Search Results for: John Humphrys

Stephen Nolan Is Going To Eat Edwina Currie

By | |
17 Comments

 

 

 

Stephen Nolan, standing in for Victoria Derbyshire interviewed Edwina Currie…and it was a fair interview with Currie given a chance to make her points and Nolan didn’t get upset, Humphrys’ style, when challenged about his use of the ‘welfare Lobby’ type phrases…or ‘slogans’ as Currie put it.

Thought it was a far better interview and more informative than the adversarial interrogation we got from Humphrys with Ian Duncan Smith…having said that Currie was a much better communicator than IDS.

Perhaps Humphrys could learn something from Nolan’s style of interviewing….Nolan isn’t exactly a pushover himself.

 

Something for the diary…Nolan and Currie have both agreed to try and live on £53 for a week sometime soon…..all I can say is Currie should sleep with one eye open from the Wednesday on….Nolan must have a big appetite and already admits he doesn’t think he can live off that small amount….wouldn’t want to wake up and find a half starved Nolan chewing on your leg…having said that  Currie wasn’t too fussy about John Major doing something similar.

LABOURING UNDER A MISAPPREHENSION

By | |
18 Comments

Up to 20,000 patients may have died unnecessarily under the care of the NHS.

Whilst they have been given a decent burial the BBC seems to be attempting to bury the bad news…or at least the Labour Party’s involvement in it as the government of the day.

The BBC has consistently, across different platforms, avoided using the word ‘Labour’ when talking about this subject…even in a 10 minute interview with Labour’s Andy Burnham..no mention….that’s just not possible is it?

The impression you may get is that it is under the Coalition’s government that all this happened.

The refusal to even mention ‘Labour’ can only lead to one conclusion…th BBC intends that whilst they can’t avoid the dates being linked to Labour nothing else will be…it can only be an organised,  concerted effort, considering it is being carried out across different platforms and from different reporters, that this ploy is operating to distance ‘Labour’ from any blame.

 

No mention of ‘Labour’ at all in this frontpage report

 

No mention of ‘Labour’ in this interview with Sir Brian Jarman.

No mention of ‘Labour’ in this interview on the Today programme  (08:32)with Labour’s Shadow Health Minister Andy Burnham.

 

What sort of euphemisms did John Humphry’s use instead of Labour government?

The ‘Department of Health’

Or information was brought ‘to attention of senior NHS officials’

Andy Burnham was ‘Secretary of State’ or ‘former health minister’…..or it was ‘Your government’.

　

Never one single mention of the word ‘Labour’.

　

This is what Professor Sir Brian Jarman told us:

His attempt to collate information on death rates was ‘unpopular with ministers and was resisted for years’.

They didn’t like the fact that he was gathering the statistics.

In 2007 he issued a report but the Labour government added this phrase…

‘We advise readers to take no notice of this data.’

　

 

Humphrys laid all the blame at the feet of David Nicholson…who undoubtedly played his part…but who was in charge and who set the targets culture up?

　

PFI REVISIONISM

By | | , , , ,
8 Comments

The 8.10am item on BBC Radi 4 Today is a wonderful example of the BBC doing everything possible to defend the previous Labour government’s many follies – in this case the poorly negotiated PFI schemes that now cause so much misery in the NHS. Humphrys was on top form and before we even got to the interview with Andrew Lansley, there was a set up interview with  John Appelby of the Kinh’s Fund who insisted that in the “greater scheme” of things, the “few” billions added by PFI “investment” were nothing to worry about. Cue Lansley and an onslaught from Humphrys which demonstrated both a woeful lack of economics (unsurprising coming from a denizen of State largesse) and a real determination to try and defend Brown and Balls. It would be touching were it not so blatantly biased. Oddly enough, although I have waited for almost 4 hours there is STILL no link to this part of their programme, the inefficiency is staggering.

Following on from this, a Biased BBC reader notes;

“The BBC are going big on the disastrous PFI contracts which will cost us Billions extra. I looked at the comments on the story http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15010279 but was surprised at the comment which was the ‘Editors Pick’. 

9. Tony
3 HOURS AGO
“I have huge admiration for our health service, to my mind one of the best in the world. We can argue and complain about the past funding issues for ever more. I as a tax payer would love to pay a little more tax to keep it out of private hands but whilst it remains a political issue regardless of political colour, nothing will change. Lets all pay a bit more for something we all rely on.”

This was in vast contrast with the main body of comments.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

EVAN A CLUE; BETRAYING THE BBC’S HIGH STANDARD OF BIAS

By | |
7 Comments

Biased BBC stalwart Graeme Thompson aka Hippiepooter writes;

“I was alerted to this
Evan Davis interview with the Prime Minister on the TODAY programme this Friday
via the Daily Mail.
 PM
ROWS WITH TODAY SHOW A swallow does not make a Summer, but it is a chink of light
that Cameron got short with the partisan line Davis was taking.
 Davis
was like a cocker spaniel trying to impersonate a rottweiler/fox cross,
ungamely trying to cling onto his Bullingdon Club bone of contention in
pursuance of Labour’s attack line on Cameron as ‘Flashman’.  It comes about 15 minutes in, but please
don’t think Davis
asked Cameron three times about the Bullingdon Club because he was trying to
equate Bullingdon Club antics with the riots. 
He assured us he wasn’t.
 Craig mentioned in the comments the other week that this
Labour attack line was also used by Paddy O’Connell on ‘Broadcasting House’
against London Mayor Johnson.  I wonder
if B-BBC readers have spotted any
other of Labour’s BBC houseboys
looking for bias brownie points with Miliband?
 What appals so much about Evan Davis is not just that he is
biased but he is patently inept as well. 
Whatever else one might say about the BBC’s
dogs of bias such as Humphrys, Paxman, Naughtie etc, they are not inept, they
are heavyweights.  If they were impartial
they would more than merit their places at the BBC.  One can only conclude that the only reason a
light-weight like Evan Davis is on the TODAY programme is because of his
bias.  Being homosexual can’t have done
him any harm either.  A double whammy for
career progression on BBC Planet
Gramsci.  Or maybe I’m being unfair?  Maybe Davis
retains enough sense of shame to make his bias so lame and forlorn?
 When one harks back to the not so long ago days of Alexander
MacLeod and Gordon
Clough, when gentlemen journalists sought to edify the British public, then
looks at the adversarial dross that the BBC
serves up today on programmes like TODAY and Newsnight, one cannot help but
grieve.  One grieves the lack of gravitas
and public duty, and the lack of action by Parliament.  The next time a Gramscian hack on the BBC asks the Prime Minister if misdoings in the
financial sector contribute to the climate of immorality that leads to riots,
one hopes the Prime Minister rejoins that 40 years of the BBC pushing Marxist narratives and undermining
patriotism and authority has led to the moral breakdown that saw England’s main
cities overrun with lawlessness in August.”

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

MAGGIE THATCHER, MILK SNATCHER!

By | |
36 Comments

Oh what a dream start to the new week for the BBC. They instantly move in to exploit Cameron’s slap down of the idea that subsidised milk for under 5’s could be scrapped. There was an item here on it and then how do they start the 8.10am prime time slot – by Mr Humphyrs intoning “Maggie Thatcher – Milk Snatcher, catchy slogan”. The “nasty party” inferences were present and correct and then the conversation meandered to the need for “more State involvement” in the Nation’s health, brought up by John Humphyrs. This was an example of the interviewer using his opinions to lead the debate, thoroughly unprofessional but typical. I also note that Humphrys let Professor Ian Gilmore away with the unsubstantiated claim that the smoking ban had reduced heart attacks by 10%.  

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

THE WAR ON THE CONSERVATVES…

By | | ,
35 Comments

If it’s 8.10am and it’s the BBC’s TODAY programme, you can be sure a Conservative will be under sustained attack. Yesterday, Sarah Montague let rip at Michael Gove, today we had John Humphyrs doing everything possible to get William Hague to agree that British deaths in Agfhanistan were a complete waste of time. Humphrys was on full-on “We’re doomed and we shouldn’t be there in the first place” mode and Hague had to think very quickly to deal with it. I thought he did OK but it was interesting to hear Humphyrs to spout out his own theory about the “drugged out of their own heads” Afghans. I though the BBC rather approved of narcotics?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

GETTING USED TO THE FUTURE..

By | | ,
2 Comments

Did any listen to this interview on Today this morning between John Humphyrs and Conservative Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley? The tone adopted by Humphrys throughout was sneering, aggressive, combative and very challenging. Now I have no problem with this whatsoever, but I would simply contrast this with the last twelve years of pro-Labour Today driven sycophancy (apart from when Tony went to war, of course!). I suspect that as we enter the next period of Conservative government Today will once again assert itself as the broadcaster of choice for the insurgency. This morning, we got a glimpse of the future as the State Broadcaster prepares to go into opposition. I would prefer it went into oblivion, wouldn’t you?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.