Whenever the Church of England gets a favourable headline on the BBC, you can be sure that it will relate to it embracing leftist causes. Global warming hysteria is one of the Left’s favourite causes – in fact I would suggest it has taken on quasi-religious importance to those who worship at the church of the Rev Al Gore. So maybe it’s no big surprise to see the prominence the BBC gives to the story that two senior bishops are urging people to cut back on carbon for Lent instead of the conventional chocolate or alcohol.

The Bishops of London and Liverpool, Dr Richard Chartres and James Jones, are launching the Carbon Fast at Trafalgar Square with aid agency Tearfund. They hope to encourage people to reduce their carbon footprint for 40 days. Bishop Jones, who is vice president of Tearfund, said: “It is the poor who are already suffering the effects of climate change. To carry on regardless of their plight is to fly in the face of Christian teaching.” One Tearfund employee will camp outside the charity’s offices in Teddington for a week in an attempt to reduce his emissions to that of an average Malawian farmer. God preserve us from liberal angst. Dr Chartres called for “individual and collective action”.

OK, so these two Bishops buy into the global warming alarmism so assiduously cultivated by the BBC. But why is that EVERY person who the BBC allows to comment on this story all share the one viewpoint? Whatever happened to plurality of opinion? Is there no-one that the BBC can find to oppose the AGW hysteria? There are MANY in the scientific community who do not buy into the carbon emission obsession, there are many within the religious community who also do not see it the same way as these two Bishops do. But time after time, when it comes to this topic, the BBC ONLY allows one view. That is neither fair nor balanced and it’s high time that the high priests of global warming hysteria in the BBC were held to account. We need less hot air from them.


The BBC has long been a convenient echo chamber for left-wing propagandising over the war in Iraq. For years now all we ever heard from Al-Beeb is the steady drum beat that the war was “illegal” and “immoral.” The talking heads were declaring that it was going to be “another Vietnam” scarely after our forces went in. Then we were told that Iraqis did not want our military there, that the Ba’athists were not really that bad , and that it was all doomed to be a quagmire anyway. I often thought that poor old Saddam must have had friends in the BBC such has been the outrageous revisionism of the Baghdad Butcher’s reign of terror. He got what he deserved of course and Iraq is the better place without Saddam and his thuggocracy. But of course we all know that Al Queda have declared this the front-line in their war on civilisation (Well, all of us except Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the “troops out” siren chorus) and so it is vital we prevail.

The US surge, so ably led by Gen Petraeus, has worked wonders over the past six months, to the evident chagrin of the “cut and run” brigade. But it is impossible to completely eliminate the sheer evil of Al Queda and this has become evident in the massacre that took place in Baghdad yesterday when the Jihadi used two women suffering from Down’s syndrome, getting them to wear explosive vests and then detonating them by remote control – causing carnage. The malign intent behind such an act is almost beyond words.

But I wonder why the BBC seems unable to accept that Al Queda would stoop so low? In their report of the massacre yesterday the BBC stated categorically that the two women used in this attack were mentally disabled. Today, I note that the BBC is now suggesting instead that “allegedly” two mentally disabled women carried out this. I was wondering if the BBC fear Al Queda sueing them? Why so coy?

I am also interested in the statement the BBC makes that these atrocities have “shattered” the “fragile peace”which has descended on Baghdad care of the actions of the US military and local Iraqi forces over the past six months or so. Obviously they have caused a temporary and understandable sense of horror but the truth is that Baghdad has been transformed by the Surge and there is no evidence that all of this has been lost despite these horrific Al Queda terror attacks. But to admit this runs contrary to the BBC “Quagmire” narrative and that is the problem. The BBC fails to define Al Queda as terrorists even as they conduct this sort of depraved act. If detonating women suffering from Down’s Syndrome is not terrorism, what is it? What stops the BBC accepting this?


Did you watch last evening’s edition of the BBC’s “Question Time” programme? Wasn’t it a laugh? I mean IF you want to see BBC institutionalised bias in all its unfettered glory this is the must-see each week because it is always a challenge to work out whether it will be the panel or the audience which contains the greater number of foaming-at-the mouth lefties.

Last night, true to form, the panel was as unbalanced as ever. We had the Labour Minister and Conservative traitor Shaun “Where’s my butler” Woodward. (There’s nothing the BBC likes more than a Conservative defector) Then we had rabidly Europhile Conservative MP Ken Clarke, the man who seeks to increase the power of the State, who seeks to ensure the UK loses any vestigial national soveriegnty to the EU superstate, the man who fails to understand the war on Islamic terror. To add “more balance” we had comedian John Sessions who seems to have not yet outgrown his “Student Grant” set of leftist values. Then we had uberleftist Bonnie Greer, (a BIG contributor to BBC, natch!) who left me open-mouthed when she declared that whilst she did not seek to glamourise crime (Oh yes) nonetheless she was very unhappy about the way that New York had successfully tackled crime! Finally, we had the commentator Amanda Platell, who holds what I would define as mild conservative values. So, a panel of four leftists and one centre right conservative. Balanced The audience were the usual anti-war anti-US pro-Welfare rabble that so distinguishes this programme. There were a few sensible souls but they were outnumbered by the moonbat fraternity who seem drawn to Question Time like moths to a flame.

As for the content of the show, we suffered the BBC’s view of the US election being rammed down our throats. In essence the big debate is whether it will be Hillary or Obama. The panelists all focused on the Democrat side of things with scant attention on the Republican side. Even then, liberal Republican John McCain appears to be the only candidate for the GOP nomination IF one listened to the garbage being talked by the panellists. Mitt Romney did not merit any discussion at all. He is evidently persona non gratia with the Beeb. Comedian John Sessions expressed his loathing for Ronald Reagan, to audience approval. In essence, the BBC is once again rooting for a Democrat in the White House which is why even in a political debating programme like this, it’s all about one side, the side of which the BBC so approves .

I find David Dimbleby a likeable chap and have met him and feel he is a professional presenter to compare with the best of them. The problem however is that the BBC lacks the guts to allow a balanced panel. They permit the occassional right of liberal commentator like Melanie Philips or Peter Hitches to make the odd token appearance but then unbalance this with a gaggle of leftist opinion. Unlike the excellent political debating programmes on Fox News, the BBC will not balance a panel, instead it weights the panel outrageously. The audience is then brought in as a prop. It’s all a great pity since real debate would be more interesting. Do you share my view of Question Time?

Bias in the bones.

It was interesting, I thought, to listen to Helen Boaden’s comments in response to the comments of Robin Aitken and others on the Talking Politics show highlighted by Andrew below. Boaden’s comment about impartiality not being a “state of grace” I thought especially revealing. I mightn’t actually have to think too hard to think of a few apples which the BBC ought not to bite, or commandments they shouldn’t break.

For instance, one might be that “people sceptical of the political contruct of EU centralisation of national powers shalt not be referred to as being “in opposition to Europe” or any other such false witness be borne regarding their position.” It might be especially relevant when their concerns are purportedly being aired. Background here.
The idea of being “in opposition to Europe” is patently ridiculous, debasing language as well as ideas.

There is no question of treading on eggshells here, provided the BBC’s attitude is right.

Then again, another commandment might be: “thou shalt not consider the opinion of someone interesting purely out of concern for their racial background and in defiance of other factors”, as is highlighted here by Mr Dale for example regarding this article.

“”Black MPs spurn Boris for Mayor”.

It is actually a “story” about two Labour MPs, Dawn Butler and Diane Abbott both saying that they do not support Boris Johnson. I may be wrong but Labour politicians saying they will not be supporting a Conservative is as relevant as the announcement that David Cameron will not be voting for Gordon Brown. What is the BBC playing at?”

And those would be just two commandments. Very modest I think. I am sure others can think of more.

Update: As Jonathan in the comments points out, the article has been changed from
“Black MPs” to “Labour MPs”. Chalk one up for Mr Dale. Now we can see that the article has no sense whatsoever once the BBC’s racialist presumptions are taken out of it- it was prejudice appealing to prejudice and now it’s nonsense appealing to, well, hopefully not too many people.

What more could they get wrong?

(this post in large part thanks to commenter “cheesed off”)

In a short article about a woman called Zoobia Hussein, the BBC get just about everything wrong that could be got wrong. What were they trying to do with this report?

For a start, Zoobia Hussein is described appearing in court in her niqab (or “full veil” as the BBC report it). In fact she finally submitted to showing her face to the judge she was facing, behind a screen to protect her from the rest of the court. The judge in this case was a woman. Point one of misrepresentation.

Point two, Zoobia Hussein and her five children were not “thrown out” of their accommodation, but subject to eviction according to due process. At least one of the local tabloids managed to represent this clearly, unlike the BBC.

Third, in her latest appearance in court Ms Hussein was found guilty as charged of causing £1,500 worth of criminal damage. The BBC say only that “Ms Hussain denies the charge and her case was adjourned until 24 July.”. In fact she will return to court for sentencing.

Fourth… well, enough- how much more can they get wrong? It’s difficult not to suspect that this misreporting was intended to foment wrong impressions and bias in the minds of readers. The focus of the BBC report is the “aggrieved” woman; the person under scrutiny the man who took charge of her original trial. It is not news but selective interpretative trendsetting.

Update: the BBC have corrected their erroneous report on the point of the conviction. Maybe John Reith alerted them.

Nb- John Reith. I do not accept your argument. The PA is a organisation not without its own bias and political persuasion- see here, for example, an analysis. Its report was rambling and in no way adequate to sustain an effective news update on the Z. Hussein case. The BBC reporter found it quite adequate, however, with its ignorance of the actual case in question and its focus on the man who originally handled the trial where the refusal to show her face became a cause of controversy. Still, the distillation would have taken some time. The BBC’s simplification enhanced rather than decreased the bias in the AP report. The local journalists did far better, and were a couple of clicks away at most- really, probably staring at the operative in question from a newsfeed. I never suggested that the BBC sat in some darkened room shaping a biased article, merely that the misreporting was not without reason. I stand by that.

I would add that I know that BBC journalists are not idiots who go out on a limb to lie to the public. Most of the time, anyway.