...and any other matters that take our fancy
Sisyphus - Reposted from end of October thread.6pm BBC1 News - I have just watched, with growing disbelief, the BBC squander the second five minutes or so of the main news on the non-story of a paraplegic athlete who, on finding his own wheelchair had not been off-loaded at Luton, refused the offer of an upright chair and somebody to push it, preferring instead to drag himself across the airport floor on his backside. The man felt that to be pushed in a wheelchair would rob him of his independence and dignity and plans to sue the airport - now, I have the greatest sympathy for anyone who has lost the use of his legs, but the loss of independence was only going to be temporary, and there is really very little dignity to be had propelling oneself along as he chose to do. It seems that, to the BBC the opportunity to combine banging the diversity drum with a spot of virtue-signalling is irresistible. This one was up there, or rather, down, with Jeremy Corbyn walking past empty seats on a train in order to be filmed complaining that there was nowhere for him to sit. Sisyphus
I’m with Luton airport here, they gave him every assistance but he refused. It was a deliberate protest and he actively sought publicity. The BBC have delivered in spades.It’s the perfect human news story for them to signal empathy for the disabled and champion the disadvantaged which is why they devoted nearly ten minutes as second item on the main BBC 1 news. Totally disproportionate but they know it’s a difficult one for viewers to complain about.
Oh, I don't know, we're managing quite well! Anyway, you should see the comments on the story in the Daily Mail! :)
Yep, the virtue signalling nonsense has to stop.Disabled people of course need to be treated with respect. Maybe Luton Airport should have self-operated wheelchairs available. But dragging yourself across the floor is just ludicrous when you have been offered a reasonable alternative.
The BBC has a reporter who has featured in stories about his wheelchair being left behind on aeroplanes. Maybe they've decided to have a bit of a campaign because of that - or partly that. The story would conveniently fit a couple of agendas.
My THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:When I first sought out sites like this, focussed on BBC bias (in the pre-Brexit era), I saw BBC bias as a discrete area of concern. I'd already educated myself on Islam, beginning just prior to 9-11. So I found the BBC's pro-Sharia propaganda quite nauseating and in relation to that was concerned that the BBC had become an unreflective pro-mass immigration mouthpiece. I could see BBC bias was dangerous, but I don't think I quite saw how the bias was a part of something much bigger. But what an education we have had recently! We have been on a very steep learning curve with the Brexit-Trump-Populism phenomenon. Between early 2015 (the European migrant crisis) and Jan 2017 (Trump's inauguration) really everything changed. For the first time we saw the anti-democratic globalist movement show its true face.I was genuinely surprised to find that fellow citizens simply wanted to overturn - immediately - the democratic Brexit vote and that they despised the people who had voted for Brexit. The Guardian comments pages were full of bile and hate directed at the old, the poor, the provincial, the untalented, the ill educated and the less intelligent - their characterisation of the Brexit voter (false of course, since the very prosperous, healthy and well educated South had voted for Brexit).
...continued...As events unfolded from 2015 onwards we saw more and more how these anti-democratic forces operate: project fear, billionaire funding of socially divisive movements, Soros promotion of a second referendum, unelected people like Blair, Campbell and Adonis using their influence to derail a democratic decision...In the USA it was even worse in some ways as we saw increasing calls for Trump's inauguration to be prevented, for the military to intervene, for the President to be assassinated, and for the President to be impeached (on the basis of zero evidence). We saw very clear evidence of how the "Deep State" operates. More recently we have seen increasing attempts to suppress free speech around the world. The big globalist IT operators have been working together to silence populists, opponents of mass immigration and people who tell the truth about Islam. In the UK, we no longer get truth-telling TV documentaries like "Undercover Mosques"...No one dare tell the truth anymore in our mainstream media - that's the quick way to end your career. Instead, all the UK MSM have been, or are being, turned into mouthpieces of the dogma of globalist PC multiculturalism. Even in the world of newspapers, we see the Mail on the path to PC multiculturalism, and the pro-Brexit Express has been taken over by the pro-Remain Mirror Group, and will no doubt be on a "re-education" trajectory if it isn't already. The anti-semitism issues within the Labour Party can almost appear a diversion in this context but I think again we can say that had these issues arisen 20 years ago, before Sharia promoters got such a hold on Labour, Corbyn would have had to have resigned. The upshot of the anti-semitism scandal has been that we have now seen anti-semitism normalised in British politics. It's ironic when you think back to someone like Keith Joseph a star of mid-70s UK poliitcs, a Jew, who had to effectively retire from politics thanks to some mild remarks he made about inherited intelligence which his enemies interpreted as support for N*** style eugenics...I have found these recent developments quite frightening. This drift can only end up in one place: an unfree society. But where are the voices warning about this? We have no elected MPs speaking up - not a single one...we have only the honourable exception of Lord Pearson in Parliament daring to speak up. This is a slightly bathetic point to end on, but I heard an alleged "satirist" (these days that means "supports globalist billionaires") on Radio 4's "The Now Show" do a skit on democracy, as in "Isn't democracy crap because it keeps delivering the wrong answers?". Could you imagine that sort of attack on democracy being considered acceptable in 2014? I don't think so. That's how far we have travelled down the road to an unfree society, just 4 years later. The "First Past the Post" voting system might yet be the death of us.
A very good and thought-provoking THOUGHT FOR THE DAY I must say. It is all quite frightening.
Thanks MB - and I thought I was depressed about the state of things before!
Sorry Sis, didn't mean to be depressing. I am not naturally depressive...I think I am being realistic, sadly. In previous times, the UK has experienced justifiable optimism. In the late 40s we saw the welfar state being built, which hugely improved the lives of millions in terms of basic health provision and social security. In the 50s we saw an unprecedented economic boom that lifted tens of millions out of absolute poverty. In the 60s we saw huge social changes that created marvellous opportunities for working class people and for women. The 70s were a bit of a blip but in the 80s we again saw rising prosperity and the promise that everyone would soon be able to own a decent home if they wished. And then...it all started to go wrong and has been going wrong ever since in my view. To sum it up in three points I would say: mass immigration, political correctness and the overweening dominance of the finance sector (determining UK economic policy e.g. the high pound strategy). The three together have proved a poisonous brew from which the political class have taken deep draughts and turned themselves into barely functioning imbeciles capabled only of incanting meaningless soundbites.
MB: No apology required - if I am depressed it is precisely because your analysis of it all is, indeed, realistic!
To your list of reasons not to be cheerful, MB, you might mention the cultural desert we have entered. Art architecture, music, theatre etc have all become damaged by the perceived need that art must carry a political message. Corporate, licence fee, and charity-backed patronage has allowed the PC ideology to permeate every avenue that might otherwise lift our spirits. Publicly displayed Christian sculpture is effectively banned in London.
.... New... Publicly displayed Christian sculpture is effectively banned in London...
Yes, indeed Arthur. Much of TV and radio has been made bland, absurd, dishonest or unintentionally comic by the all pervading creed of political correctness. They will in time attempt to remove all our statues in our great cities, since nearly every one depicts a racist, an imperialist, a cultural supremacist or a war monger. Give it another 10 years - it's already started in our universities.
The next President of the United States of America? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvqjXxDDxOEThey could do worse... :)
OAN is good...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6PODCwP0CI
There are some stories that tick all the boxes, and then there are some stories that tick all the boxes AND give the BBC an orgasm. This is one such: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/stories-46074563/what-is-green-cake-and-why-did-this-woman-invent-it- Female TICK- Female entrepreneur TICK- Ethnic minority TICK- Islam TICK- Hijab TICK- Palestinian TICK- Israel as warmonger TICK- Israel blockading Gaza TICK- Gaza TICK- Destruction of poor persecuted Gaza TICK- Recycling TICK- Global warming TICK
Also I think this is Fake News, folks, it really is...Why? Because they claim the woman "invented" this recycling technique. When I just googled there were loads of very similar techniques involving recycling rubble...there doesn't seem anything special about this one.
John Simpson should be consulted. He knows about rocks and second uses for them in the Middle East and, given the chance, Pakistan.
Try this one from 14'38" :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaVx9r7T6toWhat motivates the chap with the orangutang haircut ?It's really beyond my ken, and I ken a lot.
I like orangutangs...that guy's line of argument was an insult to the intelligence of orangutans! So someone sitting in a room in Ascuncion, Paraguay can acquire constitutional rights simply by announcing "I intend to walk to the USA and request asylum." Absurd. But the asylum treaties are themselves now rendered absurd by jet travel, modern communications and our modern sensibilities. The treaties need to be junked. I am sure Trump has that on his to-do list but it's a very long list and it might take time to get there but I hope he does. When the treaties were written, there was no real recognition of how whole peoples might move across a border as "refugees" in a move more like the Goths en masse crossing the frozen Danube back in the 4th century. It is absurd to allow invasion under the guise of asylum. The whole bogus show needs to be halted. One practical way is the Australian method of taking any asylum claimant a thousands miles away from the target destination and doing a very thorough appraisal of the application, but really that shouldn't be necessary.
I like orangutans too. I'd like to think a few of them are having a meeting somewehere on the edge of a palm oil plantation debating why this opportunistic moron has appropriated their hairstyle.
Recently, there have been two examples of BBC tv output which suggests that radicalised Islamic terrorists have a soft side whereby with the correct approach, from the PC caring authorities, would-be bombers can be dissuaded from detonating their suicide vests. The first (female) was in the recent Bodyguard drama, and a second (male) in last night's Nordic Noire Beck drama. Of course, the latter was a Swedish language production.Is there any evidence anywhere that in reality this spontaneous change of heart to elect not to detonate, as per the programmed viciousness we understand to be the terrorist's mindset, has actually happened?If not, then the broadcast of an 'all hope is not lost' message when dealing with prospective bombers, is disingenuous.
Yes, the terrorists are all cuddle-bears beneath the burqa and the suicide bomb belts...in BBC Drama. Actually I didn't watch much of Beck, but the bit I saw sounded a lot more realistic than BBC efforts. Some of the terrorists expressed their religious loathing of unbelievers, especially the ones beginning with J. No punches appeared to be pulled in that regard.
What is firework night or Firework Night, Andrew Marr? Is this a BBC coinage? Or the new Winterval?
Firework Night is when we burn an effigy of an intolerant ideologue plotting to overthrow our way of life. So I think an effigy of a senior BBC news and current affairs presenter would be a good choice.
The BBC is now actively propagandising on behalf of extreme Sharia - https://twitter.com/bbcthesocial/status/1058328116517453824?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1058775977411506176&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fbiasedbbc.org%2Fblog%2F2018%2F11%2F02%2Fweekend-open-thread-3-november-2018%2Fcomment-page-2%2F%23commentsThe only good thing about the above is the comments, many of which are "robust" shall we say...
'BBC The Social' is another service I didn't know licence-payers are funding.
News story today - Can we tell yet if the democrats will win? Impartial? LolUS mid-terms: Will it be a good night for Democrats? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45013748
Yes where's the "- let's hope so"! lol Can you think of a single BBC reporter or presenter who isn't rooting for the Dems? Maybe Andrew Neil, but that's about it I would say. And he'll soon be gone.
Impartiality at the BBC is nailed, like jelly, to the door. Or something. Along with pictures of Mrs. T. They are probably saving Mr. Banks for a year end round up swap.I am soon to reply to their 'we think we got it about Blue in the Face' initial blow offs, and will bear this latest one in mind as I do. Did Dorothy click her MAGA hat to get back to Kansas?
Monday night is serious documentary night on television and it seems to be also on Radio 4 tonight. Analysis's contribution is How to Kill a Democracy - and ah, they don't mean the anti-Brexit brigade: https://www.bbc.co.uk/schedules/p00fzl7jFollowing on is Bridget Kendall on the post-war settlement and what's happened to it. Then in the bedtime slot a historical sweep of broken promises and the lasting effects by Sarah Dunant.Other offerings throughout the day include Joshua Rozenberg casting an eye over the Christian Legal Centre - suitable case for criticism I am sure but I'd like to know whether the BBC has cast its probing sceptical eye upon any other of the many legal sources and supports for special causes and groups. And Ernie Ray on how best to remember the war dead - this afternoon.
I’m just wondering why Sadiq Khan got such an easy ride from the BBC today when he said violent crime in London would take ten years to sort out. If the government or Boris made that statement I think they would had felt the full force of BBC indignation and negative reporting with all guns blazing.As it is, the London mayor received a passive hearing on the BBC website report with no criticism or dissenting voices. No reality checks or analysis of his assertion.
"Boris promises 'Decade of Death' " "May-hem: Ten more years of murder, says PM"BBC Reality Check:"Why will it take so long to deal with London's murder rate or are the Tories lying?"
More virtue signalling and ignorant bollocks from the BBC, what would you have done in World War 1 https://armistice-day.bbcrewind.co.uk/#/region-selectIt seems, according to the BBC that; "It was initially unclear if Wales would be an enthusiastic advocate. Welsh nonconformism and Liberalism were powerful forces which did not tend to look favourably upon militarism."Really, wasn't Lloyd George Welsh ?Then, of course the BBC goes on to explain "One factor which influenced Welsh recruitment was the plight of Belgium, a small country, like Wales, facing the aggression of a domineering larger neighbour." So the sacrifice of those soldiers from Wales was just a form of welsh nationalism, really...So lets meet a Welsh war hero then, ah ! A nurse from Newport, I don't doubt her contribution at all but one can't help but think a box has just been ticked. Disrespectful PC horseshit.Seriously, is anyone organizing a mass withdrawal from the TV licence, it's legal and relatively hassle free, as long as you are willing not to watch live TV from the BBC.
The one thing the BBC won't tell you is that most soldiers from the UK in the Great War were cheerfully supportive of the cause, felt they were fighting for King and Empire and had no regrets about what they did. Indeed for many young men from the UK's impoverished working class communities in our great cities the war came as something of a blessing releasing them from economic insecurity, an inadequate diet and a grim narrow existence engaged in repetitive industrial work. Troops at the front were regularly rotated so, for a lot of the time, the soldiers were enjoying R&R behind the lines. The BBC is only interested in looking at the war through the "war poet" filter.
See Gerard Batten's latest take on the state of Brexit negotiations:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1yTrLJ-tBwIf true, and Gerard Batten thinks it is, then for the majority of the electorate who voted Leave in the 2016 referendum this will be a sickening kick in the teeth - to 17.4 million.
Laura K has just posted a page on the BBC News website Politics page:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46105213With the headline '10 pointers on where we are with Brexit'Throughout the longish piece there is no mention at all of the possible/probable concessions made by Gerard Batten. LK avoids the crunch - supportive of Theresa May, in the expectation that the nation can be hoodwinked into a 'worst of all worlds' BRINO deal.
Poor wording:... Throughout the longish piece there is no mention at all of the possible/probable concessions being made by Theresa May and the UK Government - as highlighted by Gerard Batten....
This is appalling propaganda masquerading as journalism. She writes:"The Irish border is still the biggest sticking point, although the EU has conceded the principle (after saying it couldn't happen) that a UK-wide customs agreement can be somehow written into the divorce deal as the backstop - remind yourself what that's all about here. "I don't think that actually makes any sense. The backstop was all about what happens if there is no trade deal at the end of the day. That is the real backstop. Is she trying to say that the Irish sea border demand has been dropped? Well if so, why doesn't she say it - because it's a humiliating admission by the BBC that they have gone along with the EU propaganda line, if they now have to concede it was baloney all along? Furthermore, we now know that the Irish Government and the EU have ALREADY agreed that in the event of no deal there will be no requirement on the Republic to set up hard border posts on its side of the border! Where is that mentioned? The Irish border never was a "problem" as LK and the BBC describe it. It was a very effective negotiating technique designed to cause the maximum trouble and tension on the UK side - and it worked a treat thanks to May's weakness in negotiation. But the idea it is insoluble is absurd since we know the Irish government and the EU have agreed they won't have a hard border in the event of no deal. Of course it suits May to pretend there is a problem.
The BBC - its women reporters and presenters in particular (Emily Maitlis was one who threw caution to the wind) - adopted a high moral tone of "believe the women" in relation to the Kavanagh hearings. Take a look at this story. A second - yes second - anti-Kavanagh witness has admitted she lied. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/3/another-kavanaugh-accuser-admits-fabricating-rape-/Has this story featured on the BBC? Not that I can find. This so goes against the BBC ideology, that you can see why they would bury the story.
I think this one will go one step further from being buried to being disappeared.
Remember when Arron Banks was leaving the BBC interview with the hand-flapping Marr and was besieged by a Channel 4 crew wanting an interview? One of his barbs was that Crick was the doorstepper par excellence and he wouldn't deal with anyone lesser. This reminded me of Crick the comical figure who used to pop up on the Newsnight beat running after politicians, usually unsuccessfully. Imagine my surprise then on coming across this amusing item which shows that Banks's little joke wasn't just a handy jibe:'Specialist Journalist of the Year: Michael Crick...Nominees: Chris Cook - Newsnight Jason Farrell "From his forensic investigation of election expenses, his dogged pursuit of Paul Nuttall in Stoke and one of the longest doorsteps all the way down Whitehall, this was vintage stuff from a specialist at the top of his form. Tremendous, excellent, outstanding work." 'Even for luvvies awarding luvvies, they couldn't be more effusive at the Royal Television Awards. And it must have been sweet for Old Boy Crick to beat the nominee from his old employer at Newsnight.https://rts.org.uk/award/television-journalism-awards-2018-sponsored-guestbooker
It's almost as if Anthony Zurcher wants some things to happen, and others not...https://twitter.com/awzurcher/status/1058345938941632514
No surprise that there was biased reporting about the US elections on the main BBC news tonight. The Democrats had nothing negative said about them or their policies in the entire report so they must be the force for good. By contrast, most of the things said about Trump were bad. Nick Bryant mentioned the ‘pink wave’ of women against Trump and how voters are concerned about the Trump presidency’s tone and policies. Another reporter said Trump was deeply unpopular in the suburbs. Yet another talked of Trumps hostility to immigration and the Hispanic vote for Democrats. As usual, Jon Sopel pulled a face whilst talking down Trump and spoke enthusiastically about the Democrats.
In the BBC, there is a hierarchy of delusion...people like Mark Urban are at the lower levels and people likeNick Bryant are way up in the clouds. I'm getting my news tonight from the alt media in the USA...doesn't seem to be corresponding with the BBC but that was the case in 2016 as well. :)
At last the BBC does something useful - taking possession of a leak setting out the Government's media strategy for selling the secret Brexit deal, the deal that the UK media are still trying to tell us hasn't been done yet... Who said you can't polish a turd? :) https://order-order.com/2018/11/06/in-full-brexit-grid-leak/
Yes, but they've done nothing with it MB. They've been too busy meddling in someone else's politics. I guess that there is nothing going on anywhere else in the world. BTW MB, I've just found out which city is the biggest in the southern hemisphere. And its also the biggest in the western hemisphere. And I can't say that I've ever heard it mentioned (or seen it) on the BBC. How can they avoid it? Oh, and Craig - its not Morcambe - sorry.
Katty Kay putting on her best "The Queen has passed away" face on hearing her co-presenter announce the Dem is 12 points behind the Republican in Indiana.
Hearing "Zurcher the Berserker" speak to the nation now...quite horrible vocal intonation. And totally dumb content.
Watching the BBC coverage of the US mid terms...so funny...They are all so concerned to make the loser Beto O'Rourke a winner! :) He obviously has had the golden hand placed on his shoulder...To me from the bits of footage I've seen he looks a complete dork.
It's quite enjoyable watching the BBC presenters' reactions as Republicans win seats. :)
Could you ever imagine a BBC presenter saying voters "held their noses" and voted for Obama or Hillary? No neither can I...but on BBC News it's not a prob when you refer to a Republican candidate picking up votes. :) BBC - "Biased since 1923"
Can't believe how racist the BBC are...Katty Kay says Texas will become Democrat when eventually Texas becomes non-white majority.
Zurcher writes in his piece for the BBC website‘In the House of Representatives, however, the story is different. The path of least resistance for Democrats to a majority in that chamber led through educated suburban districts that had long voted for Republicans.’The bias here is with the word ‘educated’.To me that implies educated people vote democrat and uneducated vote republican. It is a slur used on Brexit voters too.Inserting it changes the context because it could just as easily been left out.
I was listening to Jeremy Vine today having a phone-in on the US elections. One caller said that the BBC were completely out of touch and didn’t understand that Trump was popular with many Americans and they liked his policies. JV replied by saying that maybe she was right and voters didn’t mind that President Trump grabbed pussies, called all Mexican migrants rapists and mocked the disabled by doing cruel impressions. Right there, with his incredulous tone as he spoke the caller was proved right.Vine encapsulated the BBC liberal righteousness that poisons the entire corporation.
Yes every one of those points is a Democrat-approved barb...1. He didn't say HE grabbed pussies - he said that if you are rich and famous enough you COULD grab pussies. That is probably true - or certainly was true - from what we know now from the Me Too movement. And it was hardly anything new or we would all have to plead ignorance of the phrase "casting couch". 2. It was an ambiguous phrase. But he never said in clear term all male Mexican migrants were rapists or even that most of them were...he simply implied that there were rapists among them. 3. He used that mocking gesture with lots of non-disabled journalists or politicians (you can see three or four of them on video). You might argue a serious politician shouldn't use such gestures per se but there is no proof it was aimed particularly at that journalist because of his disability. In fact you might say Trump was an equal opporunity insulter.
Sir TH - From a fair list of BBC worthies, I am blocked on twitter by Mr. Vine. Embracing my inner Mandy Rice-Davies i do not feel it was warranted as the worst I might do is tease. I am never rude. Usually it happens when they decide to engage and get backed into a corner and it remains the sole way to get out.I am currently assembling a montage for any Beeboid Editors on high horses about such actions elsewhere, especially in another country where the public does not have to uniquely fund them.
He is a typical BBC liberal hypocrite - an advocate of free speech, so long as you agree with him. His unconscious bias and insincerity is unmatched on BBC radio.
The BBC fascination with US politics is without any reciprocation. Many Americans would struggle to name the UK Prime Ministers since Tony Blair. They couldn't give a damn about our parliamentary democracy. Their domestic news rarely mentions any everyday stories from the UK.That Sopel and his DC cohorts in their plumb BBC jobs think that they have any influence over events in the USA amounts to a delusion of grandeur. The question is: Why does the BBC continue to plough so much time effort and money into bringing us the blow-by-blow progress of these US mid-term elections when they don't do the same at election time in our supposed best friends' parliaments in the EU?
In case we were in any doubt over this fascination or should that be obsession, a story just came onto the BBC News website Home page:... 'Ruth Bader Ginsburg: US Supreme Court judge fractures ribs in fall' ...No doubt we are sympathetic towards an 85 year-old falling, but really, that's not UK Home page news. I guess the sub-text is that Donald Trump might strengthen his position in the Supreme Court if Ruth Bade Ginsburg were to step down - and the BBC wouldn't want that would they.
Agreed, it infuriates me. They spend the first 15 minutes of main news bulletins on the US , then squeeze the major UK items into the last 10 minutes as an afterthought. I always shout at the TV and radio ‘we aren’t interested,let’s hear about British news’.
Yes, I've said before that there's a degree of laziness which comes into play as US news is served up on a plate for our DC Intrepid news hounds.
Well said. I often complain about this. Another point is the expense involved. The BBC have at least 20 people based in the US reporting on it - and probably more support staff. But in terms of coverage they could just use CNN or one of the other BBC-like organisations.
"...when they don't do the same at election time in our supposed best friends' parliaments in the EU? "Because everyone in 'Europe' believes in the EU and there is no dissent. Only the UK is out of step, like a naughty child. That is why we need to accept the discipline of the EU and become 'good Europeans'.
So what is the purpose of this article about Dominic Raab?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46142188It’s informs us that he was surprised to learn the extent of UK trade through Dover and how reliant we are on the port.The are five attributable quotes in the report, all highly critical of his admission.To my mind, it’s not really newsworthy and so it’s purpose must be to damage and smear.
Question Time, Knife Crime - Kwasi Kwarteng was subjected to a belligerent interruption from Dimbleby in the opening minutes. Perhaps he could do the same to Diane Abbott - you know, something along the lines of, "How many extra police do you think we need and how much would they cost?" :)
The man had barely got going before he started. He couldn't wait to get stuck in. I thought what a nasty piece of work and it took me years to recognise it. Perhaps he's got worse. I don't know. I used to call his brother the pouncer but he was just as quick to pounce there.
Good Post from Gammon at BBBC:.... 'Listening to R4 this morning. UK STOCKPILING FOOD.They had a man on who owns a massive refrigeration facility here in the UK. Because of UK STOCKPILING FOOD he has sold all his space for Q1 2019. Because of BREXIT…. the UK IS STOCKPILING FOOD.Who is buying he space? Oh says the chap – EU FOOD PRODUCERS…. why? Because THEY are worried about borders and selling their EU food into the UK.So the story is EU STOCKPILING FOOD TO SELL IN THE UKThe story is that EU NEED AND WANT SMOOTH TRADE as much as we doBut no – BBC focus on UK STOCKPILING FOOD and no interest in the real story or getting behind the headlineThis made me question if this was Bias or just media always looking to stir things up and create conflict where there is none. Media as the enemy of the people and a force for ill not good. Bias yes but perhaps worse.' ...With a population of some 400 million plus, the only voices we hear are from the EU Commission. Where are the voices of the EU exporters?
UK economy growing by fastest rate since late 2016...tucked away in a corner without a pic on the front page of the BBC website. "Retailers closing 12 shops a day" is main attraction with big pic! It doesn't even sound like that many shops to be honest, across a nation of 70 million. But no, it's numero uno...it's almost as if they knew the growth figures would be released today and wanted to make sure they had something ready of a gloomy nature should that be required.
It'd be interesting to know the rate of opening and closing of new and old small businesses including shops, over a period of say, twenty to thirty years and how today's rate of closure of shops compares, and what if any, conclusions can be drawn, given variations in conditions and circumstances in different years or decades. There is always a lot of opening and closing of small businesses; without context, we don't know whether the figure cited by the BBC is particularly bad or not; the implication seems to be that it is but that could be knee-jerk doom-laden assumption 'it must be bad' or scaremongering.
The BBC loves racial categorising. It loves the NHS. And it loves returning to the theme of diabetes, which in turn feeds into its anti-sugar and anti-alcohol campaigns. Diabetes which costs the NHS something like £15 billion per annum is indeed an important issue, but the BBC aren't giving you all the facts. It doesn't like to do is address all the facts or the reasons for the huge rise in diabetes cases. But if you check scholarly articles you will find the truth, as follows:"Type 2 diabetes accounts for at least 90% of diabetes worldwide.7 The prevalence among the white European population varies from 2% overall to 10% in age group above 70 years. It is much more common in the ethnic minorities groups residing in the developed countries; South Asian and African-Caribbean groups in the UK in particular have a high prevalence."https://pmj.bmj.com/content/81/958/486The BBC is engaged in an active cover-up of this fact, as they do regarding the impact of FGM on the NHS (14 specialised clinics at the last count) or birth defects arising from cousin marriage. The BBC is a Fake News service in that regard, prioritising ideology (PC multiculturalism) over facts.
The effects of alcohol on the South Asian group if held up as a cause is also disproportionate.
From diabetes UK report 2010 - Type 2 diabetes is up to six times more common in people of South Asian descent and up to three times more common among people of African and African-Caribbean origin.https://www.diabetes.org.uk/resources-s3/2017-11/diabetes_in_the_uk_2010.pdfYep - let’s blame sugar and obesity - let’s not mention genetics/ethnicity as no doubt us ‘crazy-white-xenophobic-right-wing’ are so unhinged we will call for the deportation of South Asians and Blacks from the UK, or even worse, start openingly hating them for destroying the NHS. The BBC are only doing their moral duty by suppressing the causes as they casually mention genetics/ethnicity being a factor for type II diabetes but give it no real context. I think SIX times more likely would be worth knowing for the South Asian community from our national broadcaster, a public service to make them more aware that they have a much higher risk? Surely that is what a public service broadcaster is there to do, rather than worry about what the far-right would do with the information... maybe build more fast-food joints and sweet shops in mainly South Asian areas?
The headline for Anthony Zurcher's "thought" piece - "Mid-term election results: The lessons US Democrats can learn for 2020" - almost makes it sound like he is a Democrat musing on prospects for the Democrats with the hope of success in 2020...perish the thought.
Last week on the Now Show they had a "comedian" moaning about democracy and how it keeps coming up with crap decisions. This week they had a "comedian" on celebrating the suppression of free speech, in particular free speech by people like Tommy Robinson. Good to know our satirical comedy is so "progressive" these days.
I copied this from The Telegraph and I am wondering whether it is okay for Beeboids to be blatantly anti-car. Is isn’t even about petrol vs electric - he is campaigning against driving - full stop. Jeremy Vine has said the BBC should drop the name 'Drivetime' from Radio 2 because it encourages driving in 'post-car Britain'.The presenter and avid cyclist complained that the phrase was celebrating “a form of transport that kills 1,700 people a year”.Mr Vine, who has been the victim of road rage, also said the nation’s “addiction” to cars was making people “fat and angry”.In a tweet, Mr Vine said: "Drivetime on Radio 2 is being rebooted in 2019 with Sara Cox who will be BRILLIANT. However I'd like to ask the BBC to stop calling it "Drivetime."
He wants cyclists to listen to Ridetime with earplugs in? That really is a kamikaze solution. I like being a pedestrian, a cyclist and a motorist as the mood takes me. When I am a pedestrian I hate cyclists and motorists. When I am a cyclist I hate pedestrians and motorists. And when I am a motorist, I hate pedestrians and cyclists. It's not rocket science! :)
Vine the Whine. That man is an utter pain. Not that I'd mind at all if they changed the name. I suppose they could name it Hometime which wouldn't be vehicle or conveyance specific. Otherwise I'd be tempted to suggest for a laugh 'I'm on the Train Time'.
Or just "Delayed Time"? Or "All Commutes Are Equal"? Did he apply for the job and not get it? "Vine Time"?
Vine is also a strong supporter of his religious faith, and yet religious faiths appear to me to be the cause of more than 1700 deaths per year. Perhaps he would like to campaign about that too.
Maybe he feels he already rides a lighter, less polluting religious vehicle that doesn't kill anyone - Kristolite might be its brand name?
Interestingly the BBC Wales has taken the bold anti-car decision to locate its new broadcast centre in the middle of Cardiff. Limited parking, staff expected to cycle and use public transport. Just one slight issue, they built it where Cardiff bus station used to be...
They just take a tacsi don't they? :)
"also include a 249-space private car park, mainly for the new BBC Cymru Wales headquarters being built next door"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-46114122
The BBC references Republican "hate" (alleged - no real evidence) towards a Democrat. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-46121558/nancy-pelosi-the-return-of-the-woman-republicans-love-to-hateBut absolutely nothing about the attack on Tucker Carlson's home by Left Wing Fascist Antifa. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1kXt7EVtPwAren't the BBC truly malevolent and disgusting? - pro-thug violence, against decency.
An oddity that caught my eye on the website:'Presenter: Paul LewisProducer: Alex LewisReporter: Dan LewisEditor: Richard Lewis'A dynasty to rival the Johnsons? It turns out not to be. It's the list of credits for the Money Box programme on Radio 4 and just as I was wondering about it, Paul Lewis read out the closing credits, Lewis, Lewis and Lewis but added that they weren't related. Aw.
I would encourage everyone to watch The Pledge on Sky News this week, or at least the first discussion item, about Knife Crine, introduced by Carole Malone.During the discussion, Trevor Phillips made a several important points;- recent, post year 2000, immigration from war torn countries is the real driver of the vast increase in Knife related deaths- the BBC & The Guardian never report the fact that the real culprits and losers of Knife Crime are young Black Men. He repeated this accusation several times.- more police will not make any difference to the Knife Crime epidemic - the so called, Glasgow approach, favoured by Sadiq Khan, was roundly ridiculed as a possible solution - poverty and deprivation was not seen as the root cause of the Knife Crime explosion, as Phillips pointed out that other areas of extreme poverty such as Sunderland, Jaywick or Hastings had little or no knife incidents- Phillips did say that those young immigrants arriving from areas of conflict had little support from Government following their arrival / settlement in the UK.This was the first time anywhere in the media did I hear the claim that mass immigration was a major driver for the rapid explosion in Knife crime. Only a Black man could do it. Much respect to Trevor Phillips. I am not sure he will be invited on to BBC Today or anywhere on the BBC to discuss his views on Knife crime.
He speaks openly and honestly about subjects where others dare not tread. As s result I haven’t seen or heard him on BBC for years. The BBC prefer to bury or ignore many real issues facing British society in the interests of social cohesion.That approach just makes things worse and breeds distrust - it’s a disgrace but there is no one to take the BBC on. No politician and no-one at the BBC, such is the grip on power by the PC liberal elite.
Yes, that's well worth watching.
Yes Trev was dropped by the MSM when he decided to start telling the truth. That said, I don't entirely agree with him about police patrols. They are a necessary if not sufficient condition to addressing this awful social problem. If you use an absurdist analysis, were we to have a million Police Officers patrolling the capital it seems pretty clear you would get a huge reduction in knife crime. Just work your way down to a figure where you think it makes no difference. I think that figure is well above the current figure for patrolling police officers on foot or bicycle (close to zero now I would say, leaving aside transport hubs). Also it's a bit naive to say this problem post- dates 2000. But it was quite amusing the way the Somalis suddenly came on the scene with their ultraviolence putting the wind up the "tough" dudes. One part of the solution is to create specific laws targetting gang behaviour (the violent drill videos, criminal association etc).
There is an article on the front page of the BBC website “Knife Crime is not just a Black Issue”, written by the rapper Professor Green. Rather naively I thought he was a real professor. Unfortunately, the horrendous statistics in London suggest exactly the opposite. The contrast between Trevor Philips and the Guardian journalist in “The Pledge” was remarkable. He approached the issue with a great deal of sincerity and a real desire to understand whereas she simply trotted out all the usual leftist platitudes - much like the “Professor”. The people are helped the least by failing to approach the problem honestly and blaming poverty, housing etc are the black kids themselves who are involved in this carnage.In exactly the same way we will never understand, let alone eradicate racism if we frame it as only something white people do to black people.
But it might, just might, be one of those Laura Kuennesberg articles where she might, just might, use her signature phrase "might, just might" which allows her to make things sound very dramatic without actually committing herself to what might happen, and thus exposing her bogus "expertise" to evaluation. "Jo Johnson's departure could only take away one crucial vote from the government. But it might, just might, be the first of a group of ministers to go who could shift the balance in a very big way. "https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46149903
This story has been the leading headline for two days. I suspect that the BBC now realise that the PM's compromises will fail to gain sufficient support in the Commons to be carried. Here is Jo Johnson calling for a second referendum. That message will receive the full support of the BBC. The next phase from the BBC will be that Theresa May's position is now hopelessly weak, but the no deal outcome must be avoided at all costs. That leaves just the two options, a General Election or a 'People's Vote'. Either is preferable to a no deal, as they might allow Brexit to be parked with an indefinite transition period or better still, revoke Article 50 and stay in the EU.
As the Chinese curse goes, we are living in interesting times...The options appear to be: 1. No deal 2. Second referendum. 3. General election. May has ruled out 1 and 3 but not 2. Of course if you go to a General Election you "have" to have a manifesto...this could cause a serious split in the Conservative Party...you'll have anti-Chequers Tories standing on a platform opposed to the manifesto. It's not impossible (Ken Clarke has always opposed the Conservative Manifesto!) but you are in weird territory. I think that is most likely. May goes to the country and she gets the backing of the country with an increased majority for her lamentable capitulation deal on the basis it is kind of Brexit. I'm still thinking it all through...there are a lot of variables! Key of course is the EU. If they decide to go full tilt for a second referendum, that could alter things.
OHHHH sorry I meant she has ruled out 1 and 2 but not 3. And when I say she has ruled out 1 I mean effectively so, although in theory she claims it is still there.
Agreed MB: ...'I think that is most likely. May goes to the country and she gets the backing of the country with an increased majority for her lamentable capitulation deal on the basis it is [a] kind of Brexit.' ... The threat that Corby/McDonnell could form a government is receding with every day that passes. That Boris makes a leadership challenge also looks less likely.So, the electorate is hoodwinked, the majority who voted to leave are left to suck the mop, and we remain ever tied to the EU as a rule taker - not rule maker.
Emily Thornberry says that Labour MPs would vote down Theresa May's compromise Brexit deal in order to force a General Election. Won't it be interesting to see what the traditionally pro-Labour BBC do in that event? My guess is that they would back May over Corbyn because in that way, a better chance that their dream of staying in the EU would be realised. Remember, in order for the far-left policies of Corbyn/McDonnell such as nationalisation to be realised, the UK would need to be outside the grasp of the EU.Perhaps the smart money should be placed on Labour - allowing them to complete the Brexit promise before being voted out through incompetence, and following that, a renewed Conservative party under different leadership should be shoehorned back into power. We'll see.
Arthur - I think the BBC will play for a hung Parliament. They started off trying to boost the Lib Dems in 2017 - it was only when that strategy felt flat on its face that they switched to support of Corbyn. This time they'll try and get the hung parliament by supporting Corbyn from the outset. They've given up on the Lib Dems. A hung parliament is the best way of delivering a second referendum and also creating opporunities for a revival of the soggy left (neo Blairites) under Chuka or similar (they would be hoping that a minority Labour government will destroy Corbyn).
Guido sets out the complexities surrounding the voting down Theresa May's Brexit plans in Parliament:.... 'The Government’s fundamental problem with getting a deal through Parliament – if it even gets through Cabinet – is that voting down the deal is all things to all people. The Labour frontbench sees it as the best route to a general election. Brexiteers see it as the way to force ‘no deal’. Remainers see it as their best chance of securing a second referendum. The Johnson-Johnson pincer movement looks particularly dangerous for the Government.' ...
Many of us here have criticised the BBC's obsession with the USA and American politics - which really means flag waving for the Dems. This obsession has a cost in terms of who gets broadcast time. We hardly ever, perhaps never, hear about a country like Botswana: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_BotswanaThey have a successful economy and relatively low corruption levels. Wouldn't it be interesting to hear about them on the BBC? As things go, you are lucky to hear anything about South Africa, let alone Botswana, because of the American obsession of the BBC.
Not sure why but this somehow reminds me of UK politics at the moment:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPwimXNrQZg
Anthony Zurcher shows he is an "impartial, free and fair" journalist in the grand tradition of Jon Sopel. :)https://twitter.com/awzurcher/status/1061383977867599877
I may be in a minority here but I am feeling increasingly nauseated by the actions of the "Remembrance Industry". This is a day of "licensed patriotism" (only a few days each year - World Cup, Royal Weddings and Olympics included) but you have to suspend all rational judgement if you take part in it - and also be very choosy about who you feel empathy with. Before I make further comment, let me stress that I had very close relatives whose lives were either ended or made drastically less whole by WW2. I would like to say also that when Remembrance was a bit of a minority pursuit, I was quite keen on it, as it seemed important and noble. Now, it seems to me to have become cheapened, grossly politicised and rendered virtually meaningless. Here are some of my concerns:1. What does Remembrance mean now, as we go forward? It seems to be some sort of confection of emotion. No one is alive now who served in WW1. Maybe 5% of the population have any genuine emotional connection to that war, in terms of feeling its direct impact on their lives in any large degree. But many of those are fading away in a miasma of memory as they suffer dementia. For most people it's really a kind of emotional self-indulgence to claim they are deeply affected by WW1. Why are we not reverencing the fallen soldiers of the Napoleonic Wars 100 years earlier? Why aren't people feeling the same reverence for their sacrifice to defend us from "tyranny" - albeit a Napoleonic invasion might well have liberated many peasants and paupers from their crushed lives. 2. The frank fact is that 90% of fallen British soldiers in WW1 would now be execrated by the BBC, the Guardian and Prime Minister May as vile racists and aggressors who approved of empire, white rule over people of colour, oppression of women or persecution of homosexuals. And remember also the current ideology is that if someone is found guilty of such offences, they must be stripped of all honours, and subjected to public obloquy - not just now but for all time. Well all time going forwards - but what about time going backwards? There is a contradiction there! 3. The Remembrance Racket is now completely politicised. We had this weekend Macron, President of France (not exactly the country to deliver lectures on "nationalism", eh, De Gaulle?), delivering a lecture on how patriotism is opposed to nationalism (obviously meant as a reproof to his boyfriend, sorry ally, Donald) at a Remembrance event. The generation of 1918 would really not have recognised any distinction between patriotism, nationalism, and imperialism. The vast majority thought you should be patriotic to your nation. Nationalism for them was a fact. Patriotism was just an active expression of what the fact of nationalism implied. Imperialism was generally viewed as a perfectly reasonable extension of nationalism, taking progress to benighted peoples. One of the effects of the Great War was to render that sentiment a black joke, so to speak. 4. Where does all the Poppy money go? You will be none the wiser if you look at the Royal British Legion's accounts as I did a few years ago. 5. Real Remembrance - remembrance of something that has truly affected your emotional core - is noble and to be respected. But that is not what we are being asked to engage in. Rather, we are being asked to emote. I find that artifical emoting sickening.
Continued...I salute Peter Jackson's film because it is something of a reproof to that - since you can see so many young men enthusiastic for war and enjoying the experience publicly, whatever their inner fears. Of course, it's not sold that way on the MSM - because that doesn't fit in with the Remembrance Narrative. In short I think: 1. We need to dial down on Remembrance and make it once again a much more personal form of memorialising. Why do we hear so little of people who lost loved ones in N. Ireland? 2. We need to investigate where all the charity money goes. Why do we still have so many ex servicemen and women not doing well given there is so much money sloshing around. 3. We need to depoliticise Remembrance. There is absolutely no need for any speeches of any kind from politicians at Remembrance events.
I don't disagree with any of that. I think you're right on every point. I meant to watch that Peter Jackson film tonight as the clips that I've seen seem revelatory. It's astonishing how the change from black-and-white to (added) colour can bring people from a hundred years ago so vividly back to life. The question of the Royal British Legion accounts question reminds me of my gran who, though strongly patriotic, fervently believed they were a bunch of crooks. I did buy a poppy this year though. The elderly lady selling them in Aldi was so pleasant that I didn't want to let her down.
Appreciated Craig...I just feel we are having our collective melon twisted (as The Happy Mondays would have it) but for what purpose? - that's the question. And your Gran sounds like a v. wise woman indeed. :)
The cynic in me suspects that the BBC, anti-armed forces as it is, has been laying Remembrance on with a trowel in the hope that it will act as aversion therapy - much as the excessive coverage of Brexit seems to be doing.Re: the British Legion, I suppose that, as with many big charities, what was once done by volunteers is now carried out by paid fund-raisers, who consume a sizeable chunk of the money raised & are under constant pressure to bring in more cash. This has its dark side: a few years ago, my wife sent them a cheque to mark one of the big D-Day anniversaries; by way of thanks, she received a phone call from a woman who tried to persuade her to make regular contributions. When my wife politely refused, the woman attempted, first to make her feel guilty, then to bully her into changing her mind: why wouldn't she contribute?etc. Seeing that my wife was getting upset, I took the receiver from her & repeated what she had said, the woman informed me that she was dealing with my wife, not me, and that it was none of my business; at this point I committed several breaches of the Communications Act & slammed the phone down. About a year later, an elderly woman threw herself into the Avon gorge; at the inquest, it was suggested that she had been overwhelmed by the constant harassment from charities. I have often wondered if she had encountered our middle-class chugger from the RBL.
Radio 4 off to a fine start in the Bias Stakes.Anti-democrat "don't trust how the people voted" MP Justine Greening given the softest of rides by Justin. Almost like he was chatting her up over dinner (don't go there).John Humphreys always up for a bit of bias. He lies about what Trump has said on NATO and states that Trump considers NATO to be one of the enemies ranged against him...when in reality all he has done is argue that European countries need to stump up some money, in line with their stated commitments (in fact he's argued for expanding NATO's spend, hardly an anti-NATO position). Then, as always, the Aussie guy dealing with business on Today comes up with a lovely anti-Brexit story...apparently we can't recruit any Europeans because of Brexit...shock-horror! Yep, mate, if only it were true, you might be doing a good job there, rather than simply misinforming and scaring the public. Living in London, I can assure you this doesn't get even close to matching reality - in fact it is a wilful absurdity to peddle this story. But that's the BBC for you. The BBC - knowingly distorting the truth since 1923. Only difference between then and now? Now they are distorting it on behalf of PC Multiculturalism, rather than King and Empire.
I share your reservations Monkey Brains. And am equally curious to know where the money goes. Though I feel the same about all voluntary and charity organisations, large and small.Good point about NI. It being so close and so deadly for many active service men and women. In terms of impact on me, I remember Lee Rigby. It was local and thanks to social media, the savage murder of a serving member of our armed forces, was all too vivid. That's something I will never be able to forget. Or forgive.
The BBC must be breathing a sigh of relief today with two reports that support their liberal multi-cultural stance.First Professor Green saying knife crime isn’t just a black issue. Which it isn’t, but by all accounts it is a predominately black on black issue. But the BBC won’t let that get in the way of a good headline when it can divert attention away from the bigger issue and create a false equivalence. That’s well and truly put paid to Trevor Phillips comments. He is not a professor by they way, just a ‘go to’ left wing white boy rapper. Ditto with the neo-Nazi convictions and they are going big with this story. I’m not convinced that the right wing threat is anywhere as big as the Islam threat, no matter how much the BBC would like to persuade us. Once again it suits their agenda with the pretence of equivalence, hence this story pushing even Brexit off the headlines.
I could hear the whoops of delight emanating from the BBC over 'Three people have been convicted of belonging to the banned neo-Nazi group National Action'.The headline has been up there in pole position on the BBC News website Home page, but in addition to that, there was another story accompanying it for a short time this afternoon:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-45919730... 'National Action: The new parents and the neo-Nazi terror threatBy Daniel De Simone BBC News'. ...This piece, some 4-5,000 words long, with 42 pictures including maps of the distribution of 'cells' must have taken weeks to assemble. Lots of the images are copyrighted. It is made out as a 'tour de force' giving an extensive run-down of all that is to be despised in the activities of neo-nazi far right activists.What struck me was the stark difference between this BBC production, extensively researched and expensively made, and the 'blink and you'll miss it' reporting of the Huddersfield story a week or two ago. In that case, the story appeared for the minimum amount of time with the minimum amount of information.
This extravaganza has appeared now under Full Story.
We are being played by the establishment on the right wing vs Islam threat. Bury one quickly and promote the other as much as they can. Classic propoganda.
Some say....The BBC has learned...BBC News understands...Many in the cabinet are deeply concerned...Multiple sources have said..Several MPs are unhappy ...Laura Kuenssberg et all using these infuriating terms to offer up opinion and speculation today. It’s maddening.
"Some say...." = This is what I'd like to happen. The BBC has learned... = "Lord Adonis sent me a text." BBC News understands... = "Amber Rudd sent me a text." Many in the cabinet are deeply concerned... = "I had a chat with Phillip Hammond earlier"Multiple sources have said.. = "I had a drink my journalistic mates this lunchtime." Several MPs are unhappy ... = "Several is a useful word"
REALITY CHECKAn article entitled " 'Cautious optimism' over UK-EU Brexit deal talks" has just appeared on the BBC News page. In it we learn that, "Several Tory MPs are unhappy at the expected shape of the deal and have warned it will not get through Parliament." It may be true that only 'several' have issued a warning but the number who are unhappy, both Leavers and Remainers must surely be well into three figures.
Couldn't find that quote in the article when I looked just now. More stealth editing from the BBC?
Must've been - expect Craig's magic software could check!
Bias by ommision (copyright MB)No mention of the New European Army on BBC yet.https://order-order.com/2018/11/13/merkel-calls-real-european-army/#disqus_thread
Yes the populace must not be reminded that the Remainers lied about that during the Referendum campaign.
The BBC know this announcement will not go down well with the UK electorate and are still working out how to present it and whether they should support it. (They will I suspect as big Europhiles).
And on Guido's next story - Visa free travel in the EU after Brexit - the comments are all aimed at the BBC - https://order-order.com/2018/11/13/eu-commission-visa-free-travel-even-no-deal/. The troops are mobilising :-)
The BBC has published an article on the spat between Macron and Trump.It tries to be balanced but I can’t help thinking that they are on the side of Macron. Or at least on the side of globalism & liberalism. Or is it none of the above and they are simply always anti-Trump. Or maybe it’s all three!E.g. (this extract)Macron sought in his address to draw a distinction between patriotism (good) and nationalism (bad). Patriotism was what inspired the self-sacrifice of the First World War. Nationalism, he implied, is what inspires Donald Trump.AndWhat's eating Trump?As the French might well ask: quelle mouche a piqué Donald Trump? What fly has bitten the US president? Why is he suddenly on an anti-France tirade?And (The article headline). Trump mocks French leader Macron after Armistice Day visithttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46198297
All three! Macron is just their sort. Anything yet on Merkel's call for a European Army?
No, nothing. Other than a brief mention in the article I linked to above.It's one they will bury, I think.
Lucky this wasn't a Tory MP;https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-46200100There would be wall-to-wall coverage of the case if she had have been.
That doesn't count (with BBC glasses on) - same as Diane Abbott sending her kid to a private school doesn't count (never to be mentioned again). But Boris and the Bus, Boris and Infidelities, Boris and the Bullingdon Club etc etc - they all count. I was going to mention Peter Mandelson...made me think: what's he up to? Why don't we hear anything about him these days?
The only good thing about this Brexit Fiasco is that everyone is completely banjaxed. The BBC no more know how to play it than Grieve or Mogg. You can tell - the BBC folk have that desperate look in their eyes ("I don't know what's going on, will someone please tell what line I should be following?!"), rather than their normal smug expression of virtue personified. If the BBC back the Second Referendum, that might just firm up Leave resolve. If they back Corbyn, he might let his Eurosceptism triumph. If they back Chukka, the Labour Left might see Brexit as their friend. If they back Grieve or Soubry they might end up looking really stupid. It's a classic log jam! Normally it's the logs with least resistance who move first, but sometimes dynamite is required.
Is just me or are the BBC enjoying the log jam? There is none of their normal funereal tones when announcing all of this as it unfolds.Either they:a. support the BRINO approach by May and like the fact we are in a customs union, perhaps forever.b. Think that if it is voted down they are closer to a second vote or Corbyn government It looks to be a win/win for the BBC political stance. Hence they have a spring in their step.
Maybe, but there is a political risk. Leadership challenge. Boris or DD take over. Brexit delayed for a few months. New PM negotiates Canada Plus. We leave. We prosper. We never rejoin the EU.
Has this featured on the BBC yet? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4XhLiiu0is&feature=youtu.be
The BBC has rewritten its editorial guidelines to create a new “satire in the public interest” defence for some intrusive forms of journalism#2 News staff sgouls think twice before giving opinions on social media.#3 Consider handing info to police if evidence of criminal activity("consider" jeesus it's the law not to withold UNLESS against public interest)#4 Protect child actors from adult material etc.The BBC has rewritten its editorial guidelines to create a new “satire in the public interest” defence for some intrusive forms of journalismin the Times
Could the looooong, convoluted instructions of posting hyperlinked URLs on Blogger be popped as a template in the nav bar? Asking for an ITiot.
Agreed! I'm afraid that, unless a link is blue & live, so accessible on my tablet, I rarely bother to follow them up.
I don't bother to follow up links where no indication is given of what they are about.
"BBC News2 hrs · "I never actually said that."Why new facial mapping technology is raising fears about fake news — the BBC's Media Editor Amol Rajan explains.bbc.in/2DCrYy9Coming from those wonderful people who brought you 'truthiness' and 'It's something he may have said', hilarious.And looking at the comments, it is impressive they are persisting when NO ONE BELIEVES THEM.
Why, oh why do the BBC always invite Blair for an interview on the big issues?He and his enormous ego were on The News channel today meddling and interfering.They seem to think as an elder statesman he is the fount of all knowledge. They must know he is not trusted and despised by the majority of the electorate.But still they treat him with importance and reverence. Deep down Beeboids are still in awe of new Labour and Blairism.
He was also on R4 PM. He plays the BBC like a fiddle.
News Channel - 7-30 to 8-ish: You only have to see the warmth with which the likes of Laura Kuenssberg are speaking of Theresa May to know that her deal is a total sell-out - one journalist even went so far as to refer to her as 'Theresa.'
The BBC will love it because it’s so soft that it’s hardly Brexit at all.
Newsnight discussion chaired by Emily Maitlis, with Chris Cook, Helen Thomas and reps from the Institute of Government and (nest of vipers) Chatham House...In other words 5 Remainers analysing the agreement. Effing outrageous. The IOG's Board reads like a Remainer Roll of Honour. And yes, they were ALL giving May an easy ride.
Another example of the pro-May mood being displayed by the BBC and ITV is the kid glove treatment of Fox, Leadsom and Gove. Given all they said during the Referendum campaign how can they possibly stay in the Cabinet? It's not even hypocrisy...it's more like an absolute logical contradiction.
The "deal" (surrender document) leaves us hog-tied in legal rope, and chained to the EU forever and a day. And we have to pay £40 billion for the privilege.
Done up like a kipper. Old Junket is dancing around like that Sainsbury's boss caught on camera singing We're in the Money. How can you just sit there passively in a negotiation responding to their demands for money for this and that without putting in some demands of your own for money and assets of the EU? We should bung in a demand for 40bn. Instead we have a PM who is like a civil servant rather than a leader of the country and all she can come up with is to bleat that 40bn is much less than some made-up figure that was bandied about in the media. Weak, weak, weak. This clueless woman makes us as a country look as stupid and foolish as she is.
Since the BBC won't tell you, this is what Leo Varadkar said when accused of making plans to put in place a hard border on the Republic side, in event of a no deal Brexit:Responding to the speculation, Mr Varadkar said: “The direction we've given to Revenue is not to prepare for customs posts on the land border between Ireland and Northern Ireland because that's something we're not contemplating.” Something we're not contemplating...and something the UK is not contemplating either...So where exactly is the problem? Nowhere!! It was a negotiating ploy, pure and simple. https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1014699/brexit-news-ireland-border-no-deal-leo-varadkar-eu-negotiations
I don’t foresee this ending well for May - I give it to the weekend, then probably an election and utter chaos.
An election would almost certainly lead to a Corbyn government - well, if democracy is to be denied us, it probably does not much matter which dredgings of political pond-life are doing the denying.
There is no reason why there should be an election. A PM resigns, the Queen looks for an MP who can command a majority. We have fixed term Parliaments now as well...Patriotic Conservatives have to go for the jugular now...she will resign. A caretaker PM can take over while the Conservatives hold their election. I would hope then that the new PM would adopt a Trump negotiation stance and spread panic in the EU.
I'd hope so, too!Going back to Newsnight, it was extraordinary to see Emily defending her new-found heroine, Theresa, against the threat of the 48 letters to the '22 Committee. This, in her interview with Anne-Marie Morris, "Isn't it extraordinary to think that, here is the PM, she's got the compromises, she's got it past the Cabinet after five hours, she's not quit and this(possible no confidence motion) is what she gets!" It seems that, when it suits them, the Beeb equates obduracy & stamina with virtue - BBC impartiality at work.
Yep extraordinary to see Emily get behind a Conservative PM! But needs must!!
Let us never forget that the BBC as well as being incredibly biased are also often very incompetent. Here's Leila Nahoo, their "Political Correspondent" perpetuating the myth that ALL the EU states have to sign up to the deal. They don't. It's qualified majority voting, as correctly stated by Sky News today (although even their reporter admitted "someone reminded them" this morning). It's a pretty basic part of reporting on Brexit: understanding the EU approval procedure - and they have all the time in the world to study such matters. Nahoo's misdirection is at 0:55 in the second embedded video. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46215930
May, through a combination of vacillation, deception, incompetence and vanity could yet destroy her party, her government and her country. It's time for her to go before it's too late. Glad to see Raab has done the honourable thing and resigned. Gove and Leadsom are beneath contempt.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46219495I see the BBC has changed its original headline which referred to a "backlash" against May. "Backlash" is one of the BBC's many codewords to signal disapproval of a reaction (in this case, the resignation). Backlash is more often than not associated with what the political Right do: progressives try to take the country forward but then face a "backlash" from cruel rightists. I take this as a sign of conditional support of May (as the best on offer for keeping us tied to the EU). Remember, this surrender document guarantees many years of instability: arguments over the free trade deal (which will no doubt water down any commitments on migration) are guaranteed. There will be continuing divisions with the Conservative Party as Eurosceptics look to progress FTAs around the world but find they can't be done. Most of all we will still be so closely aligned to the EU that the EU Returners will be keeping up continuous pressure for us to rejoin (this time we will have to accept the Euro and Schengen). This deal is a guarantor of continued angst and division. Time to put a stop to it.
May has done what she's done to protect the status of the City Of London. We don't know what deals were made in Europe to ensure The City thrived and keeps thriving.The Irish border is a peg to hang a floppy hat on.Playing this out to its inevitable consequence, I think it'll go like this :- May continues to sacrifice herself and her party for City banking rights.- Her proposal fails in Parliament.- An election is called. - Corbyn is deemed unelectable by everybody.- Starmer challenges for leadership of the Labour party and wins.- Starmer becomes PM, Chuka chancellor.
The Irish border issue is complete balls. As I posted above: this is what Leo Varadkar said when accused of making plans to put in place a hard border on the Republic side, in event of a no deal Brexit- Responding to the speculation, Mr Varadkar said: “The direction we've given to Revenue is not to prepare for customs posts on the land border between Ireland and Northern Ireland because that's something we're not contemplating.”Something we're not contemplating...and something the UK is not contemplating either...In the event of no deal, there will be no hard border, just as now. If that can be done in a no deal scenario (where there is the LEAST co-operation between the parties, it can be done in every other scenario...where there will be MORE co-operation). So where exactly is the problem? Nowhere!! It was a negotiating ploy, pure and simple.https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1014699/brexit-news-ireland-border-no-deal-leo-varadkar-eu-negotiationsHowever, I think the EU may have overplayed its hand - because May and Robins were such useless negotiators, it's not difficult to see it was tempting for them to extract the maximum concessions, without thinking how they hell they were going to get this past the Conservative Party.