Friday, 9 March 2018

Open Thread

All tracks lead to a new open thread. 

A kind reader suggested this image for an open thread and provided me with the background to it:
This is a painting by Christopher Richard Wynne Nevinson The Soul of the Soulless City (‘New York - an Abstraction’) 1920. An extract from the Tate write-up: New York - an Abstraction was painted in London after Nevinson's return from New York in 1919 and before his next visit in October 1920 for a second exhibition at Frederick Keppel & Co. The poor reception of this exhibition may have accelerated Nevinson's disaffection with the city. His growing embitterment is perhaps reflected by the change of title. Originally exhibited in 1920 at the Bourgeois Galleries, New York, as New York - an Abstraction, it was retitled The Soul of the Soulless City in the Faculty of Arts Exhibition, Grosvenor House, London, in 1925 probably at Nevinson's instigation. The new title may have been a reference to Karl Marx's comment that religion was the 'heart of a heartless world'.
Thanks for all of your comments.


  1. Thanks for the painting - One of the few things I liked when I visited Tate Modern.

    On the 10 O'Clock news, did I hear Jon Sopel refer to the bogus 18 school shootings in the USA so far this year factoid dreamt up by a left wing outfit called First Draft? Is there any way I can check?

    1. I'm digging into this, via TV Eyes.

      Thursday night's BBC One News at Ten said "Yesterday's attack is thought to be the 18th school shooting in the US this year". It was the BBC newsreader who said that before introducing Jon Sopel, so it wasn't Jon Sopel himself.

      But on the earlier BBC One News at Six BBC North America correspondent Nada Tawfik said, without qualifiers, "This is one of the safest cities in the country but it didn't stop it from becoming the 18th school shooting this year".

      Googling around, that claim does seem to be bogus. Even the Guardian says it's 8 shootings, and Snopes is pouring cold water over it, and the Washington Post is emphatic, saying "No, there haven't been 18 school shootings in 2018. That number is flat wrong".

    2. Thanks, Craig. I thought I heard someone say that. So that would be BBC spreading fake news then. I think I got the left wing originators wrong too. First Draft are believed first used the term 'fake news' on the internet, so it's kind an appropriate mistake. The bogus 18 shootings came from a mob called Everytown.

  2. Rob Burley uncharacteristically restrained on twitter this morning.

    Silence the better part of valour?

    1. Maybe, but seeing what's coming in I doubt he'll be able to restrain himself for long!

    2. Indeed, though there does seem to be a disturbance in the Farce.


  3. I never noticed until now that the archived versions of the newspaper reviews on the BBC News website are different to the versions which have been on view during the day. Images of the newspapers' front pages are removed and replaced by a commentary. Take the story of Corbyn's alleged past relationship with a Czech Agent. On the 15th Feb, when the Sun carried the story, the BBC review responded ...

    ...the Sun claims on its front page that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn met with a "communist spy" in 1986. In the paper, a Labour spokesman says Mr Corbyn met a Czech diplomat but never knowingly talked to a spy. Since then Labour has told the BBC any suggestion that Mr Corbyn was an informer for an intelligence agency is "entirely false and a ridiculous smear"....

    The archived version is somewhat different:

    .... The main story in the Sun is devoted to what it calls shock claims that Jeremy Corbyn met a communist spy at the height of the Cold War and warned him of a clampdown by British intelligence. The paper says it has seen secret papers that show he was vetted by Czech agents and met one twice at the House of Commons.

    Last night, a spokesman for the Labour leader said he'd met a Czech diplomat in the 1980s, but he never offered any privileged information to any diplomat. Labour also insisted that any claim he was an agent or informer for an intelligence agency was "entirely false and a ridiculous smear"....

    There has been a deafening silence from the BBC. Apart from via the newspaper reviews, there has been no mention of the story across the BBC.

    Today's newspaper review has from The Sunday Telegraph: 'Czech Agent claims that 15 Labour MPs met spies' with the commentary ... Former Czechoslovak spy Jan Sarkocy has told The Sunday Telegraph he met at least 15 senior Labour MPs during the Cold War, including Jeremy Corbyn, Ken Livingstone and John McDonnell. Labour said the claims were "absurd"....

    It remains to be seen how this will be archived, but it's interesting that the BBC have sought it fit to include a rebuttal of this story, whereas usually, they simply report the headlines.

    1. Ah, well my next post (one up from here) is even more intriguing in light of that!

    2. Speaking of newspaper reviews, I now learn that newspaper reviewers choose the topics to be reviewed.

      Or, rather, a mysterious collective ‘we’ within the bbc green room do.

      Rather sweet Rob thinks pointing at a safe pair of media profile hands is proof positive of anything.

    3. From above: ...'It remains to be seen how this will be archived,'... Well, the 'Czech Agent claims that 15 Labour MPs met spies' story from today's newspaper review has disappeared altogether in the archived version:

      The page heading is 'Newspaper headlines: Aid work 'corrupted' and Brendan Cox quits'.

      From what we have seen, it appears that the BBC News website only archives a biased version of newspaper reviews if the narrative, in this case crucial information about Jeremy Corbyn's past, doesn't suit them. The point at which images of the front pages are removed later on each day, seems to be the time when a tidying-up exercise as the BBC might see it is carried out, and for future reference, only a carefully selected take on events is recorded.

    4. Agreed Loondon! For which reason it pays to screenshot anything 'tasty' early in the day. Never mind, the BBC is always reporting - Oops! - rewriting the truth!

    5. More of the same today in the newspaper review on the BBC News website. In eighth place is the Daily Mail headline 'Labour MPs were 'paid £10,000 to meet spies'.' Below the image of the Mail's front page in the commentary is:

      ... The Daily Mail leads on fresh claims by the former Soviet spy Jan Sarkocy, who says Labour MPs were paid up to £10,000 to meet agents during the Cold War - which Labour figures reportedly branded as "absurd"....

      There is a subtle change in the BBC's rebuttal (itself unusual because they usually just report the headline) in the word 'reportedly'. That sounds like a wavering in their commitment to bury the story.

      We'll see later whether the archived version excludes the Mail's headline. As per Guido this morning: 'Tories demand Agent Cob face Foreign Affairs Select Committee'. It will be interesting to see for how long the BBC are prepared to bury this story.

    6. The BBC News website hasn't archived the newspaper review from 19th February yet. It's still all there with images of the front pages.

  4. Always, sad when pontificating virtue signalling lefties who want us to abandon our borders and let in anyone who wants to come here receive a dose of their own medicine and get a bit of the "shame on you" treatment.

  5. Info from America...

    This news will be coming out probably in March. CNN, BBC and all the rest will of course try and bury it...however, it's true.

    The Department of Homeland Security have found that Clinton benefited from millions of illegal votes in 2016. They have surveyed 22 counties and discovered the true extent of illegal voting.

    This is a huge story - how the Democrats tried to steal
    the 2016 election through illegal voting. Remember - Obama (whilst campaigning for Clinton, close to the election date) effectively condoned illegal voting:

    The news will come out and Trump will be shown to have won the true popular vote but expect the truth to be smothered in its cradle by the BBC's huge America staff.

  6. I've always been impressed by Stephen Glover. In his quiet way he has always faced down the lib-left media mafia, refusing to play their game.

    Now he takes the BBC to task for its non-reporting of allegations against Corbyn re being helpful to East European authoritarian Communist regimes during the Cold War.

    Glover notes that:

    "...the all-powerful BBC has hitherto avoided Sarkocy’s allegations, which have been met with vehement denials by the Labour Party. If you relied on our public service broadcaster for your news, as about half the nation does, you wouldn’t know anything about ‘Cob’."

    This really is a scandal. This is an important story about the opposition leader which has featured in several national newspapers. It should be covered in the BBC's news output - not necessarily leading the news,but certainly featuring in the news, because whether true or not this is a significant development.

    The BBC ought to report on it, whilst also giving the Labour Party's response. It is something Corbyn should be questioned about. The normal BBC approach (in relation to Tories) would be to shout questions at the person in public if they refuse to give an interview.

    You would also expect a BBC programme like WATO, TWT or Newsnight to undertake some independent investigation into the claims.

    And where's BBC Reality Check at a moment like this? If the newspapers are giving us Fake News on this story, as the BBC's silence implires, then why aren't the BBC exposing that?

  7. Wow.

    Find this story on the BBC - Chippendales: Do male strippers feel objectified?

    1. Emily Maitlis, hang your very-well-paid, objectifying head in shame!

    2. She seemed to be assuming they were all heterosexual...which I very much doubt. Perhaps she's just naive in that as believing there were ever hundreds of unaccompanied child refugees in Calais.

    3. Fairly sure they have similar in this country - not sure why the BBC needed to send her to the USA for this story.

  8. BBC "reporters" love to list "takeaway" points...fodder for the proles...teaching sheep when and where to baaah.

    So I thought I'd do my own list. Seven key "takeaways" from the BBC's coverage of the USA:

    1. The BBC hate Trump with a passion that exceeds all reason. They are Trumpophobic and suffering from a serious case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. They cannot report positively on any aspect of Trump's presidency.

    2. There are many aspects of American politics and life that the BBC simply refuses to report on. Such matters include or have included: Clinton Foundation "pay-to-play" corruption, allegations against John Podesta, continuing allegations against Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton's health issues, Soros funding of Black Lives Matter, killing of black or white people by black US police officers, black racism (e.g. within the Nation of Islam) and illegal voting that won Clinton millions of illegitimate votes in the 2016 election. That's just to name a few no-go zones.

    3. Needless coverage of all things American by the BBC. Although the BBC's official policy is that American influence on the UK is excessive and should be replaced by European, Muslim and even Chinese influence, the UK is manically focussed on American issues, albeit a fairly narrow range (racism, guns, Trump and religion).
    The USA is an English speaking country and the BBC could easily use reports from US and Canadian agencies, but instead it chooses to keep about 20 reporters in the country on a permanent basis in an operation that must cost tens of millions of pounds every year. There is a New York Correspondent, a State Department Correspondent, a Washington Correspondent, a North American editor etc etc...

    4. The BBC is refusing to report in detail or accurately on the pro-Democrat corruption at the FBI and CIA. As far as the BBC is concerned there is no Deep State and no conflict within the Deep State.

    5. The BBC consider Obama to be a saint above all criticism despite all the evidence to the contrary. Hillary Clinton is a good-hearted feminist martyr.

    6. The USA is held to higher standards than anywhere else in the world. Although countries like South Africa, Brazil, and Mexico have huge problems with gun crime, they get hardly any coverage of their gun crime in comparison with the USA. Likewise the death penalty. There is far more coverage of death penalty issues in the USA compared with China and Saudi Arabia which have a much higher use of the penalty.

    7. The BBC hate Trump. Did I mention that before? Oh yeah...well it bears repeating.

    1. There is a New York Correspondent, a State Department Correspondent,...

      They are what the civil service/miltary call 'desk officers'. Their job is to collate stories that fit the agenda and top and tail them as required. If the stories came directly from the USA they would carry US datelines, the 'desk officer' can make the story their own and release it when it suits. Bias by context.

    2. No - my understanding is they are all out in the USA at huge, huge expense to the licence fee payer. There's no good reason. Mostly the BBC just follows CNN reporting. They could just take a CNN feed. Or a Canadian feed if they want something with more of a British feel. CBC is also PC multiculturalist lefty-liberal. Nick Bryant is the New York editor (who never seems to file anything about New York), based in the USA. Kim Gattas-something is the State Department correspondent. Then there's Katty Kay, BBC America. It's a huge list.

  9. It’s a huge list

    Jon Sopel – North America Editor – Washington
    Gary O'Donoghue - Chief Political Correspondent – Washington


    Katty Kay – Washington (BBC World News America Presenter)
    Laura Trevelyan – New York City (BBC World News America Presenter)
    Kim Ghattas – Washington
    Rajini Vaidyanathan – Washington (Political)
    Barbara Plett-Usher – Washington (State Department)
    Nick Bryant – New York City
    James Cook – Los Angeles
    David Willis – Los Angeles / Washington
    Tom Brook – New York City (Entertainment)
    Michelle Fleury – New York City business correspondent
    Samira Hussain – Business

    1. Thanks for that. I've been too lazy to actually compile a list.

      Looks like you can add:

      Laura Trevelyan to the list (works for BBC World News America).

      Anthony Zurcher - the BBC's "North America Reporter" (obviously Jon Sopel is just so snowed under!

      Dave Lee - "North America technology reporter" (just spotted him!)

      Owen Amos - Just listed as "BBC News" but he has been reporting from Florida.

      Since the BBC describe a lot of their reporters as having a "North American" brief I think one could also bring all the Canadian based journalists into play like Robin Levinson-King - Reporting for BBC News in Toronto.

      I bet there are other BBC journos there who don't get name checks. Plus you have the regular visits there by people like Emily Maitlis (Special Chippendales Correspondent) and James Naughtie
      (no sentence too convoluted or opaque for this guy to tackle).

      The oddity of all this is that (although Americans are English-speaking and readily understood over here), the BBC makes little use of Americans whereas when it comes to Africa, India, and Arab/Muslim countries they do make use of locals - even when they are hardly comprehensible at all to a native British ear.

      "Go figure!" as the Americans say...

      Another point: some of these correspondents have incredibly low output. Gattas (Hillary Groupie) puts out about one story every six months. Hardly ever hear from Barbara Plett-Usher (the tearful Arafat fan). And why does Nick Bryant, supposedly the New York correspondent, write about Los Angeles all the time?

    2. You mention Africa.

      I saw just the other day that they have 100 in Lagos alone.

      Which makes what they miss in Nigeria all the more odd.

  10. Tempted to put this under 'Not trusting'.

    I have had a rare new reply to an FOI. Rare in as much as they don't say they are exempted or it's too something or other to bother with.

    No; they say they do not have the information.

    I have my doubts, by which I mean they are lying through their teeth.

    Sorry about the link, but copy and paste and it should work:

  11. I have recently found Radio 4's Wall to Wall propaganda indigestible and avoid most of it like the plague these days, except while dipping into news programmes to monitor bias there.

    However, hope springs eternal. This morning, I tuned in at random...Women's Hour was finished so I thought it might be safe to do so. There was a programme on a N Irish Comedian who took the opportunity twice in my hearing to claim that Brexit would bring about a return of the troubles. Dangerous stuff...the same stuff Newsnight was touting last night. The BBC are quite happy to see a return of terrorism if it will stop Brexit. That was followed by Brexit - a Guide for the Perplexed (who's perplexed? the BBC want us to be but I'm not)...which in its first sentence managed to combine a dig at Trump (the Russians are supposed to "control the internet" according to the egregious presenter Chris Whoever) with the usual Brexit fear-mongering.

    In the afternoon there was the pro-left wing terrorist dramatisation of a (sometime Communist) Doris Lessing novel. Just for balance, you understand.

  12. This news site, giving French news in English, has President Macron's proposals for tough new legislation on immigration and asylum as the top story:

    And on the BBC website?


    (Lack of reporting noted by "Vlad" on Biased BBC).

  13. The feigned yawn of Jeremy Corbyn's during PMQs yesterday was revealing. In my opinion, it showed contempt towards the PM and via the cameras to the nation. He was signalling to the country that he had successfully avoided answering questions about his former allegiances during the cold war. Also, this gesture showed us that the cameras, and the BBC who broadcast the output from them, were of no threat whatsoever to him.

    My guess is that during the preceding days, when the BBC were refusing to cover the story, there were some high-level damage limitation discussions held, which resulted in the BBC breaking cover with their attack on the 'Tory owned right wing press's' smear campaign towards their man. I hope their efforts to bury this story will be remembered for what they are, a cynical disregard for the licence-paying electorate of this country.

    By yesterday's actions, Jeremy Corbyn has redefined himself. From now on, however often images are shown of him with the red backdrop carrying the Labour message, smiling and waving to his supporters, I shall always see that contemptuous feigned yawn.

    1. He has got away with in part because of the BBC’s reluctance to pursue him - as they have with so many other issues. But perhaps more worrying is that the hard core of his followers - the ones who flood social media - don’t care if he was associating with agents of a hostile country. Just as they didn’t care about ant-Semitism in the Labour Party.

      I am afraid that contemptuous yawn belongs to the whole of the hard left and is not just directed at the Government, but to the whole country.

    2. 'He has got away with in part because of the BBC’s reluctance to pursue him'

      To the extent of running interference should anyone dare to suggest it is a story.

      That horny oaf Marr decided it was all nothing the BBC needs to go near, and brought on guests to agree with him, including Camilla Homily, who dutifully defended the editorial integrity of BBC-invited guests and BBC chosen topics.

      And promptly gets rewarded with a seat on BBC QT to not go near anything a poorly vetted audience member might sneak in.

    3. I say in part, because had the “right-wing” press and various Tory MP’s stuck to the simple facts rather than going one step to far and making claims they couldn’t substantiate Agent Cob would have been solidly on the ropes - despite the BBC and the Labour Party’s best efforts to sweep this under the carpet. Of course the BBC’s actions are disgraceful.

    4. Too far. Yet another typo. I'm blaming spellcheck!

    5. There was a Stasi file on Labour Action for Peace of which Corbyn was vice chairman...

      The idea that the Communist regimes weren't interested in Corbyn (for all the wrong reasons) stretches credulity.

      The argument appears to be "why would ruthless Communist MP types be interested in an insignificant backbench's not as if he were the Prime Minister..." That's not how the intelligence game is played and - in case anyone hasn't noticed - he IS now leader of the opposition with a very good chance of becoming Prime Minister. In my view any MP who caught the media's eye as did Corbyn, would be of interest to the Communist spy networks, especially if they were espousing socialist views.

    6. Terry. Agree. The ineptitude of the Conservatives plumbs ever deeper depths. The Andrew Neil interview was cringeworthy. It's like they only invite one cretins to comment exactly as the crisis management algorithm requires, and the Tory head office duly obliges.

    7. From the Sun reports about Corbyn's past: .....Sir Richard [Dearlove], who lead MI6 from 1999-2004, was also the Secret Intelligence Service’s head of station in Prague in the 1970s.... said:

      “They wouldn’t have targeted him unless they believed he was a Communist fellow traveller.”...

      Guido has been doing more digging and has found a CIA file about these travels. From Guido's pages:

      ...When he wasn’t meeting Jan Sarkocy in London, Jezza was jumping on a plane to the Cold War frontline. As well as two trips to El Salvador, in January and November, in August Corbyn travelled to Cuba and Nicaragua. He discloses in his register entry that he accepted “travel assistance from the Cuban government” – in other words he was welcomed and hosted by a ruthless military dictatorship that according to Human Rights Watch punished all forms of dissent, denied entire generations political freedoms and brutally repressed homosexuals. August 1986 was the month Castro celebrated his 60th birthday. ...

      ...Corbyn was visiting hostile Marxist regimes across Latin America at the height of the Cold War, attending conferences of Soviet front groups and accepting hospitality from the Cuban dictatorship...

      We should br concerned about the baggage Corbyn would bring with him to No.10 if he became the next PM with regard to the economy, foreign policy and defence. More's the point so should the BBC. Instead of sitting on their hands, they should be asking some searching questions.

  14. The BBC tells me net migration is falling:

    The Mail Online tells me net migration is rising:

    Actaully both appear to be valid interpretations of the data (though we know the BBC would always choose the version that pacifies concerns).

    But the obsession with marginal rises and falls in net migration is itself something of a confidence trick played on the public.

    1. We could have ten million and one people enter the country and ten million leave...that would be net migration of 1 person and show a "dramatic unprecedented" fall in migration. Another way of looking at net migration is that it is a rough guide to the "replacement rate" - the rate at which people with deep roots in the country are being replaced by people who don't.

    2. The national rate masks local effects. A annual net migration rate of 0.4% (percentage of total population) might well be over 1% in some regions e.g. London and the South East, the equivalent of a 600,000 net migration rate. This is important because these are the most crowded parts and yet the parts where we need to build the new houses and new transport systems at huge expense.

    3. The net migration figure disguises the figure of 578,000 which is the total number of migrants. That is larger than a city the size of Liverpool. These people need to be absorbed not only into our built infrastructure but also our culture and our social infrastructure. It's a colossal, in fact an impossible, task we are setting ourselves.

    4. The net migration figure is not the end of the population impact. Most migrants are in the 18-35 bracket i.e. ready to start families very soon. In other words they do not follow the natural age range from 0-100. 500,000 migrants can easily become one million within 10 years.

    4. Quantitative tells us nothing about quality. How many of the nearly 600,000 migrants have high level skills, have minimal health needs, will be no call on the tax payer, have good English language skills and will live well adjusted positive lives once in the UK? We have no idea.

  15. Classic "dysfunctinoal headline bias" at the BBC.

    The headline on the US/Canada page for the story below is:

    "Gun advocates "exploiting" Florida tragedy".

    So you naturally think "Those nasty NRA people exploiting the Florida tragedy to advocate MORE gun ownership."

    Well presumably that's what the sub-editor thought...must have been confused as me to find the story is actually about a claim BY the NRA that gun control advocates (ie Democrats and the like) are exploiting the tragedy. Not v. often the BBC likes to lead with that sort of story. Maybe it was time for "complaints from both sides".

    Anywhere here's the story as it appears AFTER that misleading headline on the US/Canada page:

  16. The BBC are supposed to be (and Jon Sopel was proud to proclaim it to the US President) an impartial broacaster. So why the sarky treatment of the NRA leader?

    Gun ownership is legal in many parts of the world. Whether you personally approve of it, it is not the job of the BBC to take sides on this issue especially as it is a foreign country with its own well ordered goverment and assembly who can make up their own minds on the subject.

    This is a clear example of BBC bias, as they don't give this treatment to Democrats, anti-gun lobbyists or European-style socialists in the US like Bernie Sanders.

    1. Given how events, Dear Jon, events... are panning out on this sad atrocity and who did, or did not do what that has nothing to do with the NRA, and a lot to do with state and public service competencies, it is likely this may soon going a few other things down the BBC editorial blank space to match certain polls domestically.

  17. The Florida school shooting was a horrible tragedy. But the BBC now have I think 15 separate reports up on their website regarding this.

    Is this really a proper use of BBC resources in covering a tragedy in a foreign country? Do the BBC devote the same level of resources to reporting on massacres in Mexico, of which there have been many in recent years? No, they don't and why not?

    1. Addendum: The shooting and responses to it still being covered by BBC World Service today. A Geordie lass from BBC Trending was giving the usual BBC push to the American anti-gun lobby.

      Apparently she thought Trump's proposal for arming teachers is "controversial" but proposals to remove 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms is not in her view controversial.

      Clear bias.

    2. I think the BBC/liberal-left is trying to perform a bit of "front-loading" of anti-Trump sentiment for fear that he may actually tackle some of the problem gun laws in the US. The implication is Trump is sympathetic and or in the pockets of the NRA, which he is not. Also, as everyone can agree Donald Trump is not afraid to upset anyone, least of all the NRA.
      So the BBC/liberal-left may be faced with trying to manage the possibility that President Trump may do more for gun control in the USA than Obama done in his tenure (other than sing Amazing Grace)

    3. Yes, there is probably an element of that. Personally I think this is an issue for Americans to sort hardly impacts on us and doesn't warrant all the bandwidth that the BBC give it. Trump may well come up with some effective proposals. Given in much of the USA you can't buy alcohol till you are aged 21, raising the gun-buying age to 21 sounds sensible and doable without infringing constitutional rights. And voluntary arming of select teachers is likely to prove popular I expect.

  18. We are seeing more of the developing strategic alliance between the BBC and their chosen 'Government in waiting' This morning's headline on the BBC News website is: 'Jeremy Corbyn to set out Labour's Brexit plans'.

    The article is full of phrases such as ... Labour could cause huge problems for the government... and

    .... If - and it is still a big if, but a more likely one - Labour pass an amendment calling for the creation of a customs union, then it does cause huge problems for the government. It would force the government to change its position....

    This is the BBC campaigning on behalf of the Labour Party. The BBC are still intent upon undermining the Government's position in order to derail Brexit.

    1. Guido makes a good point by contrasting the new Labour position on a Custom Union with the EU. Guido tells us that Barry Gardiner wrote in the Guardian last July:

      .... Other countries such as Turkey have a separate customs union agreement with the EU. If we were to have a similar agreement, several things would follow: the EU’s 27 members would set the common tariffs and Britain would have no say in how they were set. We would be unable to enter into any separate bilateral free trade agreement. We would be obliged to align our regulatory regime with the EU in all areas covered by the union, without any say in the rules we had to adopt. And we would be bound by the case law of the ECJ, even though we would have no power to bring a case to the court.

      As a transitional phase, a customs union agreement might be thought to have some merit. However, as an end point it is deeply unattractive. It would preclude us from making our own independent trade agreements with our five largest export markets outside the EU (the US, China, Japan, Australia and the Gulf states)....

    2. The 'strategic alliance' referred to above can be defined by firstly burying the Agent Cob story, and now by promoting a hypothetical set of circumstances surrounding Labour's new position on a customs union. This site records instances of biased reporting. Are we now witnessing more than that?

  19. Infuriated as I am by the utterly useless Tories, can anyone explain to me why only they, as defined by the BBC, can have 'U-Turns' and 'broken manifesto pledges', while the Labour party merely have 'policy shifts'?

    Moreover, where is the BBC's critical analysis of this betrayal of both the referendum result and Labour's own voters?

    The rank bias of the BBC is simply off the scale at the moment.

    1. I agree, the careful choice of words, the phrasing and framing of the narrative speaks volumes. I’m not sure the majority of viewers or listeners buy it though. Even though May and her government are useless I think the majority of the electorate are more sophisticated than the bBBC assume.

    2. Sunday's BBC news anouncement of Labour's 'policy shift' was immediately followed by an endorsement by a Conservative remoaner.

    3. It will be interesting to see if any BBC journo asks the most obvious question of Labour reps: "Why do you feel the need for the UK to be in the EU Customs Union, when not even Norway or Switzerland are in it?"

    4. The BBC don't do objective critical analysis anymore. Almost without exception, the reporter/writer picks up on a 'newsworthy item' and then projects their own view and biases combined with the BBC liberal worldview (BBC guidelines) to produce a skewed report. It is, of course - balanced and fair in their world.

    5. And in the BBC book, only the Conservatives are ever ideological.

  20. In Hanoi at the moment, feeling slightly lost because the world's most impartial, truth-telling broadcaster is apparently blocked by the Government. Could it, really be that the Socialist Republic of Vietnam considers the Beeb to be too left-wing? Fortunately, I can still get ITBBCB? and Guido!

  21. The BBC News website has featured Jeremy Corbyn's Brexit 'policy shift' all day long today. At present there are two photos of an earnest looking JC.

    With the leading headline is a photo with the Labour party slogan prominently displayed - par for the course, but the second is more interesting. Against the Full Story section, very prominently displayed is JC with a dark blue, purple, mauve, orange and red tinted rainbow background. His face has a warm reflected hue. I guess this is meant to show him as a worldly-wise deep-thinking PM in the making. Or, has he stepped out of a box of Turkish Delight?

    1. Just saw a very supportive, uncritical and sympathetic report about Labours custom Union proposal on BBC One News at Six.
      No question whatsoever where the BBC stand on this.

  22. Here's a tale of everyday bias from the BBC News website:

    ... 'Far-right terror threat 'growing' in UK as four plots foiled'...

    Further down in this article we find:

    .... 'Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, who will retire from the Met Police next month, said four extreme-right terror plots were disrupted last year.....

    ....Ten Islamist-inspired plots have been foiled since March last year, he added'.

    Spot the difference between ... four extreme-right terror plots... and ... Ten Islamist-inspired plots...

    1. It is the placing of a target on people who have not actually done anything except offend bbc sensibilities that truly appalls.

      I am going to submit a complaint, but it will take some crafting, not least which of the limited categories they offer to place under.

      ‘Blatant state PC propaganda’ is not an option.

      That copper shames the uniform,

    2. I have looked at various news reports about this.

      From Huffington Post: Rowley noted in his speech an “acute threat from both Islamist and rightwing terrorism” and he described “new and emerging characteristics and the operational challenges it presents.”

      From The Independent: ”A deeply concerning characteristic is how both far-right and also Islamist terrorism are growing, allowing each side to reaffirm their grievances and justify their actions.“

      From Sky: In his speech, he said: "A deeply concerning characteristic is how both far-right and also Islamist terrorism are growing, allowing each side to reaffirm their grievances and justify their actions.”

      From Metro: In a lecture on Monday, Mr Rowley said: ‘A deeply concerning characteristic is how both far-right and also Islamist terrorism are growing, allowing each side to reaffirm their grievances and justify their actions.’

      From the Mirror: Mr Rowley told the Policy Exchange think tank that far-right and Islamist extremists feed off each other to create a “toxic combination” that fuels the terror threat.

      From ITV: He also warned that Islamist extremists and white supremacists posed similar threats as he called for a "whole society" response to counter extremist views…
      … “While Islamist and extreme right-wing ideologies may appear to be at opposing ends of the argument it is evident that they both have a great deal in common," he said.

      From the Daily Star: In a lecture, Mr Rowley said: "A deeply concerning characteristic is how both far-right and also Islamist terrorism are growing, allowing each side to reaffirm their grievances and justify their actions.”

      The BBC terminology 'Islamist-inspired plots' suggests something much more noble than terrorism. Have the BBC put words into Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley's mouth?

  23. Newsnight - Evan Davis simply not able to hide his glee at the news of Labour's U turn and commitment to a Customs Union fix with the EU. Cat that got the cream, Christmas come early and just seen his salary cheque - all rolled into one has he asked penetrating questions of Barry Gardiner such as "Is this a principled decision on Labour's party?" What you gonna say Barry? No?

    And how balanced to have Sarah Woollaston on with Gardiner...Evan Davis clearly saw his role as that of a vicar there to bless an unlikely union, but one which the clergy devoutly pray for morning, noon and night.

  24. There's more routine, run-of-the-mill bias today on the BBC News website newspaper review, which had the headline ... 'Newspaper headlines: 'Beast from the East' blows in and 'Brexit alliance'.....

    Looking down the page, I found that only one, the FT had 'Brexit alliance' on the front page. One out of ten - one out of ten would be my mark upon the fairness and balance of the BBC's reporting quality.

  25. Reality Check: Labour's Brexit position

    Am I missing something?
    How on earth is this a reality check? There is no checking of reality or critical analysis. It’s just lazy and uninformative journalism.

    Positive and supportive in tone with a couple of barbs about Mays government.

    With every article Chris Morris strays further from the supposed reality check remit. But he and his masters probably still think this is exactly how to hold fake news to account.

    1. Yes, I've mentioned this before...Reality Check has become a badge to boost opinion pieces. Reality Check would be better named "Reality Tweak" (tweaked to the PC anti-Brexit liberal-left of course).

      So many of these alleged checks have bogus questions, poorly formed questions, unanswered questions, tendentious answers and conclusions that bear no relation to the questions.

      In the piece you mention, the reverential tone at the outset is noticeable. Nowhere is it recognised that there could be severe downsides to entering a lopsided Customs Union, which will definitely be controlled by the EU (nothing else would be on offer). Nowhere is it recognised that that during the Referendum debate it was made clear that a Leave vote meant we were leaving both the Single Market and Customs Union. Neither side queried that.

  26. Problems of the richly ironic:

    The BBC wants to attack the Murdoch Press. But it also hates the Mail. It wants to protect Tom Watson, the last BBC-type socialist with power in the Labour Party. But then again it doesn't want to suggest racism is acceptable, even if it is racism from 56 years ago. It's a problem when the mail is exposing Mosley (son of Oswald) for promoting a racist leaflet, who the BBC have backed as a thorn in the side of the "right wing" press in the UK and who also has given half a million to Tom Watson.

    Love the way they describe Mosley as a "privacy campaigner" opposed to a "revenge campaigner".

  27. Chris Morris at Reality Check just can't help himself...

    Biased Morris puts his Eurospecs to see it the EU's way:

    "Most of the headlines are being generated by what the document says about steps that need to be taken to avoid the reimposition of a hard border in Ireland."

    But is that the reality? Unless you are going to redefine "hard border" to mean soft border, the reality is there NEVER was a hard border in Ireland, so it can't be reimposed. There's been a Common Travel area with the UK since (Southern) Ireland gained its independence and people (and goods) have been free to come and go across the nominal border. Irish citizens had enjoyed near full rights in the EU. Even during the worst of the terrorist campaign, controls over movement were minimal.

    Furthermore, the UK has made clear it does not wish to impose a "hard border". So, the reality is it is the EU that WISHES to impose a hard border in the absence of common regulation. But Morris makes sure he completely bends reality by referring to the non-existent "reimposition" of a hard border.

    The whole piece is a travesty given its badging as an academic, objective, scrupulously fair "Reality Check".

    Take the jokey sarcasm of "Vassal state, anyone?" designed to cause trouble for May.

    The truth, the reality is, that there can be no single "reality" when it comes to something like a draft Withdrawal Treaty, which - in case Morris hasn't noticed - has to be agreed with the UK and has absolutely no status until we do.

  28. "Eddie Jones says he was 'physically and verbally abused' after Calcutta Cup defeat"

    So, Eddie Jones abused on his return journey from Scotland after the defeat at Murrayfield on Saturday.

    Every other news outlet explicitly makes it clear that he was abused by Scots, the BBC meanwhile obfuscates and dances round the issue, though the updated report this morning does at least contain a quote from Scotland Rugby which might lead most to draw their own conclusions.

    The initial report last night was even more unclear:

    Two points:

    1. Why does a broadcasting/media behemoth like the BBC fail its paying audience so badly in its reporting of a story that they have to seek clarification of the precise circumstances elsewhere?

    2. What would the BBC reporting have looked like if this was behaviour by England 'fans'? Something more akin to 'England fans in sickening abuse of Eddie Jones' would be my bet, and I'd put a large sum on it.

    1. If it was a one-off, you might say it was error, but time after time we see the same pattern e.g. with grooming, Jihadi terrorism (any connection with Mosque attendance always but always played down), landlord harrassment of women, knife crime, insurance scamming...there is a desperate desire by the BBC that they should NOT connect any dots.

      Then in their soaps and drippy dramas, a completely different set of dots is laid out and connected! Not suprisingly, in the make-believe world everything is as PC Multiculturalism says it is.

      Actually ITV and Sky are not much different from BBC in this regard. It's just the BBC have a bigger playground in which to indulge their fantasies and bully anyone who calls them out.

  29. Brexit bBBC
    BBC going to town on John Major, Tony Blair comments yesterday and earlier today, wheeling out mad Anna Soubry to underline their points. Very much a 'brexit is bad' tone, not much balancing with counter views.

    Then tonight Barnier and Tusk threats given prominence on BBC1 News at Six with John Pienaar using bad weather metaphors to explain how difficult the UK current negotiating position is.

    It really is relentless at the moment. An opportunity has arisen following Labours u-turn and BBC are using all means possible to influence hearts and minds and to push hard for retaining a/the custom union.

    Thankfully the snow has pushed it down the running order and at least it wasn't run as the main story.

    1. Radio 4 WATO I think it was had on two Remainers to discuss a possible "second referendum" (Jonathan Freedland and Ann McElvoy). The BBC presenter himself is of course a full on Remainer. So that's three Remainers to discuss a possible second referendum.

    2. Jonathan Freedland is a rabid remainer, a senior Guardian journalist who the BBC trotted out on the night of the referendum result on BBC1 to express his shock and disappointment and bewilderment of the British people . He was given 30 minutes on prime time to spew his bile.

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  30. Radio 5 Live: Adrian Chiles virtue signalling his socks off with some inconsequential piece about a referee in Liberia who happens to have seen a UK referee on TV and have an opinion on him (why wouldn't he? doesn't Chiles know they have TV in Liberia?).

    Then it's on to a piece about a religious cult led by a "so-called Prophet" (as Chiles scathingly introduced the item) which favours polygamy, the rulings of one man becoming law for a whole community, treatment of women like chattels and cutting off the community from the rest of society. Sound familiar? Yes - of course it's the Fundamentalist Mormons...fair game in Chiles' book.

    Of course someone else is fair game...whereas when it's a matter of Africans, Chiles virtue signals like crazy all the time walking on egg shells with the utmost of delicacy, Americans get different treatment. Apropos a comment from an interviewee about the sects thinking the USA was the whole of the world, Chiles chimed in with "to be fair that's true of a lot of Americans..." chuckle, chuckle.

    Don't be fooled by his matey persona - this guy is pure PC poison.

  31. Anyone seen this "review" by Will Gompertz of the BBC's very own "Civilisations"...because it's a BAD review!

    I think here the (Samira) Ahmed Rule applies: that as a PC BBC staffer you only ever criticise the BBC out of personal pique. Something tells me he thought he should have got the job.

    Cunningly he uses the weapons of PC on the PC presenters of Civilisations in a PCier-than-though manner.

    Referring to Schama's "unnuanced" use of footage of ISIS fighters smashing up great cultural artefacts from the past Gompertz observes:

    "There is no mention made of similarly barbaric acts that have taken place over millennia - on occasion perpetrated by a civilisation much closer to home - or an explanation as to the cultural rationale behind the actions of those wielding the sledgehammers in this instance.

    No time for nuance, I suppose, the show must go on, so we can "see the world and our place in it in a different light"."

    It would fascinating to know what "nuances" would have liked introduced into the footage of the barbaric acts of the ISIS fighters...

  32. BBC Reality Check Watch:

    We've had the coldest in weather in a long time with lots of snow dumped across the UK... what's the obvious question that BBC's Reality Check is going to address? Well here it is:

    "Where in the world is snow getting rarer?"

    Yes, BBC, that was our first thought as well of course - not!!!

    And here's another question of the moment looked into by the Reality Check team:

    "Unexploded bombs: How common are they?"

    Interesting enough, perhaps, but does the BBC need to maintain a Reality Check team at huge expense to look into it? Or is it a case most of them are twiddling their thumbs and wondering what to do next while Chris Morris goes off on one of his Brexit rants again. Morris doesn't even pretend to ask a question any more...his latest effort is simply headed:

    "UK and Europe can both gain from Brexit, says PM" -

    Well yes, I think you'll find she did say that, Chris.

    1. BBC Reality Check press release
      Reality Check is the BBC’s principal fact-checking service which runs on TV, radio, on the website and via social media. This service tackles fake news stories and challenges statements from public figures and institutions which may be false or misleading, and presents the verifiable facts instead.

      Verifiable checks! Where do I even start when applying this statement to the topics and analysis provided by Chris Morris and his Reality Check team.

      This whole concept was a vanity project dreamed by by James Harding. Now that he has left the BBC, no one is monitoring it so it’s gone native and completely off the rails.

    2. Yep. It's a complete joke. Any well run organisation would have disbanded the useless team by now and pocketed the savings or reinvested them in better news delivery.

    3. The notion of the bbc checking reality was a joke from the moment James Harding first spun it up.

      It just gets worse under the woeful Fran Unsworth.

  33. Interesting to note how the BBC treated the indecisive result following a populist upsurge:

    "German election: Merkel wins fourth term, AfD nationalists rise"

    Compare with the Italian result:

    "Italy election: Populist surge prompts political deadlock"

    They could equally have written that about Germany "German election: Populist surge prompts political deadlock." Remember - some six months after the election in Germany it has still NOT agreed a coalition government. I'd call that political deadlock.

    But no, Mama Merkel won the election! :)

  34. BBC Trending, run by the far left, as always trying to link Trump and Brexitto the Far Right:

    What a lazy-arsed article. Take this paragraph:

    "The violence in Charlottesville that day drew new attention to the rising subculture of the alt-right - an amorphous collection of nationalists, traditionalists, race obsessives, hardcore Trump supporters and others who found each other online. They are a subgroup of the wider far right and often claim to be a new political vanguard, although critics say they are nothing but fascists who have learned how to use social media."

    So are nationalists now part of the outer darkness? Are Nicola Sturgeon and Leanne Wood to be ostracised? Remember the article claims that nationalists are perforce members of a sub group of the Far Right and could well be Fascist.

    Are "traditionalists" also to be spurned and disparaged? Are they Far Right?

    Are you not allowed to be a hardcore Trump supporter in the way there are hardcore Clinton supporters? Are all hardcore Trump supporters automatically Far Right? His base is often put at around 30% of the population: so that's about 100 million people.

    Are BLM activists included among "race obsessives"? If not, why not?

    The article goes on to make a disgusting link between being pro-Brexit (currently about two thirds of the UK population are pro-Brexit) and being Far Right by virtue of a sparsely attended demo.

    The usual suspects organised the undercover op.

    My observations:

    1. Here we have yet another example to go along with BBC Reality Check of a supposedly niche reporting team (reporting on what is big in social media) becoming a vehicle for politically biased viewpoints masquerading as news.

    2. Does the BBC really believe officially that the Far Right includes nationalists, traditionalists and supporters of mainstream parties? It appears the answer is yes.

    3. Was this story really "trending" in any way?

    4. Do the BBC Trending team have more than reporting links with the originators of this story?

    1. I once tried to ascertain the critera behind the selection of a bbc ‘trend’.

      Like everything bbc, such information is a closely guarded secret.

      With all the opportunities for abuse that entails.

  35. How often has the BBC told us we have an ageing population and we need migrants to do all the jobs our citizens don't want to do?

    Well remember this video the next time you hear the BBC banging the migration drum:

    Yes the robo burger flippers are here!

    The robotics revolution, long heralded, is now fully under way. Soon to follow burger flippers: robo-cleaners, self-driving taxis, robo-deliveries to your door, self-driving lorries, robo barristas, robo-sandwich makers, robo-teachers, robo-carers, robo-dustmen, robo-GPs (making super-accurate diagnoses).

    It's not just in an urban context that the robot revolution will be big. We already have robo dairy farms. Crop picking robots can undertake the work that humans do in the fields.

    The PC multicultuarlist economic argument for mass immigration was always weak. It is now non-existent.

    1. How will all those Gender Studies graduates make a living?

    2. They'll switch to media studies of course!

    3. Robophobia will be a big subject in the future I predict, with Robophobic Studies featuring as a course at leading universities and with Robo Rights specialists active in the courts arguing that humans need to reorder their perceptions and embrace robots as fellow sentient beings who present no threat to our way of life.

    4. The BBC has certainly run programmes, (Moral Maze?), pushing the idea of Robotic Rights, especially as AI becomes more developed, so no surprises there. The search for 'victims' never ends.

  36. Masked fascists (Antifa mob) violently invade free speech meeting taking place at a University in London and close it down. BBC not interested - nothing on their England page.

    1. Look at the Horseshoe political theory as per French writer Jean-Pierre Faye: 'Proponents of Horseshoe Theory argue that the extreme left and the extreme right are closer to each other than either is to the political centre.'

      Q When is an Antifa activist not an Antifa activist?
      A When they're a Fascist themselves.

    2. I studied Engineering there.

      Things have changed a lot since my day.

    3. Not happy.

  37. Good article here
    Should resonate with ITBB readers

    1. Yes. Good article. Definitely time to rein in.

      I would propose phasing out the licence fee over say a ten year period.

      Phase 1 should involve every licence fee payer being given a vote to appoint the BBC's senior management as we do with a building society or trade union. That will produce immediate changes.

      Phase 2 - Limit by law number of managers on more than £70-100k, 100-150k and 150k plus. This will break up the absurd bureaucracy that runs the BBC.

      Phase 3 - Allow licence fee payers to band together via a dedicated website to fund particular programme ideas on TV and radio. There are lots of areas of life that get virtually no coverage on TV, despite the BBC's huge resources:
      whether it be aircraft enthusiasts, space exploration (not the same as astronomy although the BBC likes to pretend it is), sports like speedway, surfing and yachting, indoor games like chess, bridge, poker and board games...just a few things that might emerge if people could hypothecate a part of their licence fee.

      Phase 4A - Convert the licence fee to a (much cheaper) opt out subscription fee to cover the work of the residual BBC. I would estimate this would be in the region of £80 per annum. Failure to pay would not be subject to criminal sanction but would result in TV services (which would be pin-controlled) being withdrawn.

      Phase 4B - At the same time break up the BBC. Turn the BBC News Website into a consortium run by national and local newspapers.

      Slim down the BBC News operation.

      Detach BBC radio from BBC TV. Sell off the BBC Asian Radio network if anyone will buy it.

      Sell off Radios 1, 2, 1 Extra and Radio 6.

      Keep Radios 3, 4, 4 Extra and 5 Live.

      Offer the national radio stations to the various devolved governments to run.

      Phase 4C - At the same time provide that a number of bodies shall be required to fund programming particular parts of the BBC/ex BBC. The commissioning bodies could include: Arts Council, National Trust, national science councils, Sports Council and so on.

    2. I think it would be simpler to make it generate its own revenues like everyone else in the commercial sector. Ditto Channel 4. So that would be a subscription service or adverts.

      Certainly for BBCs tv and internet channels.

      Not so sure what would be best for radio.

      I’d be against any continuation of a licence fee type system.

      Any solution needs to bring guenuine accountability , the market and shareholders are probably the best way.

      However, getting the necessary legislation changes through Parliament is a different matter. This is where any plan to substantially change the BBC will fall down I suspect.

    3. Lol - yes we get a lot of genuine accoutability from water companies don't we?

      I don't think there's anything wrong with ad free public service broadcasting per se. The BBC did a reasonable job for its first 50 years perhaps.

    4. Good one. Yes, you are right on that point but I guess all I want from a reformed BBC is for it to :
      a. be non political
      b. stop the deliberate and overt PC propoganda in name of social cohesion across all its media channels
      c. be free, fair and impartial when reporting news
      d. be considerably smaller so it can't abuse its dominant market position

    5. The problem is that the BBC claim it is a,b and c already and if you put in any monitoring body in place like Ofcom, they are likely to confirm it (remember, nearly all Tory MPs agree with the BBC's claims on those points).

      If you want real change, it has to be structural and internal. Certainly d is part of the answer - a smaller BBC would be a less arrogant BBC.

    6. I was surprised (unpleasantly) how many MPs at a recent Parliamentary enquiry about the BBC were ex-BBC... and Tory.

      My MP was head of a DCMS committee and whilst not daft and known to be of independent mind, once blew me off in a letter on a serious BBC matter by saying that as far as he was concerned they were 'a national treasure'.

      To what extent I keep helping him stay in to keep Labour out is running out of steam.

  38. Why is this even on the BBC News Website?

    And if it is why aren't there also videos of the tens of thousands of other 14 year olds in the USA who dream of being President: the Jews (there's never been a Jewish president has there?), Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Mormons and Christians.

    This little guy doesn't even have any personable qualities. His video sounded threatening in a way we have seen in some other videos directed at nn.

    And this is the twitter account of the video maker...displaying the stupid face of PC multiculturalism yet again:

    And it's worth pointing out that Hannah Long-Higgins is YET ANOTHER BBC journalist based in Washington!

    Time to close down and break up the BBC.

    1. nn = non-followers of his religion. He just needs to work on the finger jabbing.

    2. The BBC today has of course gone huge on the world-shaking news that Michelle Obama did a dance with a small child.

    3. The BBC were also the only people in the world who didn't think those Obama portraits were absurd, creepy and pointless and presented them as entirely admirable in every way. I think the reaction was so negative that the Obama Media Liars have decided to deploy the child to disarm criticism and de-creepify the paintings. Just a reminder, one of the portrait artists has painted many subjects where a black woman holds a decapitated white woman's head and the other (or is it the same one) specialises in featuring individual sperms incorporated into portraits. Some say there is one on Barrack Obama's forehead in his portrait.

  39. There has been a lack of clear objective reporting and analysis of the recent Italian elections. See:

    Headline ... 'Italy election: Populist gains send shockwaves to Brussels'...

    Katya Adler says: ... 'So-called "populist" parties differ, of course, from country to country.... Syriza in Greece is left-wing, while Le Pen's Front National is right-wing nationalist and Five Star in Italy is sure only that it is anti-establishment... But what they have in common is that, while they may not always win elections outright, they continue to perform strongly at the polls while many traditional parties languish....

    I have the impression that 'populist' is the name given to an electorate with who's political choices the BBC disagree. I thought this was what we all understood as democracy.

    1. ... 'populist' is the name given to the part of an electorate with whose political choices the BBC disagree.... correction!

    2. Yep, you can more or less guarantee that a "populist" party has the wrong agenda as far as the BBC are concerned. If you've got the correct agenda, then you can never be "populist" even if you have all the trappings of populism!

      I am not sure that Syriza was ever really populist,except in the sense that it had some rarely uncorrupt (in a Greek context) politicians leading it. It's diagnoses and remedies are pretty standard left wing.

      For me, a populist party is one that has a focus on the welfare and interests of the mass of the citizens they serve. So that means being more concerned your citizens' future than the interests of global companies, empire-builders, the stock market, resident migrants or people trying to get into your country.

      It implies an emphasis on common sense approaches and solutions as opposed to fanciful schemes dreamt up by academics and self-serving experts.

      For me, by definition, populism is pro-free speech, non-racist and anti-totalitarian.

      The BBC will agree with none of the above of course.

  40. Alan on BBBC shows us BBC activism at work as they seek to undermine Boris Johnson by deliberately misrepresenting his comments about Russia.

    That led me to look on the BBC News website Politics page. At the bottom of the page there is:

    'Theresa May kicks Brexit can down the road' ... The crunch cabinet committee meeting to decide the final shape of Brexit was nothing of the kind....

    An anti Brexit, anti Conservative, anti Theresa May piece from - 8th February 2018. Yes folks, it's been there for a whole month.

    1. I should add that the article in question is by John Pienaar. The BBC tell us that their man is:

      ...A well-connected and respected figure at the heart of the Westminster scene for two decades, both on Radio 5 live and BBC television, John combines sublime explanation of the key themes of politics with the authority of a seasoned insider...

    2. Another bit of sly bias on the BBC TV news last night. They had a clip of Corbyn speaking in emotive terms of Saudi brutality in Yemen, a very serious subject. They then immediately cut to the Tory front bench all laughing and sniggering as though that was their response to Corbyn's comments on the dire situation in Yemen when it was nothing of the sort. Those heartless Tories again!

    3. I suspect that if the article had been pro Brexit,( unlikely I know), it might have survived there before being ' archived' for four hours - not for four weeks. I intend to make this a complaint to the BBC - just to see what response it prompts.

    4. Yes that would be good research: seeing how the BBC justify keeping some stories on for week after week but let others die within hours.


      Complaint Summary: Over-long exposure of article on Politics page

      Full Complaint: As a regular reader of the BBC News website, I have noted today that an article on the Politics page, which I consider to be biased has been featured as a banner headline and left unchanged for four weeks. The article is there in order for the BBC to promote John Pienaar. My complaint is that: if this article's content had been pro Brexit, as opposed to anti Brexit, which I consider this is, then it simply wouldn't have remained in such a prominent position for this extended period of time. Therefore, there is a lack of balance between pro and anti Brexit coverage, with the result that the anti Brexit coverage has outweighed the pro Brexit coverage.

    6. Well done LC!

  41. A while back the DUP took a complaint of bias by the Nolan programme (about the green heating incentive scheme scandal), which was partly upheld on grounds of inaccuracy, and a faint tap on the wrist administered.

    What's interesting though and will strike a chord with anyone who has attempted complaining to the BBC is the DUP's comment: "The complaints were submitted by the party many months ago. The process has been slow and utterly inefficient. We welcome that a response has finally been forthcoming from the BBC. Whilst a complaint has been upheld against the BBC, the matter has now been escalated to Ofcom. We await the outcome of that process." Good luck with that, I say.
    From The Belfast Telegraph: