...and any other matters that take our fancy
Cat clearly unhappy about its gender being made neutral...
According to Mark Easton a non-existent country (England) just beat a country that shouldn't exist since it is named after a ruthless, genocidal coloniser (Columbus). I think that makes it a draw.
This is getting more and more like 1984 every day! We now learn that the judge who is to hear Tommy Robinson's appeal had already declared him guilty on BBC Radio!!! To Joshua Rosenberg...WTF is going on? http://kippercentral.com/2018/07/02/exclusive-lord-leveson-declares-tommy-guilty-before-appeal/
Lord Leveson didn't seem to be in favour of closed trials either so will that help TR's case if and when it gets reviewed?Can't say that I believed all that arrogant rot about the full-time court officials being able to put aside external influencing, unlike the 'Brexit voting deplorables' that form our juries.
We know from the Pinochet trial* that many senior judges are members of Amnesty International. How many of the current crop might also be members or supporters of "Hope Not Hate" which sends out a constant stream of anti-Tommy Robinson abuse? [*For avoidance of doubt: I am not a Pinochet supporter.]
See at 02:40 for the excerpt from the Leveson comment on T Robinson. Couldn't be clearer that Leveson has an adamantine view of what occurred, despite all the evidence to the contrary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk8b_XqI_NM
Then there's this. The judges don't think this will prevent a fair trial, should one follow, but do think TR being a bit rude to defendants entering court will. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5917009/Nurse-arrested-suspicion-murdering-EIGHT-babies-Britains-prolific-child-killer.html
The wording by the BBC in this leading headline on the News website is astounding even by the standards we have come to expect:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44704561'Vote Leave broke electoral law, Electoral Commission expected to say'It's Laura K reporting:.... 'The official Brexit campaign is expected to be found guilty of four charges of breaking electoral law, the BBC has been told'....'expected to be found guilty' How is this news? It hasn't happened yet.
The use of the word "guilty" and "charges" here are highly prejudicial. This, as I understand it non-criminal law. It's the equivalent of your council issuing you a parking fine or Offcom issuing a fine. The council doesn't write to you saying they have found you "guilty" of anything. It's a non-criminal sanction backed up by law. So what we have here is a technical violation of rather ill defined rules. The Electoral Commission is not an independent body, it is a pro-Remain body. Priti Patel has pointed to the Remain campaign's violations,but the EC refuse to investigate. Its bias is absolutely shocking. If in doubt read the biog of its Chair: "Sir John Holmes was educated at Preston Grammar School and Balliol College, Oxford. He joined the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1973 and served in a wide range of diplomatic roles in London, Moscow, Paris, New Delhi and Lisbon.In 1995, Sir John joined Prime Minister John Major in Downing Street as his Private Secretary (Overseas Affairs) and diplomatic adviser. He continued this role with Prime Minister Tony Blair from 1997 to 1999, becoming Principal Private Secretary, and was a key figure in the negotiation of the Good Friday Agreement."Can anyone be in any doubt about how he voted in the Referendum? Indeed - that raises a question in my mind...are Commissioners allowed to vote in elections and polls they preside over? They shouldn't be allowed to.
And still no mention of the dossier alleging serious breaches of said law by Remain campaigners which Priti Patel submitted to the Commission a few weeks ago. If anyone missed this, it should be in Guido's archive. Just in case the electoral commission fails to deliver, Remainers have another string to their bow: the European Court will be hearing on Thursday the appeal by 13 British expats, EU residents for more than 15 years, against their exclusion from the 2016 Referendum. Let's hope the European Court judges are more impartial than our Electoral Commission!
One thing I am sure of - if the Remainiacs ever get into the position to have a second referendum, they will definitely try and extend the franchise to include EU citizens - some 3 million plus could swing it for them and also 16 and 17 year olds, just for good measure. They won't leave anything to chance this time. A lot of long term British expats live in France, Spain, Greece, and Cyprus. We certainly shouldn't assume they would be Leave voters.
There won’t be a second referendum.
QUOTE FOR THE DAY:“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.” Thomas Pynchon. Much more applicable to the BBC, since that's their modus operandi, than that quote from George Orwell - "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - that they've had carved in stone outside their HQ. That ssid, I think the BBC does have its own special reading of that Orwell quote. I think they understand it to mean "We have the right at your expense to bombard you with propaganda that flies in the face of all common sense, endangers you and your family and will ultimately lead to the eradication of your culture even though you object to that propaganda."
Zurcher has gone even more beserker...he seems to think Trump is planning a military strike on England (presumably in concert with those darn Ruskies)...https://twitter.com/awzurcher/status/1014207674865594369Any reputable news organisation would find Zurcher's tweets a complete embarrassment and sack him. But the BBC isn't a reputable news organisation by any stretch of the imagination.
The BBC will sack no one for ridiculing and discrediting Trump. They encourage it. He is the attack dogs main target.
The BBC towing the official line on the latest Novichek poisoning. Saying on 10 o’clock news that there is no threat to public safety. Clearly there is. The correspondent also stated that the Russian attack is claiming more victims. It’s not proven that the Russians did it.
If not a Russian attack then presumably you have to agree with Zurcher that Trump is planning to attack the England...Of course it's a Russian attack. It bears all the hallmarks. They used polonium before and that created a trail so this time they thought they'd be clever and use something didn't leave a trail. It's a very, very serious issue, an act of war really. It couldn't get much more serious - it's no different to dropping it on Salisbury from a plane, just a different delivery system.
It is not beyond the realms of possibility that it came from Porton Down. It may not be coincidence that the worlds leading chemical weapons establishment is nearby.
It's not beyong the realms of possibility that Winston Churchill had RAF bombers painted in Luftwaffe insignia to bomb London and then had all the bombing crews secretly despatched so they could not tell the tale. Possible. It's possible the CIA organised the whole of 9-11. It's possible NASA faked the moon landings. Many things are "possible" if you are determined to entertain all possiblities. It's in Russian interests to encourage such "possiblism". The mocking and insincere response of Russia to UK inquiries about the attacks on their citizens (following on ex-KGB Putin's claim that the country's traitors would be hunted down abroad) tells you everything you need to know. It's the equivalent of some hardened criminal offering the police some unlikely scenario.
Monkey Brains grow up we have had 3 engagements and nearly a 4th in the last 18 years and all based on fool proof facts by Government plus you shut down arguments by flailing about bringing other things in to it , hopefully you can sign up for the next big war based on infallible MPs
So you seriously suggest that the UK government has killed one of its own citizens and nearly killed one of it own spies in order to frame Putin (who has declared all traitors abroad will be hunted down). I guess you consider that to be an adult view of the world.
Meanwhile on BBC 4 Jonathan Freedland it telling us "How to be a great US President"...no agenda there then from the man who has offered the following on Trump:"Trump is not a master negotiator: he’s a conman. ""The US president tears children from parents..." (not Obama though of course, even though he followed the same policy). "The civic realm is being degraded by Trump’s lies, vanities and insults.""Ultimately it will be up to the men and women of Congress to do their constitutional duty by impeaching Trump and removing him from office. " (With what cause Jonathan, or do you think Congress can do it on a whim?)Regarding impeachment he notes that Republicans may have to be replaced by Democrats in the mid-terms. However, he is says: "The trouble is, it’s not clear that the US – or the world – have that much time."Just a bit of journalistic hand wringing you might think...but then consider he also wrote a novel about a fully justified plot to remove by assassination a dangerous lunatic of an American President who bears every resemblance to Donald Trump... https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/256129/the-blot-against-americaSo, as you can see...the perfect choice to produce a TV programme on what makes a good US President. I'd say it's results. BTW Freedland is fully in the grip of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Whereas the premise of his novel and his previous analyses was that Trump's nuclear brinkmanship in relation to North Korea would bring about war, he know has to claim in the light of events that Trump is too soft on North Korea and is having rings run round him by Kim, who is steadily building up his nuclear capability, whilst Trump lamentably fails to confront him! That's TDS for ye!
Something seen in the Look East NHS 70th intro bit.. for a second or two, amongst the montage of usual health images, there was a protest featuring a banner clearly saying "Thatcher makes more cuts than a surgeon". Can't imagine why our objective media overlords managed to fit that in!
Anon, you don't say whether this was old footage from the 1980s, or was it a recent reintroduction of Thatcher as a hate figure. Either way it's disgraceful.
Apologies, it was archive footage. The fact they chose that clip out of all the millions of NHS related ones they have was rather telling.
They could have chosen Winter of Discontent - NHS workers on strike.
Question Time tonight...Didn't realise so many SNP supporting Scottish people lived in King's Lynn.
Bias by word choice and framing. I think every reasonable person can agree that the decisions being taken about our future relationship with the EU may be of some moment, and will be the cause of impassioned debate in the world of politics. But how does Laura Kuennsberg choose to describe what's going on in Cabinet? She calls the discussions "squabbles" conjuring up a useful pro-Remain image of squabbling children who have no idea how to proceed. The BBC has been beneath contempt for a long time now.Looks unlikely to rise again. I've no idea what will emerge from the Cabinet discussions. I doubt it will be to my liking. But let's remember LK has talked up all the previous rebellions and Lords' amendments that have amounted to very little.
The Fork-tongued BBC:See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44732754'Giant 'Trump Baby' could fly over London for president's visit'If the BBC's report was taken at face value, it might appear to give the impression that the BBC's opinion had been 'left at the door', until that is, searches prove revealing:1. The project seems to be financed and coordinated by a climate change lobbying group 10:10.2. Two of the key people mentioned in the BBC report as initiating the project, Leo Murray and Max Wakefield are themselves featured on the 10:10 website.3. The flight trials for the inflatable were carried out the Martin Luther King adventure playground in Islington.4. An anti Trump march is planned to coincide with the flight of tis inflatable - starting from guess where? - Broadcasting House. According to the BBC report 50,000 people are expected in the march from the BBC to Trafalgar Square. We know this could easily be expanded to half a million in archived material.5. Sadiq Kahn gives his approval.So, once again, the BBC are distancing themselves from the event, whilst at the same time unofficially promoting it. Climate change, Islington, London Mayor, elite activists etc. Without doubt, the BBC is sympathetic to this group, and will hoodwink the rest of the country into believing they are balanced in their view.The flight of this inflatable is intended as a personal insult to Donald Trump. The BBC are meant to be a national broadcasting organisation. I guess that a majority of the UK population will be appalled by the crassness of this enterprise. Once again, the BBC thinks that it speaks for the country when in fact it speaks only for the liberal elite of London.
The project has been 'crowd-funded'. In short, the funding can be easily disguised in this way.
This news item was on the London pages of the BBC News website. I half expected it to be on the arts and entertainment pages instead. We might have heard from Will Gompertz about the 'bold outright political outrage' the piece engendered and thrust upon us. I would say that as art it is old hat. The Pink Floyd Animals album cover beats it, or further back, the Proposed Colossal Monument for the Thames River: Thames Ball 1967, by Claes Oldenburg.
The latest piece from the BBC on the Trump visit:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44741671'Trump to visit Windsor and Chequers on UK trip' reveals the name of another organiser of the inflatable 'Trump baby' - Daniel Jones, press and profile officer - at guess where? 10:10, the above-mentioned climate change lobbying company.
The NHS has been elevated to the status of a religion and is staffed entirely by angels. At least that is what anyone following the BBC website over recent days would assume. Personally I would prefer it to be staffed by sensible, practical people, but that doesn’t make good propaganda. Healthcare in this country faces all kinds of challenges. The ageing population is just one of many. The need for a serious debate about how we are going to provide a decent, efficient service has never been more urgent. Not the least of which is how we are going to pay for it, because one way or another we are going to have to pay for it. The BBC’s eulogising is not only unrealistic, but also extremely unhelpful. But is their message even about the NHS, or is it just another vehicle to promote a particular ideology? Perhaps there are two separate aspects to this. One is the understandable, but irresponsible desire to create dramatic stories. The other is the political activism that has infected all parts of the BBC. Quite a toxic mix.
Yes there is definitely a religious and taboo quality to the coverage. I am sure we have all had experience of both good and bad in NHS hospitals. I've certainly seen neglectful nurses huddled in the staff room watching TV ignoring their patients, cruel nurses, stupid nurses wondering why deaf 90 year olds aren't responding to their questions, incompetent doctors and mismanaged hospitals. On the other hand I've seen superb and diligent nursing, attentive and knowledgeable doctors and good management. One point about the NHS is that a large part of it was privatised from the beginning - this is the GP service which receives about 10% of the budget I believe. GPs are not employees of the NHS - they are self-employed, running their own businesses. The BBC tries not to highlight this.Generally the NHS comes in well behind some other European providers like Germany, Belgium and France that rely on insurance schemes, with backing from the state. If this is how the BBC deal with the unremarkable 70th anniversary of the NHS, imagine how they will celebrate their own 100th in 2022. Assuming they are still there of course.
CAMTAUC (pronounced "cam-talk") - a new acronym describing the reporting style of many BBC reporters, the leading exponent being Laura Kuennsberg: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44747445CAMTAUC stands for "Cause As Much Trouble As U Can".Laura would have been one of those girls at her private always trying to sow discord by dripping poison in people's ears. "Did you hear what Dilly said about you Maisy/Did you hear what Maisy said about you Dilly?" It's not really reporting at all, because it's highly opinionated, soaked through with subjectivity. Every step of the way LK has been stressing how difficult progress will be...when progress is made it is grudgingly accepted and then she starts talking up the difficulties of the next step. Not to say these aren't difficult steps. But then another, equally subjective view, is that May is some kind of master politician for having negotiated these almost impossible steps! Of course LK's subjectivity might align with objective truth, but I feel she is more motivated by a wish to see the Tory Party split and become an ineffective political force. It might happen of course. But I don't think there's any denying that is the lode star of her reporting...which leads her to always be encouraging rebellions, split and acrimony. The whole of LK's article could have been recast as a tremendous victory for common sense consensus. Why not? It's just as valid as any other subjective judgement, the ones that LK is injecting into her narrative.
private = private school
I'm sure she was always on hand to "expain" the lessons to her hapless fellow pupils during the the break.
I seem to have developed a stutter!
Laura Kuenssberg seems incapable of allowing the correct name of our governing party pass her lips. It is the Conservative Party who are in government - not the Tory party. In fact their full name is the Conservative and Unionist Party - supported in coalition by the Democratic Unionist Party.She and the BBC are determined to maintain in the public's mind the perceived inequalities between the historic Tories, who by narrative engendered class-related inequality, the haves and have-nots etc. and the current party in Government.
Yes, you are quite right. Though I used it myself, I don't thnk it is really acceptable in formal news bulletins, any more than it would be to call Labour "the Reds" or "socialists".
Using the word ‘Tory’ is a deliberate insult used by The BBC and left liberals as code for everything they dislike about right of centre politics. It’s one of a number of words they spit out with distain and used to damage and discredit.Others include:PopulistFar-rightFarageBrexiteers
I feel a complaint to the BBC needs to be made. There may be people who might be described as Tory within the Conservative Party, but equally, there may be people within the Labour party who might be described as Socialist. But, as you rightly say MB, the Labour party is never described by BBC reporters as the Socialist Party.
First line of a search - Laura Kuenssberg Tory Party - reveals this on 2nd October 2017: 'Average age of tory party is apparently 71'. Laura, there's no such thing as the Tory Party - but it must exist in the vocabulary of the BBC.
I believe I am right in saying that "Tory" began as a name for supporters of Catholic King James II and was deployed by the Whigs (forerunners of the Liberal Party) to describe their political opponents (ie suggesting constitutional disloyalty). Eventually many Conservatives were happy to use it as a badge of honour. But I think since the SWP protest bandwagon got going, it's reverted to being a term of abuse, usually coupled with "scum".
Is that the gnashing of Mark Easton's teeth I hear? Did the non-existent but nevertheless reactionary nation England just beat the progressive, Europhile BBC favourites Sweden?
Yes, I heard that too!We may have concluded this previously, but while watching the England fans waving their flags the thought occurred to me that Easton's (and the BBC's) nightmare is an English Parliament. They are very happy with usually left leaning Scottish and Welsh assemblies, and that these nations are also allowed a "double" influence by providing left leaning ballast to the UK Parliament. But an English Parliament would be right leaning, Conservative. It might even be pro Brexit and Anti BBC!
Yes I think Easton and his BBC co-ideologues hate the idea of an English Assembly for the reasons you cite. Like its counterparts elsewhere in the UK, it would presumably have a strong PR element. And we know that would mean representation for UKIP. The likelihood is you'd have a Conservative-UKIP majority in an English Assembly. Although if the Conservatives did badly, the Lib Dems or Greens might hold the balance of power. Going back to the football, for a BBC-approved progressive "diversity" hot spot, Sweden has a remarkably non-diverse team.
Indeed! And it’s a stark contrast between teams of Croatia vs. Russia to upcoming France vs. Belgium. How quickly Western Europe has been changed. How much does Eastern Europe want to bend to the EU dictates or will feel closer to Russia? Oh Russia the new bogeyman of the BBC - they liked it more when it was merely communist and threatening.
By now, if this were Scotland into the Semi-Finals, the BBC would be talking up the political implications - another independence referendum, stopping Brexit in its tracks etc...so far I have seen nothing on the political implications of England's stupendous run from the BBC.
The time for Boris to strike is close. Gove has defended the useless proposals from May. As soon as the EU pushes back, that is the point for Boris to strike. He should stand on "not an inch more"...May will want to give further concessions, at that point she is toast.
I was more prescient than I knew! Boris is striking!!!So how does the BBC respond to the story of David Davis resigning?...well, firstly, by choosing the worst possible pic of him they can find making him look like some weirdo clown. Remember any big organisation has a 101 pics of prominent figures they can publish and so the act of choice is always a political act. They can go positive, negative (mocking or sinister), or neutral. They clearly decided this is an important moment in our history and they need to go extreme negative-mocking. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44761056I hate the BBC for that and about a million other offences that need to be taken into consideration before we withdraw their charter and turn them back into a private company. :) If anyone has any idea that the BBC are a slightly misguided organisation that are just a bit sloppy about accurate reporting, and the way they handle things, please be disabused. This is an enemy organisation determined to do down and defeat every single patriotic impulse wherever they find it.
Had that very same thought last night.And for those now reading the updated story with an updated photo, here's a link via the Wayback Machine with the offending picture. Really quite disgraceful.https://web.archive.org/web/20180709020113/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44761056
The BBC should have the champagne on ice by now. They have seen emerging a win-win set of circumstances (as they might see it) whereby either likely outcome will suit them: Theresa May clinging on to deliver a softer than soft Brexit - or she resigns and there is another General Election during the campaign of which, the BBC will push the traditional Labour message NHS etc and squeeze Corbyn into government without ever questioning him properly on the electorate's behalf with regard to Brexit or economic policy. It's time for Boris to step forward. Like him or loathe him, I think he is the only person capable of uniting the Conservative party and delivering a meaningful Brexit.
Thanks to Rob for preserving the original. Kind of underlines they knew what they were doing...Yes, Boris is not perfect, no man or woman is, but he is a vote winner, a communicator, a leader...that's why he has been the target of a malicious and malign media campaign, led by the BBC, to neutralise him. They know he is a danger.
That link doesn't bring up a specific page but a page of links to various archives. I clicked on a BBC one and it brought up a page with a photo of Johnson.
Prime time BBC 1 Panorama tonight.Is the President a sex pest?Expect further character assassination and anti-Trump propaganda.I doubt it will it be even-handed and a serious piece of investigative journalism.
He probably is or was, but what's it to do with us. That's for the American people to take a view on. Is the Canadian PM a sex pest? Are all French politicians corrupt? Will they be asking that? Was Bill Clinton far worse than just your average sex pest? Is Chelsea Clinton the daughter of Hillary Clinton's work colleague (she sure likes him and not Bill)? Is Hillary a secret lesbian who is in love with Huma Abedin? So many questions...
likes = "looks like"
It's been a good day for the BBC, Boris has gone and BRINO is back on track.The News team seem partcularly happy and relaxed and have a spring in their step.As Laura Kuenssberg said in summary tonight on the 10 o'clock News."Theresa May has waved goodbye to two of the big voices giving her a hard time and now has a more loyal cabinet who will make things easier"
Yes, earlier in the day they weren't sure if it was a "good thing" or a "bad thing" (the BBC can only handle binary categories) because of course they weren't sure if it would herald a rebellion leading directly to Boris becoming PM (which obviously be a "bad thing"). But I agree, they seem more relaxed now. I heard this morning John Humphreys have a very jolly, relaxed chat with Tom Watson on Today unmarred by aggressive interruptions. Smiles all round. And yes, although hedging it around with caveats LK is giving things the thumbs up so far. They are hoping that BRINO to be followed by the "Return to the Fold" campaign is in the bag.
AN UNPLEASANT FLASHBACK: Remember the Farage/Davis interview of 2015? http://news-watch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/BBC1-Leader-Interview-Nigel-Farage-22nd-April-2015-7.30pm.pdfAnd here's that all important "gotcha" moment beloved of Newsnight presenters, when Davis showed his true quality as a fearless interviewer of anyone trying to stop disrupt the PC consensus.., QUOTE FROM TRANSCRIPTED: (speaking over) I wonder whether . . . Idon't know, I just wonder whether there are different patriotic visions and there are certain people you would call liberal Metropolitan elite who have a different vision of Britain. Did you see the Paddington Bear movie last year? NF:No. ED: A terrific movie with a kind of . . . a rather sort of moving, in a sense, proclamation of the virtues of multiculturalism which I know you hate because he's a bear and he's different and he feels very at home and he’s made to feel welcome here. END QUOTEPublic policy based on children's movies? Davis should blush when he reads that sentimental tosh. The EU aren't so keen on welcoming undocumented Paddington's now are they? There are 700,000 holed up in Libya, and the EU is bribing the Libyans to keep them there. They are also bribing Turkey to stop migrants come via that route. They are impounding the rescue ships. And Macron wants the poor migrants to be processed outside the mainland of Europe.
Tonight's Moral Maze on The Morality of Politics gets the BBC treatment re Brexit and the national interest. The introductory spiel sets it up: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b930kn
Yep the schpiel makes no allowance for the most persuasive analysis of recent events: that the globalist elite allied with a small hardline ideological European Unionist element in the UK have conspired, using undemocratic means (vilifaction, threats, spurious legal interventions, votes in the unelected Lords, MPs defying manifesto commitments upon which they were elected, propaganda on TV and radio etc etc) to frustrate the promised implementation of the Referendum result. Having been unable to stop Brexit in its tracks, the Remainiacs have had to put in place BRINO, as their best chance for the moment.
On Daily Politics today, Laura Kuensberg could be heard hissing the name 'the Tory Party' with her trademark smirk. Readers might remember that I said I would make a complaint to the BBC about this misnomer.Here is the first complaint:Complaint Summary: The use of Tories and Tory party for ConservativesFull Complaint: The BBC in general and Laura Kuenssberg in particular seem incapable of allowing the correct name of our governing party pass their lips. It is the Conservative Party who are in government - not the Tory party. In fact their full name is the Conservative and Unionist Party - supported in coalition by the Democratic Unionist Party. She and the BBC are determined to maintain in the public's mind the perceived inequalities between the historic Tories, who by narrative engendered class-related inequality, the haves and have-nots etc. and the current party in Government. There may be people who might be described as Tory within the Conservative Party, but equally, there may be people within the Labour party who might be described as Socialist. But, the Labour party is never described by BBC reporters as the Socialist Party. There is no Tory Party - yet if you look at LK's Twitter feed, she clearly believes there is: From 2nd October 2017: 'Average age of tory party is apparently 71' This misnomer of Tory when meaning Conservative is widely used by BBC journalists. Another example is during Daily Politics, when LK tells us what she supposes the PM will be asked by the Leader of the Opposition. If the BBC are serious about truth etc, they might start by getting the name of the governing party in Parliament right.Here is the BBC reply:Thank you for contacting us regarding the BBC News Website article 'Brexit: Theresa May seeks to sell plan to Tory sceptics' published on 7 July.I understand you are unhappy with Laura Kuenssberg's use of the term 'Tory' or 'Tories' to refer to the Conservative party. I note your view that Laura's choice of words displays bias against the governing party.We would explain that the BBC News style guide specifies that within the body of a report 'Conservatives' must be used in the first instance. However, for later references, 'the Tories' is acceptable. As such, Laura's report is entirely consistent with our guidelines.As the BBC’s political editor, a fundamental part of Laura Kuenssberg’s role is to give our audience an informed and impartial analysis of key political events, using her experience and judgement. Indeed, all staff working for BBC News, though clearly entitled to hold personal opinions and beliefs, are acutely aware that their views should never in any way influence their work for the BBC, nor should they be apparent to our audience.Today I followed up my complaint:Complaint Summary: The use of Tory party for ConservativesFull Complaint: On Daily Politics today, Laura Kuenssberg used the name 'the Tory Party' instead of 'the Conservative Party'. There is no such thing as the Tory Party other than as a nickname for the Conservative Party. This nickname carries biased connotations which date back to a name used a long time ago. LK would not refer to the Labour Party as 'the Socialist Party' so why is she free from editorial control when speaking about the Conservative Party? Reporting is all about accuracy. The use of this term is inaccurate, and judging by your previous reply, inaccuracy is acceptable to the BBC!I shall await the second reply, due within ' 20 working days (four weeks)'
Well done mate! Ask them if Labour also has an alternative name and if not, why not? Since nearly all Labour Party members (including Tony Blair, let's remember) describe themselves as "socialists" surely we could expect LK to refer to them as the "socialists" occasionally...has she ever?
Sorry - didn't read all the way down! I see you have done that!! :)
The last paragraph of the reply you have received from the BBC, however it is worded, is the stock reply to any complaint questioning their impartiality. Essentially: We are fair and impartial because we say we are.
I am wondering whether this complaint is bearing fruit within the BBC. See this contribution from our Laura:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44796517.... 'Conservative rebels target Theresa May's Brexit plan' ...And on the opening paragraph:.... 'Conservative Eurosceptics have launched a new attempt to change the government's Brexit strategy by targeting a key piece of legislation.' ...The word Tory is used only once towards the end of the piece:.... 'Jacob Rees-Mogg, who leads the European Research Group of Tory MPs, said' ...I find the use of the word Tory in this context acceptable - just as if in the case of a Labour government a report had said:.... 'X, (it definitely wouldn't be Jacob Rees-Mogg), who leads the European Research Group of Socialist MPs, said' ...Let's see whether in due course, the words 'Conservative Party' might emerge from Laura K's mouth (with or without the smirk), or whether the words stick in her craw.
You may well have scored there LC! :) I respect people who keep up the pressure on the BBC but I can't myself be bothered. :) Like the Soviet Bloc they hate being questioned, however mildly, so I do think that people's complaints bother them far more than us jaded folk realise. So - well done!
Mark Easton will be happy that the non-existent nation of England, with its reprehensible reactionary tendencies, is out of the World Cup finals but he won't be happy the Fascist Croatians, who refused to join the Euro, won... :)
Newsnight tonight..The BBC have finally got round to asking about the implications of England's success in the World Cup (obviously they were panicking and were thinking - God Forbid! - England were going to get to the final!!!). Evan Davis interviewing Emma Dabiri of the Guardian (the Guardian? - who'd have thought it?), David Goodhart (their definition of a slightly risque contributor...but he's not) and a scouser rock musician (why? - just a continuation of the BBC's condescending identification of football with Liverpool I guess). Davis came out with all the tropes you'd expect. England - exclusionist identity - blah-blah-blah. Dabiri was so stupid (she thought she was being clever with her race baiting about how few Turks there were in the England team!) she didn't follow Davis's line by noting that there was a huge disproportion of players of African or Afro-Caribbean descent in the team (does that mean we should sack some of them?).
Where are BBC's Newsnight going to tonight for "independent" voices...No surprises...New York Times (America's Guardian)...Centre for European Reform (globalist lobby group).
I can't believe how much speech time Davis is giving the guy from the New York Times. I think it was close to zero interruptions! :)
I would accuse the BBC of stoking the fires of division and discontent by actively promoting anti President Trump protests. There is a headline on this morning's BBC News website:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44788849This article contains, as it has for the last few days, the image of the ridiculous inflatable of "Trump Baby' - featured very prominently. As I understand the circumstances surrounding the inflatable, it is the brainchild of the 10:10 Foundation, a climate change charity - though the inflatable is crowd-funded they claim.Why would the BBC be so sympathetic to this group of unelected charity-backed protesters? - unless they shared the same view to an extent that other opinions were excluded. We know that the BBC are onside with this from other snippets:.... 'UK Protests to Greet Trump's 'state visit on the sly' ....This has become a high profile meticulously planned personal insult of the most inflammatory kind against a duly elected President upon whom we might need to rely at some point in the future. There is no other world leader, however despicable that generates this level of venomous hatred from our so-named national broadcaster.The protest march predicted to be 50,000 strong will start from Broadcasting House. Let's make that 500,000 or more for the archive shall we?
I think they should go the whole hog and call it 5 million.
We can describe the BBC's actions both as participants in the organisation of this protest, and in their general output such as HIGNFY during which Donald Trump is routinely ridiculed, as anti President Trump activism. As UK citizens, should we have to pay our licence fee in order to fund our national broadcaster's undertakings of this type?
They started the activism early this week with the Panorama programme on Monday evening, which was clear stirring and highly inflammatory, considering the timing chosen.
I almost choked on my coffee hearing Owen Jones championing free speech on Daily Politics today. Yes Owen, providing it fits in with your PC agenda.
Yes, the Owen Jones concept of free speech is very limited. Basically it only extends to trade unionists, minority groups, and left wing parties. Like the SNP, he doesn't even accept the right of UKIP to campaign in elections unmolested (despite UKIP's policies being pretty much the same as the EU's on undocumented migration, now the EU has slowly begun to see sense).
How does he manage it? Being everywhere. He's been on Sky News this afternoon jabbering away. He also popped up on Sky's Press Preview a few days ago after a long absence. Has he been away? Hadn't seen him for ages and suddenly I can't seem to avoid him. After a couple of seconds of whatever he's spewing, I switch over or go to MUTE on any programme he's on.
He must stay in London the whole time, moving from one studio to another, and avoid ever re-visiting his "northern roots". I see from Wikipedia his Mum and Dad were both involved in the Trostskyite infilitration movement "Militant" (something I've never heard him mention - odd that). They must be very proud of their son.
It must be tireless and dedicated work for the Beboids and editors to find an image to adorn the prime position on the BBC News website. How many hundreds of photographs did they wade through before finding one that appeared to show Teresa May glancing adoringly at Donald Trump. After looking at this anyone who still believes the BBC is not an activist organisation is truly delusional.
…and now Sadiq Khan is a torch bearer for free speech and the right to offend. Actually I agree with him, but oh, the hypocrisy. Of course in the back of Khan’s mind is the thought that he is throwing “the right to offend” argument back in the faces of the people, he perceives to be on the right, who do actually believe in free speech. Thus proving that he doesn’t.
It's quite a clever ploy, so probably not his own idea. :) But what does he really think about free speech?Well he looks forward to UKIP being "abolished". Not dissolved, or comprehensively defeated but "abolished". https://twitter.com/ukip/status/980029507280297990?lang=enBut he's all in favour of censoring offensive tweets:https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/12/sadiq-khan-to-slam-government-for-dereliction-of-duty-in-failing-to-regulate-tech
Just saw a remarkable ad on the supposedly ad-free BBC for "Brexit" related news on the BBC. Clearly they want to stress to people that they can only rely on the BBC for objective Brexit news. I think they are a bit worried.
A Saturday evening feast of music on the BBC. On Radio 3 as well as Jazz Record Requests and J to Z on earlier, there's the Quintet of the Hot Club of France at midnight. No opera but there's the proms with a programme of French music plus a Mozart piano piece. On BBC 2 at 9 pm, something different: Reginald D Hunter's Songs of the Border; Classic American pop and country portray Mexico as a land of escape and romance, but also of danger - e g Marty Robbins's El Paso, The Drifters' Mexican Divorce or Ry Cooder's Across the Borderline. Against this evocative western soundtrack, Hunter explores the border music as it is today...I love these songs of romance and heartbreak and several more from the late 1920s such as It Happened in Monterrey* and Ramona** but this is the BBC, so:"...Robin Hood tales of Mexican cartels, South American dance, Tex-Mex accordion, Mexican-American rap, border fence sound art and country music of both Mexican and American flavours shed insight into the topical issues of immigration, drug smuggling and Mexican-American identity, and throw the western songwriter's dream of Mexico as a place of romance, fun and escape into sharp relief." *It happened in Monterrey, a long time agoI met her in Monterrey in Old MexicoStars an' steel guitars and luscious lips as red as wineBroke somebody's heart and I'm afraid that it was mine...** Will they pick up on this 1920s film story of love across a 'racial' divide?
One of the first musicals - Show Boat - dealt with the then edgy issue of love across the racial divide, in defiance of the law in the Jim Crow states.
I keep reading that there are an estimated 185 Remain-voting Conservative MPs against an estimated 138 Leave-voters in the HoC. What puzzles me is that many of the 185 Remain-voting MPs are from areas like my own where there was a decisive majority for Leave in the 2016 Referendum. This group now form a majority on the government benches, who will support Theresa May in her softer than soft Bexit white paper.If a leadership challenge was made, Theresa May would probably survive. We have a leader of our governing party, who in my opinion is anti-democratic in the delivery of Brexit.A link in the democratic process has been lost. There is now an openly displayed sign of contempt towards their electorate by these Remain-voting Conservative MPs in areas which voted to Leave.
Loondon, the Conservative leadership rules require their MPs to decide which top two go through to a ballot of ALL members of the Party (not sure how many that is but must still be in the tens of thousands). So Boris just needs to come in at no. 2 to then be elected as leader, as I am sure he will by the party membership. But of course the Remainiacs will try and manipulate the MPs' vote to ensure Boris doesn't get the no. 2 position. That is where Gove and maybe Fox will come in useful to May. I don't think though that Gove will be able to command as many MP votes as previously. And events take on a logic of their own. Opinion polling is now showing Conservatives losing millions of votes to UKIP since the Chequers deal was announced. That adds huge pressure on May. Also, if May can't get anything through the Commons, or has to rely on Corbyn, that too will add tremendous pressure. My judgement is that May is finished. I devoutly hope so. She must be stopped or this country is on a very frightening path of destabilisation. Boris is not some patent medicine who can cure all ills but he is infinitely preferable to May and could go to the country and win a majority against Corbyn's loony tune sub-Marxist rabble.
May declared her hand when she met with Merkel before the Chequers Cabinet gathering. She, with the help of the BBC (who'd have thought the two were in fact bedfellows), attempted to disregard the referendum result. I agree she must be stopped.
The BBC are now May Defender-in-Chief as this absurd easy ride interview demonstrates. Was "sue the EU" really the only advice Trump gave re the negotiations. Of course not. It's Fake News, folks, bigly which the BBC are colluding in. I hope Trump responds by giving his advice in full. Sueing the EU for return of the UK's share in EU infrastructure assets would of course have been a good way to signal intent - remember the EU was saying we had to pay our share of ongoing liabilities. That May thinks it's amusing shows how pathetic a negotiator she is. If we have to pay a share of ongoing liabilities, we should also have a share of ongoing assets that the EU will continue to enjoy after we leave: all their buildings, data collection systems, satellites and other physical assets etc.
Look at the type of pic they are now choosing for Theresa - nice, smiling, relaxed...this is a recent development, as normally they would choose one showing her looking tense or full of foreboding...https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44838028Expect to see more pro-May bias over the next few days!