Guido has an audio clip of the ex BBC DG Mark Thompson admitting he knew about the Savile accusations…unfortunately, at least for me, the audio doesn’t play….have a look anyway:

Audio Tape Reveals Mark Thompson DID Know About Savile

Ninety seconds of audio released by The Times media correspondent Ben Webster has undone former BBC Director General Mark Thompson’s evidence to both Parliament and the Pollard Review over what he knew about Savile. The damning tape from an interview last October has Thompson admitting that he knew the fateful Newsnight investigation was into Savile and about “sexual abuse of some kind”.

Tory MP Rob Wilson says:

“Both the integrity of the enquiry and the BBC is at stake as is the reputation of Mark Thompson.”

Kebab time reveals this:

One Nation Plant

Did you see BBC Question Time Thursday night? if so you would have seen an exchange between an audience member and the UKIP candidate for Eastleigh Diane James .

This young lady is Amy Rutland and according to her twitter profile she works for the Labour party(  Regional Policy Co-ordinator ) .

But that is not all, KT can revel that before Question Time she had a chat with Stephen Twigg ( The Labour representative on the panel ) :

How many of those ‘phone ins’ on 5Live do you think we can trust not to be packed with those who have vested interests?

There will always be some who try it on…but the question is how many ‘ringers’ do the BBC turn a blind eye to?

update:

Cheers to ‘Eric’ in the comments for supplying the clip…a lot more damning in the flesh…and no wonder she thanks ‘David’, very helpful wasn’t he?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU_8IhXVAIM

Warning….very loud swearing!

A different take on the BBC’s bias from a cabby…….Genius…play it loud….play it all.

You don’t believe it?

Well here is PressTV and the ‘Islamic Human Rights Commission’ spelling it out for you:

The BBC is independent and impartial…isn’t it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h6lf36dNUN8#!

I imagine the BBC hierarchy will be mortified…after all that appeasement of Iran and Muslims in general this is how they repay that fawning sycophancy.

Barclay’s Bank has released details of its pay structure and some at the BBC are up in arms commenting about how unfair it all is that some Bankers get paid so much whilst some get very much less.

Victoria Derbyshire is not impressed that so many earn less than £25,000. (11:38)

I don’t know what she and the likes of Nicky Campbell  get paid but I’m pretty certain it’s no where near as low as £25,000…after all although she seems to only work part time she still manages to pay for the air fare to fly herself to work.

I don’t think Barclays will be taking any lessons in pay restraint from the BBC.

A good question from Greg Dyke:

‘Why do we pay all these presenters all this money for them to then slag us off?’

Yes…why do we?

BBC bias?……the floor is yours

‘Bit by bit, the story is coming out.’

Well you have to look quite hard on the BBC to find the story tucked away on the US section:

Senator Rand Paul’s drone filibuster delays CIA nomination

The BBC gives more prominence to this:

French mother tried for 9/11 T-shirt

A mother has gone on trial in southern France for sending her son [Named Jihad] to nursery school wearing a T-shirt reading “I am a bomb” and “Born on 11 September”.

You might have thought the drone story was worthy of more coverage considering the subject…the use of drones, especially the use of drones to kill US citizens…US citizens on US soil….and its other repercussions worldwide.

In February the BBC claimed:

Viewpoint: US media lax on drones

‘The media has been slow to fully report on the US drone programme, says Tara McKelvey, a correspondent for Newsweek Global and The Daily Beast. Is the truth finally starting to come out?’

The BBC tells us that:

The rest of the world questions the legality of their use, viscerally so in a country such as Pakistan, where drone attacks increased significantly during President Obama’s first term.

An estimated 74% of Pakistanis polled by Pew last year termed the United States an “enemy.” Drones are a clear factor.

Drones may be a key element in the US strategy, but as Ambassador Rehman makes clear, they are “not part of our playbook. The time for drone strikes is really over.”

The rest of the world opposes drone use, they increase radicalism and terrorism, Obama signs off 7 times more strikes than Bush ever did……and yet….

BBC seem a bit reluctant to give this story much prominence…unlike the dangers of a bacon sandwich.

I wonder if it would be a different sort of coverage from the BBC if George Bush was still in power and it had been a Democratic Senator who had opposed his use of drones?

I don’t ‘wonder’ at all really….I think I know the answer to that one.

Any chance the BBC web page editor is a vegetarian with this story being the BBC’s top story (Never mind more possible deaths in NHS hospital):

Processed meat ‘early death’ link

Sausages, ham, bacon and other processed meats appear to increase the risk of dying young.

Diets high in processed meats were linked to cardiovascular disease, cancer and early deaths.

Related Stories

• Red meat ‘increases health risks’
• Processed meat ‘linked to cancer’
• Vegetarians ‘cut heart risk by 32%’

Scary stuff.

Oh wait…..there’s a qualifying statement:

Lifestyle factors

It showed people who ate a lot of processed meat were also more likely to smoke, be obese and have other behaviours known to damage health.

oh…qualifying that….just so you don’t get complacent:

‘After adjusting for smoking, obesity and other confounders we think there is a risk of eating processed meat.’

‘We think‘…but we don’t know for sure.  We need more grant money for more research.

Any possibility that one trawl over their data and a completely different picture would  emerge?

The BBC tells us that ‘One in every 17 people followed in the study died.’..but that includes deaths from all causes including car crashes and murder and falling off ladders.

That misleads because the death rate due to cancer, heart disease or respiratory problems was a ratio of 1 in 27.   There were 450,000 people in the study….. 5,556 people died from heart and artery disease, 9,861 from cancer, and 1,068 from respiratory diseases….and of that 1 in 27 how many are due to processed meat?

The study says we can save 3% of deaths if we cut out eating processed meat….which by my calculation is under 500 people of those dying from the associated diseases.

So from out of 450,000 people across Europe 500 died possibly caused or partially caused by processed meat….

There was around a total of 1.28 million deaths from cancer across the EU in 2011….so maybe 1400 deaths could be possibly linked to processed meat by this study….3000 die every year in the UK alone in car crashes.

It seems there is a higher death rate if you go in for surgery:

New research finds that as many as four out of every 100 people undergoing surgery die after the procedure, with wide variations across Europe – a problem that requires more than just extra resources to solve, writes the president of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine….The European Surgical Outcomes study, published in The Lancet,

So stop going in for surgery and live!

No sense of proportion…. the death rate is declining in Europe and people live longer.  It just seems that this is scientists seeking the limelight and banging the drum for their own pet area of inquiry and the BBC gives it the highest prominence for some reason.

Not only does the BBC swallow this piece of junk food science whole it doesn’t examine the ingredients too hard….

My suggestion would be that listening to scientists processed by the BBC machine does more damage to your health than eating a bacon sandwich every day….especially as we know that the BBC is more than ready to link land use and livestock farming to climate change.

The BBC uses Lent to talk about ‘abandonment’…..

In the third of this year’s Lent Talks, journalist and broadcaster Benjamin Cohen reflects on the fear of being abandoned by his own Jewish community, for being gay.

But Lent is about sacrifice…the complete opposite of abandonment.

The BBC are using the story of Jesus and twisting it for their own anti-Christian…and a bonus for them….anti-Semitic/Israeli…reasons.

So now you know that Jews hate gays also, it’s not just the horrible Christians.  Another strike against the Israelis for the BBC.

But listen to the broadcast and you find out Cohen was rejected by neither his family nor his community….his examples of rejection seem to come more from society in general than Judaism in particular though he does go on to tell of his anger at ‘religions’.

It seemed that a rather thin excuse to bring up this subject of ‘abandonment’ was invented by someone at the BBC as it is unrelated to Lent….promoting gay rights whilst attacking Christianity and Judaism….but not, it might be added, Islam…nowhere was Islam mentioned.

Can you imagine someone at the BBC suggesting using Muhammed as a  comparison for a gay person?

The BBC are always keen to have a Muslim on the screen promoting Islam….but it seems that when the religion could be taken to task over a questionable belief the BBC brings on the fall guys…Christianity and Judaism.

Cohen states that an orthodox Jew believes the Torah is the literal word of God, a devout Catholic believes the Pope is infallible……but no mention of the Muslim belief that the Koran is the unalterable and literal word of God….that might be awkward considering the BBC’s insistence that Muslim terrorists who say they are carrying out God’s work are perverting Islam and therefore shouldn’t be considered Muslims.

Odd…follow the literal, fundamental teachings and you are ‘perverting’….demand change to the beliefs and you are ‘modernising’ and somehow you are still following the ‘real’ religion.

What is ‘Lent’ then?   Seems the BBC has its own ideas….

The BBC originally said this:

‘Lent is a time of giving things up. For Christians, it is one way of remembering the time Jesus’ fasted in the desert and is a test of self-discipline.’

The Church of England tells us:

‘The concept of fasting for 40 days is to reflect the 40 days Jesus’ fasted in the desert. Christians treat this time as a way of preparation to Easter and fasting is a recognised way of helping people to focus on their spiritual life and prayer.’

That seems to be the approved description, pretty clear.

The BBC’s latest version however is an inversion of the meaning  of Lent…Lent is no longer a time of sacrifice and self discipline but one of demands to others not to ‘abandon’ you…

‘The Christian season of Lent is traditionally a time for self-examination and reflection on universal human conditions such as temptation, betrayal, greed, forgiveness and love, as well as abandonment.’

That ‘abandonment’ seem to be just tacked on the end there in order to justify the line taken in the Lent Talk….it has a place in Christianity but it is in relation to the crucifixion not Lent.

The Mail reported the story a couple of days ago:

BBC Easter message compares treatment of gay people with the crucifixion of Christ

It’s not like the BBC to be coy about the glories of Islam…..usually they trumpet it from the rooftops….but not so keen to say that Islam is a  cesspit of homophobia…..one that not only denounces gays but kills them.

And of course it’s not just Iran….it’s widespread over the Islamic world.

Ah but hang on…Islam does get a mention…or rather a say in the Lent Talks.…

Imam Asim Hafiz, Muslim Chaplain and Religious Adviser to HM Forces, who has just returned from Afghanistan, explores the total abandonment experienced by both sides as a result of war

Can’t imagine what he will say.

Maybe he will add to what the Muslim extremist Tariq Ramadan said last year when he was given a chance to deliver a Lent Talk.

Funny how any criticism of Islam is ‘Islamophobic’ but it is perfectly acceptable to relentlessly disparage and condemn Christians and Jews for their beliefs on the BBC.

How many times have you heard a BBC presenter shout down a caller or contributor when they mention Islam?  It’s a regular occurrence…Islam  should not be mentioned on the BBC if at all possible…not with any negative connotations anyway.

It can only be wondered at what is the effect of having a Muslim in charge of religious broadcasting at the BBC.

The BBC have decided that wars are unwinnable and that therefore the use of military force should not be considered a viable option:

Spent force: Are wars still winnable?

The whole article is academic drivel, the real intent is to tell us how misguided were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and therefore we should not get involved in any more wars…

“Do not turn these into moral crusades.”
It seems the BBC have only one agenda…to undermine the war, the troops fighting it and the government.

It has briefed continuously against the Afghan war, and then Iraq, since the start, taking whatever line it thinks will cause the most political damage, painting the wars a complete failure.

The article is a strawman, raising irrelevant questions in order to channel the BBC’s own views about war.

The article tells us we are in a new era of warfare and the nature of war is changing…making the outcome of military action against ‘insurgents’  indecisive.

Only that’s pure bilge.  Such battles against ‘non state actors’ have been fought throughout history….and they have always been difficult and protracted….you either surrender to the ‘Insurgent’ or you contain him and hopefully eventually defeat him……what else does the BBC propose?

We had up to 30,000 troops in Northern Ireland for decades…does the BBC really believe the military and the politicians have no idea that such conflicts are difficult to conclude?

The British Army fought endless ‘insurgencies’ throughout the Empire…it held onto a united India for centuries with a tiny presence on the ground….they couldn’t do that without an understanding of the politics and how to fight the glorious rebels.

Here is a quote from a British Army manual ‘Frontier Warfare India’…..

‘To sum up the tribesman’s characteristics as a fighting man it may be said that, although a formidable fighter individually in his own hills and an adept at guerrilla warfare, he lacks cohesion, discipline, leadership and continuity of purpose.  Well trained, intelligently led and properly disposed regular troops should find no serious difficulty in eventually overcoming such resistance as the tribesman may offer, or in beating him at his own game in his own country.  It cannot be too strongly stressed however, that the  frontier is not the place in which to employ partially trained or negligent troops.

It will be readily understood that the political object for which any military operation is undertaken must govern not only the scope but the intensity of the operation and that it may often be necessary for political reasons, to modify the purely military applications of the principles of strategy and tactics.

These political difficulties, which are inherent in the problem of control, inevitably react on military plans and tend to retard decisive action.’

It seems they were quite capable of accurately assessing the military, political and social difficulties without the help of an ‘expert’ BBC armchair  strategist.

Funny that.

Strange though that the BBC are only too happy to excuse the violence of those ‘insurgents’  or terrorists as we should call them.  Unemployed, feeling discriminated against, ethnic, non christian, oppressed…..whatever….the BBC supports your right to use violence when the democratic process has failed you.