t so bad after all‘?

However despite being a nightmare, faith, in a personal sense, we are told was ‘central to life and identity….the Church was very important to them.’

So perhaps the message we are supposed to imbibe from the BBC is let Muslims get on with their religion….so important to their life and identity that we mustn’t judge or proscribe.

The BBC, just entertaining and informing us, or targeting and manipulating us and our views?

The BBC is still ignoring this:

From the Independent:

NHS means British healthcare rated top out of 11 western countries, with US coming last

From the Guardian:

NHS is the world’s best healthcare system, report says

From the Telegraph:

Britain’s NHS is the world’s best health-care system, says report

From the Metro:

Hate the NHS? Well, apparently Britain now has the BEST healthcare system in the world

One thing to note is the level of funding…..the UK’s being one of the lowest whilst being top for quality of care and efficiency, the US has the highest budget….and yet the US is the most inefficient, and only 5th for quality of care.

Nothing from the BBC…oh hang on…in June 2010 they did report this from the Commonwealth Fund:

UK health system is top on ‘efficiency’, says report

Why might they do that a month after Labour have been booted out of office?  Could it be they hope a bit of credit might go Labour’s way….Labour’s Andy Burnham seemed to think so in 2009 in reaction to a Commonwealth Fund report:

“This is fantastic news for the NHS and a worthy recognition of the professionalism of NHS staff, but it also shows the danger that the Tories’ ill-judged policies pose to patients.

“It is Labour that has put the NHS in the strong position the Commonwealth Fund shows it is in today.

“The experts’ judgement is telling – Labour NHS policies are working. The Tories’ policies would put patients at risk.”

Why report the very same thing in 2010 but not now?

Guess the BBC isn’t too keen to let the public see that the NHS is thriving under the Tories…sorry, the Coalition.

Instead of trumpeting the fact that the NHS may well be the best health service in the world the BBC has concentrated on this negative story all day in detail:

NHS ‘facing funding gap of up to £2bn’ in England

Curious editorial decision as to what to report and what not to report.

Guess there must be an election coming.

What is happening in Iraq causes problem for the BBC ‘s idol, Obama. ISIS attacks in Iraq have skyrocketed ever since the retreat was sounded by Obama in 2011 and he declared the war a success. Rather than examine the consequences of US withdrawal (which the BBC fully supported) it keeps going back to place blame on Bush and Blair. Furthermore, why doesn’t the BBC explore why Iran supports Assad and why other Arab states have funded ISIS? The issue is complex but the BBC seems determined to ensure that Obama gets a bye. And as for ISIS, why doesn’t the BBC ask why devotion to Islam creates such inhuman savagery? As is so often the case, the BBC uses bias by omission to sustain its own narrative.

Here you go, on-time and for your completion. Is the BBC bias bothering you? This is the place to detail it!

I suppose the opportunity was too great to resist? I saw John Simpson slobbering on about how Iran represents our best chance to “save” Iraq on the BBC news. Given that Obama and Cameron have thrown their weight in behind the Mad Mullahs as the salvation of Iraq, it was inevitable that the likes of the BBC would then row in extolling the virtues of the same regime that keeps Assad in place in Syria and which seeks to wipe the Jews off the map.

Did you hear of this on the BBC this morning?… I must have missed the enormous fanfare announcing the good news:

NHS pushes UK’s healthcare to top of the league table out of 11 western countries, with US coming last

Conducted by The Commonwealth Fund, the report ranks the UK first overall, scoring it highly for its quality of care, efficiency and low cost at the point of service, with Switzerland coming an overall second.

The US came last, as it has done in four other editions of “Mirror, Mirror” since 2004.

Looking hard on the website…but can’t find a report.

If the NHS had been last pretty certain that would have been headlining and Derbyshire et al investigating the ‘issues’ at length.

John Humphrys wasn’t having a very good morning today as he tried to manufacture a link between the 2003 invasion of Iraq and ISIS whilst interviewing US diplomat Paul Bremer who ran Iraq after the invasion.

Humphrys has history on Iraq being fervently opposed to the invasion and consistently making that clear throughout the time the US was in Iraq starting of course with his and Andrew Gilligan’s misleading allegation against Tony Blair…an allegation that may have coloured future public perception of the war and subsequent determination of politicians to execute it in a manner that would have brought a swifter and more complete conclusion…and less cost in lives, including our own British troops.

Humphrys made the uncategorical statement during the occupation that one million Iraqis had been killed, at a time when not even the most pessimistic were coming up with a figure anywhere near that.  Humphrys also told us wrongly, that a recommendation to adopt the ‘surge’ of US troops into Iraq was not in the ISG report….unfortunately it was…..

We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective.

Humphrys then went on to tell us that the ‘much vaunted surge’ was failing…despite the fact that only a few troops had actually arrived at that time and it was planned to take a considerable length of time to accomplish….and in the end the ‘much vaunted surge’ was indeed successful.

Humphrys wasn’t alone of course, many BBC journalists presented us with their own prejudiced opinion rather than facts… Fergal Keane tells Jay Garner his opinion:

’Iraq was a reckless adventure that has destroyed the lives of millions and killed 10’s of thousands, you must feel guilty about it.’

Humphrys in his latest interview with Bremer pushes the same narrative but seems remarkably unaware of the facts which undermine his own views as Bremer shoots him down every time…on top of that he keeps trying to make that link with ISIS.

Humphrys uses that old journalist’s trick of using ‘Some people might say’  when they are merely putting their own views forward.

Here Humphrys claims ‘some people might say‘ that Iraq was a catastrophic error and we are reaping the rewards of that today….and that democracy has deepened sectarianisms and lead to what we are seeing today.  ( The BBC likes a good old fashioned dictatorial Empire…the Raj excepted of course…communist, european, Islamic…just loves them)

He continues that theme in a following interview with William Hague (08:13) when he asks ‘Do you accept that the invasion was not only a mistake but a catastrophic mistake?’

He starts from the premise that it was a mistake rather than asking a neutral question.

Hague makes the point that you can’t link 2003 to today saying that we shouldn’t always see events in terms of Western intervention, there are other major forces at work in the world.  The BBC of course always applies the doctrine of Justinian’s Flea and narrows historic consequences down to a guilty moment in time…usually one where the British have a footprint.

Humphrys then turns to Hague’s ‘red carpet’ moment with Brangelina claiming Hague must have been embarrassed to be photographed with them…saying he looked starstruck and must have been diverted from real issues of the day.

This was the photograph…hardly starstruck, nor indeed anything really remarkable about the photo especially if you know the circumstances.

Humphrys could of course have talked about the below photo from the same conference, but chose not to…or could have mentioned that Hague was co-hosting the conference on sexual violence with Jolie…the same Jolie who is a UN special envoy….so why not ask the UN why they use a ‘film star’ to front their events?:

He could have used this photo from the BBC’s own report:

Sexual violence in war: Jolie praises leaders at summit end

Angelina Jolie has said sexual violence in conflict is now “firmly on the top table of international diplomacy”, as a global conference on the subject ended.

The actress and UN special envoy praised male leaders prepared to confront “the taboo” around the issue.

Ms Jolie was speaking alongside UK Foreign Secretary William Hague, who co-hosted the London summit with her.

Here’s Hague and Jolie again…pretty glam huh?

Or again…….

The conference was a major event in international diplomatic terms…as the BBC report above admits…and yet Humphrys makes a cheap attack on Hague based upon a single photograph of him walking into the conference centre with his co-host.

The Daily Mail reports the interview:

Hague dismisses ‘ridiculous’ claims he was starstruck hobnobbing with Pitt and Jolie while war raged in Iraq

William Hague today dismissed ‘ridiculous’ criticism of his decision to spend four days with Hollywood star Angelina Jolie while war raged in Iraq.

The Foreign Secretary appeared to accuse Radio 4 presenter John Humphrys of not asking intelligent questions about his appearances with Miss Jolie and her husband Brad Pitt.

Mr Hague insisted the star-studded summit to end sexual violence against women in war did not divert his attention away from the crisis of the day, stressing the UK government was ‘entirely capable of doing both’.

Last week the pair hosted a four-day summit in London, which culminated in a new international protocol which they hope will ‘shatter the culture of impunity’ around sexual violence in war.

However, it meant that as Islamist jihadists swept through large areas of Iraq, Mr Hague was posing for photographs with two of the world’s biggest film stars.

Today Mr Hague insisted the government was capable of focussing on immediate problems while also addressing long-term issues, like sexual violence in war at the summit.

He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: ‘Anybody who thinks that should have been there, should have come along to it… This is about conflict prevention. 

‘It brought together most of the world. We’re not going to solve conflicts of the many sorts we debate on this programme unless we address these appalling crimes. 

‘The idea that you can never deal with long-term issues because there’s always something short-term, I always find rather ridiculous.’ 

And in apparent swipe at Mr Humphrys for even asking the question, he added: ‘With respect, I think the basis of your question has less basis than most of the highly intelligent questions.’

You could I suppose, using Humphrys’ criteria,  ask why Humphrys wasted so much time during the BBC’s prestigious news programme making facile, point scoring, cheap shots when so much more important news is competing for his attention.

Then you could ask when Humphrys said this a while back…..

“If abuse that went on in Catholic Church had gone on in a lay organisation, it would be shut down”

…why he now thinks sexual violence used as a weapon in war, world wide, shouldn’t merit so much of Hague’s attention….or indeed if he thinks the BBC should be shut down…the quote coming before the Savile revelations.

The Today programme decided it had to do a routine on the Magna Carta, (08:22) the BBC being then BBC they had a not so subtle undercurrent of disdain and amused contempt for the whole thing much as Gavin Esler did when talking of ‘British values’…‘whatever they are…smirk smirk’.

Historian David Starkey didn’t let them get away with their patronising attitude saying that ‘Tradition’ was a word that ‘you [Evan Davis] and this programme always treats with such contempt.’

Davis had begun by telling us that some people say that the signing of the Magna Carta was one of the defining episodes in the building of our democracy.

He immediately had to qualify that with a question as to what is ‘our’ and what is ‘democracy’?  Nothing is absolute with the BBC, an attitude designed to allow them to make equivalence with other cultures and say they are just as acceptable as ‘British values’…whatever they are.

David Starkey corrected Davis and said the Magna Carta had nothing to do with democracy, which is two a penny, but was important because it was the foundation of limited and responsible government.

Davis went on to ask ‘In a sequence of events would you put it [the Magna Carta] at the number one of importance or would you put it along the lines of…..’

David Starkey had to jump in there and exclaim…

‘Oh dear…this is like a Guardian football list of your 10 best favourite armpit scratching records…this is vulgar way of approaching this…..it’s immensely important.’

Starkey goes on to provide great value and more pokes in the eye for Davis and the other ‘expert’  Nicholas Vincent, medieval historian…..though a ‘Tudor expert’ Starkey seems to know more medieval history than Vincent…though perhaps Vincent’s thoughts are coloured by his less than impressed attitude towards the Magna Carta despite grudgingly admitting its ‘importance’.

Apparently David Starkey is making a series on the Magna Carta for the BBC next year…should be interesting.

From the Magna Carta website:

Magna Carta matters. It is the foundation stone supporting the freedoms enjoyed today by hundreds of millions of people in more than 100 countries.

Magna Carta enshrined the Rule of Law in English society. It limited the power of authoritarian rule. It paved the way for trial by jury, modified through the ages as the franchise was extended. It proclaimed certain religious liberties, “the English Church shall be free”. It defined limits on taxation; every American remembers that “no taxation without representation” was the cry of the American colonists petitioning the King for their rights as free men.

For centuries it has influenced constitutional thinking worldwide including in France, Germany, Japan, the United States and India as well as many Commonwealth countries, and throughout Latin America and Africa.  Over the past 800 years, denials of Magna Carta’s basic principles have led to a loss of liberties, loss of human rights and even genocide. It is an exceptional document on which democratic society has been constructed.

Nearly five hundred years later it was central to both the American Declaration of Independence and Constitution.  The newly-independent United States included many of its concepts in the 1791 Bill of Rights. In 1870 Bishop William Stubbs asserted “the whole of the constitutional history of England is a commentary on this Charter.”  In 1965 Lord Denning, the most celebrated English judge of the 20^th Century, described Magna Carta as “the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot.”

Another lasting legacy is seen in the UN Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948. Speaking at the UN General Assembly as she submitted the UN Declaration, Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt argued that “we stand today at the threshold of a great event both in the life of the United Nations and in the life of mankind. This declaration may well become the international Magna Carta for all men everywhere”.

And:

In a 2005 speech, Lord Woolf described it as “first of a series of instruments that now are recognised as having a special constitutional status”, the others being the Habeas Corpus Act, the Petition of Right, the Bill of Rights, and the Act of Settlement.

Some reaction to Starkey from his fans: