Category Archives: Uncategorized

Hat tips: me, “Libertarian” in the comments, and Dumbjon of House of Dumb who asks, “You mean it wasn’t the Jews after all?” The title of this post is a reference to a notorious BBC documentary.

It’s so tortuous. Get this.. “A Danish man of Palestinian origin has been arrested on suspicion of shooting and wounding two Israeli salesmen at a shopping centre in Odense in Denmark.” Anything to avoid saying Muslim, eh?

Thanks to George R for spotting this gem of BBC obsfucation!

– An article by Stephen Glover in the Daily Mail. (Hat tip: Jason.)

All watching ITV

The angel of the Lord came down

And switched to BBC.

Anyone else remember that? I’m pretty sure that in the playgrounds of my youth it was that way round, though Google gives about 50-50 the angel switching to ITV. I draw no particular conclusions. The only real purpose of this post is to wish everyone a merry Christmas.

BBC Radio Solent (no relation whatsoever!) reports that four animal rights activists have been convicted of blackmail, criminal damage, extortion, bomb threats…

So what is Radio Solent’s response to this?

To give the microphone to a spokeswoman for the criminal group responsible so that she could justify their actions, of course. Listen here; it’s 1 hour 57 minutes in.

Hat tip: Chuffer.

The Head of Acquisitions at the BBC outlined the Corporation’s policy in a recent radio programme. She told us:

“The children of today are more used to the up-market, faster-moving things” and that “in today’s hugely competitive schedule we are up against about another twelve to fourteen children’s channels and we have got to stand out.”

As a policy that is, in my considered view, almost criminally preposterous.

Some accuse the BBC of being institutionally biased against markets. That may have some truth when it comes to news and current affairs, but that’s not how the late and much-mourned Oliver Postgate sees them when it comes to childen’s programming. Markets – and merchandise – are all.

” … the BBC let us know that in future all “programming” was to be judged by what they called its “audience ratings”. Furthermore, we were told, some U.S. researchers had established that in order to retain its audience (and its share of the burgeoning merchandising market) every children’s programme had to have a ‘hook’, ie, a startling incident to hold the attention, every few seconds. As our films did not fit this category they were deemed not fit to be shown by the BBC any more. End of story – not only for Peter and me – we had had a very good innings – but also for many of the shoe-string companies that had been providing scrumptious programmes for what is now seen as ‘the golden age of children’s television’…”

“Now, today, burdened with the search for the millions of pounds which they have to find to fund their glossy products, the entrepreneurs have to lead a very different sort of life. They must hurtle from country to country seeking subscriptions from the TV stations to fund the enormous cost of the films. Each of these stations will often require the format of the proposed film to be adapted to suit its own largest and dumbest market. They have to do this because, for them, children are no longer children, they are a market.”

To be fair to the BBC, there are still a few small areas of programming targeted at children where production values and solid scenery can go hang, because it’s all about the story. Like Eastenders. Trouble was, you were never going to be able to get much incest or domestic violence into Pogles Wood.

(If you want to see the “educational” BBC at its worst, take a look at its mealy-mouthed CBBC Remembrance Day page. Among the missing are the words “us” and “our”)

A BBC report, Patients going ‘private’ on NHS by Nick Triggle, says:

Thousands of patients a month in England are using a government reform to get what is effectively private treatment paid for by the taxpayer.

Patients have the right to opt for any NHS hospital or private unit that can offer the care at NHS cost.

In little over 12 months, the number opting for private hospitals has risen 10-fold to over 3,500 a month.

This story caught the attention of Tom Bowman at the Adam Smith Institute blog, who writes

You might think that everyone would consider this a good thing, but unfortunately you would be wrong. Just read the BBC article I linked to above, the implicitly negative slant jumps off the page every bit as much as the organization’s left-wing bias. Take the first paragraph as an example: “Thousands of patients a month in England are using a government reform to get what is effectively private treatment paid for by the taxpayer.”

Couldn’t they just have said, “Thousands of English patients are now getting better treatment at no additional cost to the taxpayer”, instead?

That would be an equally valid statement of the facts. The question of why the BBC couldn’t just – and just couldn’t – have said it is an interesting one, covered elsewhere on this blog.

However there is an even worse example of bias in the next sentence from Mr Triggle:

Doctors said patients needed to think carefully as vital NHS money was being lost to private health providers.

Emphasis added. I note this partly in obedience to the necessary convention that quotes are not doctored without warning, partly because it helps the reader better amuse him or herself when repeating these words in a voice modelled on that of an awestruck student nurse rebuking a recalcitrant patient in Carry On Nurse.

OK – If Iain Dale and Guido can do this, so can we. You’re all invited to next week’s dissection of Question Time – live and dangerous!

I see that the BBC has given considerable kudos this morning to the latest nonsense served up by the politically active leftist Barnardo’s organisation. It seems that we Brits fancy hunting down children and shooting them. Or at least so Barnardo’s..ahem… extensive and highly scientific research methodology of examining the comment threads of the web sites of some national newspapers would indicate! The Barnardo’s agenda is clear; British kids are unfairly condemned, British adults are intolerant towards kids, and even those kids who do behave atrociously need to be “understood” and “better supported.” Dripping wet tosh given free passage care of the State Broadcaster. Feral youth rejoice, you have nothing to lose but your asbos.

A whistleblower alerted the government to failings around child protection in Haringey six months before Baby P died, according to this BBC report, which swiftly moves on after the opening paragraph to a government press release responding to the claims. Readers are left to guess the details.

It is understood a lawyer acting for a former social worker sent the letter to the then health secretary, Patricia Hewitt, says the BBC.

It might be understood, but it’s all a bit vague, principallly because the BBC seems to be entirely reliant on the government’s press office. Readers anywhere else, be it, the left-leaning Independent or right-wing Telegraph, not only understand; they know exactly what actually happened:

It [the letter] read: “Our client whistle-blew the fact that the sexual abuse had been ongoing for months and the new management brought in post-Climbie had not acted… We write to ask for a public inquiry into these matters.”, records the Independent.

And later in the BBC report we have this:

It is understood the social worker no longer works for Haringey council.

Again, it’s writing that really sounds like it’s coming from the ministerial department rather than a journalist.

At the Telegraph, on the other hand, they not only understand the social worker doesn’t work there, they know that Miss Kemal was later suspended and left her £34,000-a-year job with the council. An employment tribunal found that she had been singled out because she was a whistle-blower.

In fact, overall the BBC report does once again make me wonder: if it doesn’t actually tell you anything about what happened, does it still qualify as journalism?