Peter Hitchens shows the BBC’s strange double standards:

The BBC just loves swearing – until it gets a dose of its own @!X*! medicine

The BBC have refused  to accept a complaint about bad language transmitted on national radio – because the complainer’s letter used exactly the same words that they had used on air.

They told Colin Harrow that his letter’s tone and language were ‘unacceptably abusive or offensive’.
In other words, the BBC are ready to transmit words into our homes which their staff are not prepared to read.

The programme involved, a Radio 4 play called Paradigm, was broadcast on Tuesday, January 21 at 2.15 pm, long before any sort of watershed.

No warning of bad language was given. An 80-year-old spinster, or a small child, could have been exposed without notice to a dialogue including the words p***, s*** (lavatory expressions), s*** (a sexual expression), b******s, b****r , b*****d, and some other crudities I’ll omit.

Mr Harrow thought he would treat the Corporation as they had treated him. He opened his letter with the same words and a similar tone (he did not use asterisks, but I have).

‘This afternoon’s play was sh***. It p***ed me off. The b*****d who wrote it needs sh****ing. Perhaps the b****r should be kicked in the testicles while stark b****** naked.’

He added: ‘I hope whoever reads this  is not offended by the language used so far, but then if they work for the BBC why should they be?

‘After all, every swearword and obscenity was used, some several times over, in this “afternoon” play, so I guess the BBC regards them as perfectly acceptable, including, I’m sure, in letters of complaint.’

The metropolitan sophisticates of the Corporation (in my experience well used to every rude word in the language and then some) drew up their skirts like Victorian maiden aunts, and primly rejected the complaint, saying they felt ‘unable to circulate it more widely to our colleagues’.

‘When handling your complaint,’ they continued piously, ‘we will treat you courteously and with respect. We expect you to show equal courtesy  and respect towards our staff and reserve the right to discontinue correspondence if you do not.’

The OFSTED chair, Labour’s Baroness Sally Morgan, has been relieved of her post….but stays on until the Autumn (Though personally I would now sack her as she clearly is at odds with the government)

She is complaining bitterly that this is a Tory Party coup to clear out non-Tory supporters from government quangos……she is Labour…but in the interview on Today this morning said it wasn’t about Labour people being ousted, and anyway the government is also part LibDem…so why does she complain she has been party politically ‘cleansed’?

The BBC has made hay with this all day…running with it as its headline story on every news bulletin immediately after the interview. (The Today interview is available halfway down this BBC report)

This was the headline on the Frontpage for much of the day:

No 10 ousting non-Tories from posts

Now there was absolutely no proof given, or asked for by Naughtie (Labour supporter), that this was happening….just a vague comment that ‘there’s a lot of talk about this…no really!’.

What was strange was that this ‘revelation’ didn’t seem to be a surprise to Naughtie who was well informed about the ins and outs of the system to appoint staff to quangos….maybe he is just brilliant and has this information tucked away in his head.

…or perhaps he had prior notice this subject would come up and came prepared.

It does look like the BBC were tipped the wink about this and ran with it whilst avoiding actually looking for any confirmation of the claims…..Labour have planted a story and have had a days worth of anti-Tory headlines courtesy of the BBC.

Only now, early evening, are we getting a truer picture, but of course the damage is done, and the legend will become fact on the leftwing blogs and the BBC hope, will lurk in the back of more sensible people and colour their thinking however subconsciously….drip drip drip.

Fraser Nelson in 2012 said this:

Gordon Brown’s secret army could defeat the Coalition’s welfare and education reforms

Britain’s charities and quangos are now stuffed to the gunwales with Labour placemen

In the article he tells that under the Tories it is Labour who have had the lion’s share of appointments:

Figures out yesterday show that 77 per cent of politically active quango appointees last year were Labour supporters. Not even Gordon Brown dared top up his government-in-exile at such a rate.

No such story from the BBC.

And Nelson reprises his article today in the Spectator:

Sally Morgan is wrong: quangos are not stuffed with Tories

Public Appointments by political allegiance (Red being Labour…black neutral))

Shows that far from packing in Tories it is neutral appointees being given many positions whilst Labourites still rule the roost.

Even some of Labour’s own people aren’t impressed by OFSTED:

Streamline Target Culture and Reform Ofsted

Education has become too politicised……..Ofsted’s current tactics and staffing ensures an outdated, unsupportive view in many cases and a large stress in the best cases.

Yet another Labour story run by an accommodating BBC.

Perhaps one public body the Tories should ‘cleanse’ is the leftwing BBC.

One big yawn from the BBC over the large scale anti-terror police operation to arrest diplomat’s son James Sutcliffe….no sign of their having reported it at all……

Thankfully there’s always the Daily Mail:

Police swooped on British diplomat’s son ‘after he signed for neighbour’s package while they were out’

• Scotland Yard had feared that parcel contained deadly poison Abrin

Turns out he was completely innocent.

So symptomatic of the police’s oppression of the white, middle classes.

Whereas we had endless BBC coverage when two Muslims were arrested in similar circumstances:

Muslims protest over terror raid

Around 100 people have protested about an anti-terror raid in east London a week ago, claiming it was symptomatic of oppression of the Islamic community.

Wonder what the difference is for the BBC between the two operations.

The BBC’s initial report on Scarlett Johansson, Oxfam and Soda Stream was this:

Scarlett Johansson quits Oxfam role over SodaStream row

And it ended with this fine bit of journalism:

However, away from the factory, Reuters quoted one unnamed Palestinian employee as saying “there’s a lot of racism” at work.

“Most of the managers are Israeli, and West Bank employees feel they can’t ask for pay rises or more benefits because they can be fired and easily replaced,” he added.

Now however the BBC has got off its backside and actually done some work:

SodaStream CEO Daniel Birnbaum on West Bank factory

The BBC’s Kevin Connolly spoke to the CEO of SodaStream, Daniel Birnbaum……where we are told that Palestinian workers receive exactly the same pay and benefits as Israeli workers….and in this report by Connolly on Today we can hear a Palestinian foreman at the factory telling us he is happy to work there….it’s an excellent place to work he says…they ‘give us good opportunities.’

So that’s a Palestinian ‘boss’, on equal pay and benefits, with opportunities, who has been promoted and is happy to work there.

Yeah….I can see why they’d like to close that factory down…the 500 Palestinian workers are suffering racism, intimidation, low wages and poor conditions.

What I can’t see is why the BBC would decide to report such negative comments without any proof whatsoever especially as the reporting of any issue from this region is highly sensitive.

The BBC censors any news that it believes will have a negative impact upon the image of Muslims in this country in the interests of ‘cohesion’ and yet is prepared to print what are no more than ‘Elders Of Zion’ type lies about an Israeli company regardless, or rather in full knowledge, of what the consequences are……a negative image of Israel, endorsement of Palestinian terror as ‘justified’ by Israeli ‘oppression’ and eventually the delegitimisation of Israel…and of course its eventual elimination as a state.

From BBC Watch:

At no point in this report is any attempt made to inform readers of the context of Oxfam’s record of politically motivated campaigning against Israel. Likewise, at no point is any attempt made to explain to audiences that Oxfam’s stance is the result of its alignment with the BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) and that the aim of that movement is the dismantling of Israel as the Jewish state through a campaign of delegitimisation.

“With pressure imposed by the international community through a BDS campaign a la anti-Apartheid campaign which brought Apartheid South Africa to an end, we believe that Israel itself can be transformed into a secular democratic state after the return of 6 million Palestinian refugees who were ethnically cleansed in 1948, a state for ALL of its citizens…therefore, we think that one of the major tools of the struggle towards a secular democratic state is BDS.” Haider Eid, 2009

“So BDS does mean the end of the Jewish state…I view the BDS movement as a long-term project with radically transformative potential… the success of the BDS movement is tied directly to our success in humanizing Palestinians and discrediting Zionism as a legitimate way of regarding the world.” Ahmed Moor, 2010

Here is another recent example where unsubstantiated and charged rumour gets a good airing as ‘news’:

Israeli troops kill Palestinian in West Bank

We get a lurid report based mostly on Palestinian witnesses…….

Palestinian man has been shot dead by Israeli troops in the West Bank.

Palestinian medics identified him as Mohammed Mubarak, 22, a labourer from the Jalazun refugee camp near Ramallah.

An Israeli military spokeswoman said its soldiers had opened fire on a “terrorist” after he attacked an army post near the settlement of Ofra.

But Palestinian witnesses told the AFP news agency that Mubarak had not been armed, and had been harassed by the troops and made to remove his clothes.

A Palestinian Red Crescent spokesman said he was found with three bullet wounds in his back.

Palestinian Housing and Public Works Minister Maher Ghneim called for an investigation into the “cold-blooded killing”.

So the Palestinian ‘witnesses’ tell us that the man was stripped by the Israelis and then shot in the back…and the BBC is happy to report this sort of explosive material.

This is a photo of the ‘stripped’ man with gun: (via BBC Watch)

The BBC eventually gets around to giving a fuller version of the Israeli side….

The Israeli military insisted its soldiers felt “an imminent threat to their lives”, adding that a weapon and 12 bullet casings had been recovered.

Ohad Shoham, the soldier who says he shot Mubarak, told Israeli Army Radio the Palestinian had fired a gun.

He was the first Palestinian to have been killed by Israeli troops in the West Bank this year.

Here is the Palestinian’s gun…in another photo not provided by the BBC….

From the Jerusalem Post: 

IDF troops shot dead a Palestinian man who opened fire at an army post in the West Bank on Wednesday.

The man, named by Palestinians as Muhammad Mubarak, 21, from the Jalazoun refugee camp near Ramallah, fired a dozen rounds at the outpost northeast of Ramallah near Ofra before he was cut down by return fire by the troops, according to the IDF.

The army said that the man died at the scene, and that it did not know how many times he was hit.

Here are photos from Mubarak’s Facebook page:

Note weapon in photo 3rd from left on bottom row….same one/type as used by Mubarak.

Hand made only by Palestinians:

The BBC then add, as usual, the death toll for a chosen period…..apparently we are supposed to weigh up the deaths on both sides and any imbalance will indicate the level of Israel’s murderous oppression of Palestinians…..

Twenty-seven Palestinians were killed in 2013, according to the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, three times as many as in 2012.

In the same period, the group said nine Palestinians in the Gaza Strip were killed by Israeli forces, while Palestinians killed three Israeli civilians and three Israeli security forces personnel in Israel and the West Bank.

What’s missing is just how many Palestinians have been killed by other Palestinians in the course of their internal ‘political’ tangles….never mind the Syrian occupation of Lebanon for nearly 30 years…ironically to control the Palestinian terror groups hiding there…..doesn’t get much coverage unlike Israel’s invasion of Lebanon for the same purpose in 1982.

Here’s just one example:

In the period around 2007, the Palestinian movements Fatah and Hamas waged a violent struggle, primarily in the Gaza Strip. The fighting peaked in June 2007, when Hamas seized control of the Strip. In 2008, the violence abated but did not cease. Throughout the struggle, human rights violations committed by Palestinians against Palestinians increased, both in number and severity.

In 2007, at least 353 Palestinians were killed, 349 of them in the Strip, and thousands were injured, in the fighting between the factions. B’Tselem’s figures indicate that at least 86 of the dead, 23 of them children, were passersby and were killed during street fighting or from gunfire during demonstrations.

The other obvious ‘missing’ is just who is attacking who…..the Jews in Israel having been under attack from Muslims for over 60 years now.

A few days back, the Government produced figures which suggested that most people in employment have seen at least a modest INCREASE in their living standards over the past year, as inflation falls and wages rise. The BBC was not happy about this at the time since it directly contradicts the Labour narrative about “cost of living crisis” and I recall them bringing on an economist to challenge what the Coalition was suggesting. This morning, they give blazing headlines to a claim by the The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) that average UK living standards have fallen “dramatically” since the recession and will not reach pre-crisis levels by the next election. The IFS is just another front for Labour left wing philosophy and have been moaning for years now that austerity doesn’t work. They got that wrong but when they say what the BBC wants they get an east rid

Last day of January and a final Open Thread of the month! It’s been a busy month here on Biased BBC to welcome in 2014 and my sincere thanks to all my fellow writers and above all to you, dear reader, for coming here and sharing your thoughts on the BBC.

Mickey Clark on Wake Up To Money woke up to a nightmare.

Normally he blithely ignores everything his guests tell him and continues with his pro-Labour spiel.

Tell him repeatedly that Japan pumped billions into its economy and he will immediately say that Japan of course didn’t stimulate its economy and look what happened….subtext…Osborne should have been using ‘Plan B’ and spent like mad.

Tell him business is picking up and exports are growing positively and he will say of course the recovery is on dodgy ground…any growth is based on unsustainable consumer spending and borrowing.

Tell him employment is rising and it’s a puzzle to him, it just can’t be possible.

Today he got hit straight between the eyes, repeatedly, and forgot to duck. (from 18 mins 10 s)

Price Waterhouse Cooper have released a report into corporate tax and stated to what must be Clark’s great dismay, that the reason the government coffers were a bit light was because of a fall in North Sea Oil revenue….but…but…but…surely it’s because they’re all tax dodgers? the BBC opined….or rather….ahem…aggressive tax planners.

No…PWC said firmly…it’s because of a fall in North Sea Oil production. Choke.

So all the controversy about corporation tax, usually driven by the grandstanding Margaret Hodge (Labour), was mostly baloney.

PWC also said that because of the international nature of business and the difficulty of collecting tax  based on profits from international companies, and the fact that a profits tax distorts investment,  governments are moving to make up the shortfall with labour, property and other taxes as these can’t be off shored….and importantly provide a stable tax income and attractive tax regime for companies wanting to locate here….and which, though paying less corporate tax, as there are more companies the take will eventually go up.

This from 2013:

Corporation tax made up just a third of big companies’ tax bills in 2012, down from half in 2005, according to a report by finance directors from the Hundred Group……..[but] their overall tax payments rose by 19 per cent between 2005 and 2012, they said.

Although the amount of corporation tax paid had fallen by 17 per cent, other tax payments had increased by 58 per cent over the same period.

Andrew Bonfield, chairman of the tax committee of the Hundred Group, said the changes reflected the policy of successive governments looking for stable tax revenues and economic growth.

“We’re in the middle of a well trailed programme for reducing the rate of corporation tax while other business taxes, such as employer’s national insurance contributions and irrecoverable VAT, have risen,” he said. “These other taxes tend to be easier to collect and less volatile since they’re not dependent on profits.”

The intense public interest in corporate tax, fuelled by accusations by MPs about the tax planning undertaken by multinationals such as Amazon, Google and Starbucks, was at times ill-informed and risked sending a negative message that would undermine the government’s efforts to attract business to the UK, the committee said in its report.

…and the uptick in National insurance tax revenue shows employment figures are being confirmed and wages outstrip inflation…at least in the top 100 companies.

Another BBC myth falls….two in fact right there.

And another….Ian Steely fund manager at J.P. Morgan Asset Management also undermined one of Clark’s cherished ‘truths’…..

China is trying to control its economy and stop it overheating…..by reining in exports and encouraging domestic consumer spending…..must be a bit of a shock to Clark who thinks domestic consumer spending is not a sensible policy…only exports can boost GDP.

Mark Goldring, Oxfam’s chief exec…..Jewish?

If so bit of an irony all considered….Perhaps he should boycott himself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxq4ziu-wrI

The BBC’s report on Oxfam getting dumped by its star face is pretty light on the important facts:

Scarlett Johansson quits Oxfam role over SodaStream row

This is how it wraps up:

The company’s chief executive, Daniel Birnbaum, said his factory was “a model for peace”.

“We’re very proud to be here and contribute to the co-existence and hopefully the peace in this region,” he told Reuters news agency.

However, away from the factory, Reuters quoted one unnamed Palestinian employee as saying “there’s a lot of racism” at work.

“Most of the managers are Israeli, and West Bank employees feel they can’t ask for pay rises or more benefits because they can be fired and easily replaced,” he added.

Really? A racist factory?  Any facts to back that up?  Any BBC reporter on the ground?  Or is it just random anti-Israeli abuse?

Funny how one of the world’s biggest news gathering media corporations can miss this:

Arab SodaStream workers applaud their CEO

The Forward went to the SodaStream factory in Mishor Adumim and spoke to the CEO, Daniel Birnbaum.

He shows that he is far more pro-Palestinian than all of the “pro-Palestinian activists” combined.
[T]hough he wouldn’t have opened the factory at its current site, Birnbaum said that its presence here is now a reality, and he won’t bow to political pressure to close it — even though the company is about to open a huge new plant in the Negev, within Israel’s internationally-recognized boundaries, which will replicate all functions of the West Bank plant, and dwarf it.

The reason for staying is loyalty to approximately 500 Palestinians who are among the plant’s 1,300 employees, Birnbaum claimed. While other employees could relocate on the other side of the Green Line if the plant moved, the West Bank Palestinian workers could not, and would suffer financially, he argued.

“We will not throw our employees under the bus to promote anyone’s political agenda,” he said, adding that he “just can’t see how it would help the cause of the Palestinians if we fired them.”

“We are making history for the Palestinian people and the Israeli people,” he told them in Hebrew, followed by a translator who rendered his comments into Arabic. Birnbaum reassured the workers about their jobs and said he wanted to bring “more and more hands” into the factory as SodaStream grows.

The Palestinians applauded these comments. But then Birnbaum added with a flourish: “Scarlett Johannson would be proud of you!” And at the sound of Johannson’s name — even before the translation — applause among the assembly of mostly male, 30-something Palestinian workers burst out again, palpably louder.

During discussions between a Forward reporter and about a half-dozen of these Palestinian employees, conducted out of earshot of Israeli managers, none complained of labor abuses, or of receiving pay below the Israeli minimum wage. Asked about the calls by anti-occupation activists to boycott SodaStream, one spoke about the dearth of jobs in the Palestinian Authority economy.

So who cares more about Palestinian Arabs – SodaStream or the Israel haters?

Nothing like a bit of hypocrisy from Oxfam…guess money talks……

Sainsbury’s recycling centres across the country receive the highest volume of donations for Oxfam in the UK beyond its own shops.

Some more hypocrisy from the Guardian and an Indian Marxist:

Vijay Prashad…an Indian….a Marxist….what does he have to say about the Indian Caste system?  What does he say about the way India occupies and terrorises Kashmir if you believe Pakistan?

What does he make of ‘Pakistan’….a piece of India stolen and occupied by Muslims having driven out the Hindus and Sikhs and in which no Christian or Amahdiya Muslim can feel safe?

How about the Pakistan that funds its proxy army in Afghanistan…the Taliban..the same Taliban that is killing Afghans and Allied troops? The Paskistan that essentially occupied Afghanistan and stripped it of its industry and wealth?

How about the Pakistan that has hundreds of terrorist training camps churning out terrorists who head off to India or Kashmir to do their worst with the blessing of Pakistani Intelligence?

Boycott Pakistan?  Or India?  Life is complicated eh?

Never mind the murderous Palestinian Hamas and Fatah organisations.

Oh so different a couple of years ago when the Guardian was happy to take a upbeat look at Soda Stream……..

The 1980s DIY drinks machine has been given a revamp by green designer Yves Béhar. He tells us why eco is the only way.

Ironically, the situation is the opposite in Britain: London’s design scene is thriving, but there’s little manufacturing in the UK to benefit from all that talent. SodaStream, a British invention and for decades a British-owned brand, is only getting its eco-crusading revamp now it’s been acquired by an Israeli private equity group.

If more designers thought like Béhar, perhaps they’d be allowed to fix big problems, too.

DB has already picked up on the Scarlett Johansson story and I see you have all been commenting on it. There was one additional element to the story that irritated me and it is this bit..from the BBC report…

“Actress Scarlett Johansson has quit as an ambassador for Oxfam amid a row over her support for an Israeli company that operates in the occupied West Bank.”

WHERE? Do they mean Judea/Samaria? How can Israel “occupy” it’s own land, exactly? I can understand Palestinians using such language but for the BBC to parrot it is surely indicative of bias.

The BBC then adds…

The settlements are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.

It’s not just Israel that “disputes” this “consideration”, BBC.

Scarlett Johansson’s admirable decision to sever ties with Oxfam over its criticism of her adverts for Israeli company SodaStream has led one BBC World Service journalist to declare his shame at owning one of the products:

I'm not proud of this. pic.twitter.com/emztKNII5D

— Roland Hughes (@hughesroland) January 30, 2014

Yeeucch.

Update. Tweet deleted. Here’s the screengrab for posterity: