...and any other matters that take our fancy
Just to pick up on the conversation at the end of the last thread re Brexit and coup.I’m still of the opinion that it ain't over till the fat lady sings.I still think there is a lot to play out yet.
I think you're right. A lot depends on internal Conservative Party politics. Some may see their chance of ever being PM slipping away if the Conservatives allow the country to descend into political anarchy. So they may fight to reassert Government authority.
Fiona Bruce weighed in on the Remainiac side. Half the time she mumbled into her script. I'm used to her southern accent so could just about make her out but people in Newcastle and Glasgow would have no chance. At least Dimbo's diction was well balanced, if not his chairing. Her interventions were banal and irritating and would begin even before someone she disapproved of managed to get half a sentence out. She's clearly out of her depth. She looks a bit mad at times. She allowed the unfunny Nish Kumar to launch an astonishingly insulting tirade on a fellow guest, Melanie Phillips, which one suspects was motivated more by her origins than her opinions. Will that do?
Fiona Bruce is BBC royalty fronting the main News, Antiques Roadshow , Fake or Fortune and QT. You can only get to those career dizzy heights if you are a paid up member of BBC liberal left and a cheerleader for their PC marxist mindset.
Channel 4 News, 10th Jan 2019 - I don't often watch Ch4 News on health grounds: Jon Snow is bad for my blood pressure, but a friend told me that last Thursday's 7pm News was funny, so I watched it on catch-up. The entertaining bit is a 20-minute debate on Brexit, towards the end, with an audience of young people. Snow was clearly expecting the majority to be pro-Remain - see for yourselves (I've only watched the first 10 minutes so far) - priceless!
Yes there were times when Fiona unknowingly mumbled as she turned to her panel guests. She's clearly going to have to up her game and get used to interrupting, something she's not so used to doing in her other presenting jobs.It will be interesting to see how she copes when things get more out of hand on QT.I always found it odd that she took on the evening tv news job straight after having a child. There's dedication, or should I say ambition, for you. But then she can afford an army of child minders.I did read this weekend that only Nick Robinson was the only other main candidate for the QT host job. Although Jeremy Clarkson said that Robinson would have wasted his petrol money by even bothering to apply, going on to say that "Anyone that has a scrotum stands no chance of being hired by the Corporation."And yet I always imagined that all the usual ambitious culprits would have all been stabbing each other in the back just to get that job.Still, thanks to his demise on Newsnight, at least James O'Brian didn't get the gig.John... N. London.
I've been re-reading 1984. Wow! I can remember my feelings on reading it first time...yes, you could see it was a warning but it felt very remote from our lives back then (maybe 50 years ago). Now? My God!!! How many close parallels... The TV screen that can see what you're doing! We actually have those - TVs that can listen to you and watch you in your own house, harvesting all your personal details. The "memory hole" - how many people go down the memory hole when they say the wrong thing! Rewriting of history. As far as the BBC is concerned Mark Carney never predicted a recession immediately after a vote to leave. Speaker Bercow was never a member of the Monday Club. Anna Soubry never called anyone a fascist. And Jimmy Savile never did anything untoward on BBC premises. The Two Minute Hate...best seen on the BBC's "comedy news shows" like HIGNFY, News Quiz, The Mash Report etc. where chosen hate figure - Farage, Johnson, JRM, Katy Hopkins etc are given the full two minutes. The unending geopolitical wars with enemies constantly changing...the BBC's relish to join in the recent demonisation of Russia (while ignoring all China's many - indeed far worse - contraventions of international democratic norms) or Assad from Hero to Tyrant and now back to "Someone we can do business with...". And of course Newspeak - Orwell's brilliant portrayal of how language can be used to make you stop thinking...just call it PC-Speak and you have an exact description of where we find ourselves.
The BBC are telling us what Theresa May will say:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46856149... 'Theresa May says no Brexit more likely than no deal' ...and further down:... 'Parliament is more likely to block Brexit than let the UK leave with no deal, she will warn.' ...
OK, so we know Theresa hates us just as much as Bercow, Soames, Soubry, Grieve, Blair, Campbell, Mandelson, Cooper, Cable, Clegg, Umuna, Leslie, Creasy and all the rest of them. No need to call them traitors - just call them "beneath contempt".
There is a group we don't hear from - those who voted Remain, but who value democracy - those who might have wished to be gracious in defeat. Where are their voices?
I heard on TWTW on Radio 4 I think it was today, "Lord" Hennessy the notable "constitutional expert" talking about Bercow's remarkable reinvention of our constitutional arrangements in order to facilitate the anti-democratic coup against the Brexit vote. You could tell from his vacillating words that he knew Bercow's extraordinary dismissal of 140 years of precedent against the advice of the Clerks could not be defended except in terms of expediency to ensure the elite's wish to derail Brexit comes about. But the poor old broken mouth couldn't be honest about anything. Pathetic. A constitutional expert? Nope, just another liar like all the rest of them.
His fight is your fight... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIXtiaVBScsJames Goddard is free but of course as we have come to expect his bail conditions amount to imprisonment.
The Must See section on the front page of the BBC News website has these five stories this morning.1. What does Malala do for fun?2. Are dating apps messing with our heads?3. Operating on children without consent4. Why have 26 million liked an egg on Instagram?5. Are millennials the most nostalgic generation?My observations:None of them are news and only one is a serious topic. four are questions, fast becoming the standard way for the BBC to headline an item. The BBC think this is the way to appeal to the young who have abandoned them.
The Fiona Bruce praise follows the now standard format for them launching their new progs. It is blatant advertising masquerading as news.Just a few I have read recently on the BBC News website, I'm sure there are many more.Jodie Whitaker wins praise for female Dr WhoMayo praises Whiley over new showThe critics welcomed Idris Elba's return as tough cop LutherPraise for Fiona BrucePraise for new Silent WitnessBBC Les Miserables adaptation wins praiseand today... Praise and respect for Zoe Ball
... Praise and respect for Zoe Ball... Yes, I saw this appear before the fist Zoe Ball Radio 2 show had even been completed. Who was it that praised her? That's right her BBC buddies.
Roger Harrabin telling us what we should do again. I wonder if he does any of this himself? I suspect his particulate count is high from his regular jaunts around the world as a BBC correspondent. And I suspect the BBC itself isn’t anywhere near carbon neutral. The last sentence in his report is a classic! Analysis - Roger Harrabin, BBC Environment AnalystThere are many ways to help.Swapping your car for walking, cycling or taking public transport is a major plus. For most of us, the health benefits far outweigh the risks of roadside pollution.You can also turn off your engine when you're stuck in a jam, or buy electric when you replace your vehicle.At home, you can burn less in your fireplace or your garden; service your gas boiler; and turn down your thermostat. Insulating your house means you'll burn less fuel.You can group on-line purchases to reduce the number of deliveries.And you can buy non-toxic cleaning fluids and sprays, because ordinary products cause emissions in the home. "Air fresheners" actually pollute the air.But one irony: much of the UK's pollution originates in mainland Europe, so we really need neighbouring countries to join the effort.
Today's Politics Live had a couple of clips from Theresa May's speech in Stoke-on-Trent. The content was in line with what the BBC told us yesterday that she was going to say.Theresa May was filmed against what must have ben a backdrop of some pottery factory. There was no movement behind her, and the backdrop photo was slightly out of focus with an unconvincing depth of field. The ware shown piled up behind her looked like twenty year old obsolete stock - hardly the image of a go-ahead factory representative of our modern economy. Can we trust the BBC when they say she was in Stoke-on-Trent? I can think of better places to be when she is dealing with the most important issue we have faced in a generation. There and back from London would take the best part of four to five hours, and with the speech there, we could add another hour.Can we really believe the BBC? Surely, this week we might expect them to be scrupulously accurate with everything they put out - even if they have been misled as to the whereabouts of the Prime minister by No. 10.
I must seek forgiveness:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGtzSvS5VJYHere is a fifty minute video of her visit to Portmeirion Pottery. Also, I need forgiveness for describing the backdrop ... 'The ware shown piled up behind her looked like twenty year old obsolete stock' ... My mistake - this is new stock, it's just that the designs haven't changed in twenty years.
Guido Fawkes: Call me paranoid, but Guido's website has gone off-line, just as the news is breaking that a Tory whip has castigated May's deal and is resigning in order to be able vote against it. I hope there's an innocent explanation!
Guido is back! Quite a few followers were concerned.
A very oddly worded Radio 2 news bulletin about 55 men being arrested in the Bradford area for assaults on women.Lots of pertinent facts omitted in that one sentence.The BBC website is more revealing but why the reticence on the news bulletin?
I watched Look North Leeds at 6:30. Lots about Huddersfield United, other football and what I'd call padding. Then, at 6:48, a one-liner about 55 men in Kirklees being arrested and released. I'd heard it earlier on the radio and wanted to know more as I live in Kirklees.But it was buried. In the home of Jimmy Saville.
Which source of information should we trust?https://order-order.com/2019/01/14/bank-america-merrill-lynch-tracking-recession-germany/#disqus_threadOr, from the BBC News website:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46875113...' German economic growth slowest for five years' ...There's some 'very BBC' obfuscation further down the piece:... 'There were fears that Germany was at risk of following that with another quarter of negative growth, something that would have put the country into recession.The statistics office has not released fourth-quarter figures yet, as it does not have enough data to give an accurate reading.But initial calculations by independent economists suggest the economy may have grown by about 0.2% in the final three months of the year.'...Our national broadcaster will go to considerable lengths to publish any news which shows Germany and by extension the EU in any other than glowing terms.
... Our national broadcaster will go to considerable lengths to avoid publishing any news which shows Germany and by extension the EU in any other than glowing terms...
Yes,with that correction I agree! lol This is where the BBC is most effective in terms of its bias propaganda. The average person who relies on the BBC (but pretty much the same goes for ITV) for news simply won't hear about the EU's economic problems. We see a similar approach to such issues as the creation of an EU Army which is clearly now a priority for the EU elite. Whilst the BBC spent millions on broadcasting a huge "Wilkommen" to the 2015 migrants to Germany with many hundreds of hours of TV news devoted to the subject, how much time have they devoted to the cost - projected some time ago (by the German government) to be close to 100 million Euros over 4 years (but I would suggest in reality will be a lot more). https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-europe-migrants-germany-costs/german-government-plans-to-spend-93-6-billion-euros-on-refugees-by-end-2020-spiegel-idUKKCN0Y50E2That's 100 billion Euros not available to health and welfare services for German citizens. It's a huge sum but I have never heard it mentioned in any context on the BBC. The FT tries to put a nice gloss on it all - unemployment among refugees is down... actually it's down to 40.5 per cent and there is a staggeringly high economic inactivity level of 75% - despite the vast majority of people coming in being young men - who normally inactivity levels below 5%. Half of them work in unskilled labour jobs. The article also doesn't tell you that a large proportion are being employed on Government-funded make-work schemes. It's been an economic disaster for Germany and the full impact has yet to hit as chain migration builds up. https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/02/01/german-parliament-debates-increasing-chain-migration/Back in 2016 I think it was I heard a BBC radio programme (surprsing they even allowed this information to escape) interviewing migrants from 2015. Just about every one wanted to bring in close relatives or future spouses. That appeared in fact to be top of their agenda.
And paperwork can be bought in many third world countries, so I wonder how many of the 'close relatives' will be genuine.
Jo Coburn told us on Politics Live today that Andrew Neil would be presenting the live coverage of parliamentary proceedings this evening - and he would be accompanied by Alistair Campbell. I'm sure his contribution will be balanced and unbiased - as we have come to expect from the BBC.
Talk about oil & water - If Neil is on form there could be an entertaining fireworks display!
Questions BBC Reporters never ask:1. What question would be on the Second Referendum Ballot Paper? 2. Will the Second Referendum be run on the same franchise? 3. How can people vote on May's deal? As Cable says, it isn't a deal. It's a divorce agreement with a promise of a future trade plus deal. So people voting in favour of May's "deal" would be voting for something that doesn't exist. 4. Were any lies told by the Leave campaign in 2016? For instance that there were no plans for an EU Army. That Cameron had a deal that amounted to something. That the EU (now plagued by Far Right parties right across mainland Europe), was a beacon of freedom and democracy. That Cameron would stay on if the vote went against him. I wonder how much wider the Leave over Remain margin would have been vote were it not for those desperate lies. 5. Who has been financially supporting the People's Vote campaign? 6. Why didn't the Remain campaign accept the result of the Referendum? 7. Where is Peter Mandelson? 8. Why did Matthew Parris describe himself as a politician when he was meant to be on Radio 4 as a journalist? 9. Why do many Lib Dem and Labour politicians lie by saying we can be out of the EU and still stay in the Single Market? That is a legal impossibility as a quick visit to the relevant section of the EU Commission website. 10. Can ERG members effectively filibuster?
Julian Lewis's speech: "Because Brexit should mean Brexit and no deal is better than a bad deal, I shall vote no, no and no." was 21 words long. The 6pm BBC news showed only the last four words - would that be because the rest of the speech was throwing May's own words back at her?
For once I thought the Brexit news on 6pm News was reasonably balanced given it had reports by Kuenssberg and Pienaar.We heard from Julian Lewis, Geoffrey Cox, Bill Cash and others. More shots of the pro EU flags and protesters that the leave people but at least the liberty bell disrupted proceedings and could be heard loudly. It was 60/40 remain leaning rather than the normal 80/20....That’s a positive for me.
Arne: Agreed that it was less biased than usual, but 60/40 is still unacceptable - the BBC Charter requires it to be 50/50.Re: Kuenssberg on Andrew Neil's News Channel coverage, she felt that May's deal was a compromise, "as we always knew it would have to be," (I paraphrase). She delivered this, her voice trembling with emotion - now, why would the arch-Remainer, who was in tears at the Referendum result, be so in favour of May's agreement? Simples - because she knows it doesn't deliver Brexit!
"Unbiased" or even "less unbiased"? I have noted that UKIP - despite winning the last EU Parliamentary elections, despite the EU Parliament currently examining the deal and despite the fact the EU Parliament have to approve the May deal - seem to be completely censored now. Likewise Leave.EU seem to be ignored completely. It's very important for the Macron-Mandelson-Blair plan to work that any momentum for pro-Leave protest is stopped at this juncture. We can see now that there was method in the Adonis-Campbell madness of complaining that the BBC was biased against remain (!!).
The BBC's chief political correspondent Vicki Young, speaking from Parliament, says people have been speculating both on the size of Theresa May's anticipated defeat - as well as what she will do afterwards.She said she was hearing that Mrs May was likely to talk about trying again."She feels her deal is still the best on the table," she added.Wtf is Young going on about - still the best deal on the table - it’s the only deal on the table - surely we should expect better from BBC political correspondents!
Live News Channel coverage: I had to go about 5 minutes into Farage's contribution. From what I saw, he was on sparkling form. Those whose sole source of information is BBC TV will probably have heard from him, for the first time, that the German economy is now in technical recession.
Good! Of course he isn't officially UKIP anymore.
True, but so long as he has his LBC platform, he's still a force to be feared by the Remain camp.
Yes, but we aren't seeing any UKIP people on the BBC. Why not? It won the Euro elections. It has about 8% national support. It was key to the Leave campaign winning.
Katya Adler and Lara Kuenssberg still being cheerleaders for May’s deal on 10pm News tonight as part of their analysis. The BBC are very reluctant to criticise May or her deal despite the massive defeat. This catastrophe is all of her own making, very much her personal strategy strewn with a calaloge of errors and tactical mistakes over the last two years. I doubt we will hear much about that.
Nope. And something else that has gone down the memory hole is her duplicity in negotiating with the EU behind the backs of not just one Brexit minister by TWO (Davis and Raab) - and also leaving the public with the impression that Davis and Raab were doing the negotiating, when they weren't. That's basically conscious, pathological lying.
You're right, I think. Over on Newsnight, Maitlis has just told Barry Gardiner that the vote is a defeat for the whole country - nice & impartial there, then, Emily! There are 17.4million Brexiteers who might, on the contrary, see it as a victory.
Yep. And a lot of Remainers perhaps. There are a lot of people in the middle who just want an end to this. A No Deal exit is the quickest way to achieve that.
On Newsnight yet again we have Jill Rutter from the Remainiac anti-Leave organisation Institute for Government (funded and chaired by billionaire Remainiac Lord Sainsbury. She was on Radio 4 earlier, and IOG was yet again introduced as non-partisan. This is Fake News, a lie. It is a resolutely Remainiac propaganda outfit.
I take heart from the Beeboids sounding far less triumphalist and far more nervy than I expected. There's been a note of panic in the voice of BBC presenters tonight. Perhaps engineering a constitutional revolution where the legislature becomes also the executive (ordering about what was previously known as HM Government) is less easy to effect than we thought. I don't think anyone quite realises what a constitutional revolution is being proposed by Dominic Grieve (Legion d'honneur) and his co-conspirators. It means Parliament being divorced from the Crown. It means Speaker Bercow assuming many of the functions of the Prime Minister. It means Committee Chairs arrogating to themselves spending decisions previously controlled by Ministers of the Crown. The funniest thing I've found is that the Remainer so called constitutional experts like Bogdanov and Hennessy have barely raised a finger of objection to this violent disposal of May and Bagheot into Bercow's waste paper basket where he also keeps the complaints of bullying and harrassment filed by members of his staff. PS The BBC goes on and on about Russia-Trump. If they applied the same standards to France-Grieve what would they discover? A man in close contact with the French government and handsomely rewarded for that contact? A man under some obligation to the French government? A man in contact with French secret services and intelligence? I think we deserve some answers.
Well he is practically French and you won't get them from the various Select Committees, considering who chairs them and / or sits on them... remainacs Yvette Cooper Home Affairs, Hilary Benn EU Exit Liaison or whatever its title is, and the crooked Vaz of all people sitting on the Justice Committee, Bercow on the key committee or council or whatever it's called that deals with management of Parliamentary staff, conduct, disciplinary matters etc. And then there are the All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs), which are special interest pressure groups. I dread to think what goes on in them.
I like this quote reported by BBC’s Jenny Hill this morning:Dr Volker Treier of the German Chambers of Industry and Commerce says an extension to Article 50 would be a bad idea - "better a horrible ending than unending horror".
The good doctor is right. And moreover, I think that is the sentiment of millions of Remain voters who've had enough and now want a no deal Brexit.
Agreed. The BBC are still ramping up their subsersive scare mongering on a no- deal Brexit. Or Jeremy Vine said today and countless others on BBC say ‘crashing out with no deal’.
Jeremy Vine? The guy who has blocked almost as many people as Owen Jones, probably because what he tweets might not be, as such, accurate or appropriate?
Typical BBC leftie, he dishes it out relentlessly but can’t take it. He is one of the worst. A few weeks ago I heard him blatantly talk over a caller to express his own opinion, realised what he had done and said “what I meant was - some people say...”. Carefully selected topics and callers to ensure balance really means he can push BBC propaganda every weekday for two hours.
Isn't it curious how some callers always manage to get through, (e.g. Rabid Lefty Dale Aston and Moderate Muslim Ishtiaq Hussain)?Or perhaps they are called? But no, that would be misrepresentation and the BBC would never do that.
Your Brexilexicon:1. NO DEAL. (Phrasal noun) Used to denote departing from the EU to return to our previous independent status. Often used to reference an imagined but unreal catastrophe (something like Krakatoa, East of Java crossed with the Towering Inferno and the Ethiopian Famine. 2. CRASH OUT (Transitive verb). To survive much as before, but to be a cause of worry to Paris, Brussels and Berlin. 3. TO GRIEVE (Verb) "He was Grieving..." This suggests he was pretending to be a traditional English Conservative when the reality was he had a French mother, had been given a high award by the French Government, attended a French school, backed Macron's Technocratic movement, spent much of his time in France, broadcast in French and represented the interests of the French government in the UK. 4. IMPARTIAL (Adjective) Applied solely by the BBC to refer to panels weighted 4 to 1 in favour of Remain, against Leave. 5. SECOND (Adjective) Cognate with "rigged". As in "Second Referendum". Careful usage in this context favours "Rigged Rerun" as being more accurate. 6. MODERATE (Noun) A Moderate is someone who favours no borders, mass immigration, British forces being absorbed into a new EU army, assassination of Donald Trump and extinction of British culture. (This is a technical usage confined to the BBC and other media outlets). I hope that helps!
7. HARD (adjective) A person who takes a stance or position, for example in a referendum. Applies only to those who took leave of their senses and voted to leave the EU and continues to support this notion. Must never be used with the noun Remain or Remainer.
DISORDERLY EXIT - Just heard on Newsnight, is Remainspeak for 'Leaving on WTO terms.'
9. MANDELSON (noun) A Mandelson is a type of central distributor which sends out electronic messages (usually in the form of texts) to Robo Politicians who then act accordingly. For example the text might say "Pivot towards a second referendum." The receiver will then pivot towards a second referendum,which will often involve standing outside Parliament with a stupid banner while smiling and group hugging.
10. MARK URBAN (Verb) To "mark urban" is to cover the scent of your military historian and intelligence- linked righty background by depositing large pellets of politically correct ordure at strategic points in your reports. This "scent camouflage" makes it virtually impossible for the audience to detect what you are actually saying. But it might be that "Merkel calls the shots".
Newsnight: Emily Maitlis aggressive & hostile while interviewing Liam Fox, but dripping treacly charm over Tom Watson, Vince Cable & Co. I had the distinct impression that she couldn't understand Fox's point that EU laws don't allow Brexit while remaining in the Customs Union.She asked the French Ambassador, sorry - Monsieur Grieve, some searching questions, but without the hostility.
Yes, I think you're right she didn't really understand that. And none of them understand that leaving the EU means leaving the Single Market. Minor details as far as our Reality Check folk are concerned. Also, none of them seem to realise that Parliament voted for a no deal Brexit (if necessary) in two pieces of legislation. Of course Bercow might set a new precedent whereby he, Dominic Grieve and Anna Soubry in conclave may overturn all Acts of Parliament deemed xenophobic.
Agreed.Liked the Brexilexicon!
My re-reading of 1984 has brought to mind many disturbing parallels...It has resonance here, on this forum, not least because Orwell had worked for the BBC and had been disgusted by the way (back in the 1940s) it lied on behalf of Imperialism which he considered a hoax perpetrated on both the subjected and their overlords. Moreover, Orwell really dissected the way the Left had a tendency to tyranny and totalitarianism and liked to abuse language to control thought. He was also insightful in the way he could see capitalist "managerialism" blending with the radical left - much as we now see "Globalism" incorporating both capitalism and the "no-borders" PC Left - people who should ostensibly be enemies. He also laid out the idea of huge world blocs constantly in conflict with each other: Oceania (based on the USA), Eurasia (Russia) and East Asia (China). Since Nixon's China policy this has pretty much been the story. First it was USA and China v Russia. Now it's USA v China while Russia tries to join with China to oppose the USA. So it goes on...The only difference is we now have the young pretender of the EU which is not that effective. Here are some of the recent parallels I have spotted:1. "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears." Doesn't that perfectly describe BBC Reality Check's approach? 2. "The past not only changed, but changed continuously" How very, very true when the past is in the hands of the BBC. Roman Britain becomes multi-ethnic Britain. Women who featured little in the history of science suddenly leap to prominence and eclipse their male colleagues. Shakespeare's plays that once were performed frequently are simply no longer performed and are forgotten. 3. "There was a vast amount of criminality in London, a whole world-within-a-world of thieves, bandits, prostitutes, drug peddlers and racketeers of every description but since it all happened among the proles themselves, it was of no importance." Nothing needs to be added really. That's London 2019. 4 . "Desire was thoughtcrime." "Not so much love as eroticism was the enemy..." We've pretty much reached this position with the promotion of "metoo" desire-denial by the BBC. It's now dangerous for anyone in the media world (or maybe just society who isn't a "prole") to even joke about desire let alone act upon it in any form whatsoever. The BBC has even featured with great approval green extremists who refuse to start families because of "global warming". This echoes the Anti-Sex League in "1984". If you haven't read 1984 I recommend you read it and if you have I recommend you re-read it! :)
Is Emma Barnett now officially the most biased BBC broadcaster of all time? Of course we know they are nearly all biased in varying degrees. But we have grown used to the BBC "box of tricks" to distance their views, so as to be able to claim a lack of bias: the "some say", "many people would argue",the rigged vox pop, the experts who echo the BBC's opinions etc etc. But this was much, much more than that - this was Maitlis Plus. I heard the first half hour or so of Barnett's Radio 5 Live prog today on the "Second Referendum" (the bias starts with her use of that term, against BBC official policy, plus frequent references to "a People's Vote"). She seemed on a personal mission to deliver a second referendum and stop Brexit. The most obvious bias was the difference in the way she interviewed a People's Vote rep and a Leaves Means Leave rep. I know we've grown use to such differentials but this was completely off the scale. After a cosy, sympathetic chat with People's Vote guy, she literally did not allow the Leave Means Leave guy a chance to utter a whole sentence. He would get 4 or 5 words out and she would interrupt with impassioned appeals, denunciations, queries, and claims - none of them couched in "some say" language. It would be great if Craig did one of this Interruptometer counts/transcripts. Where is Craig. Hopes he's not unwell and is just enjoying a well deserved break...because I had got used to not watching the Andrew Marr show and relying on his summaries! Don't want to have to watch it!! Incidentally Barnett (like O'Brien, her male counterpart) is simply from a technical point of view a very poor, boring broadcasting. She's clearly a print journalist who thinks print. Barnett was on maternity leave recently and her substitute, I forget her name, was superior in all respects - none of that leaden delivery.
'Maitlis+'? Is this level on Mishal's Death Wish list?
Poor Laura is sounding quite panicked, not to say hysterical. I take that as a good sign...https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46900738"Many members of the public might be furious that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn won't play nice during a time of crisis. He's always said he believes in dialogue, but when it really matters, he says no." I suppose Laura Kuennesberg is a member of the public, as well as being a BBC Remainiac Reporter! Anyway. makes a change from "Some say..."
I forget who it was interviewing that loon from the Greens, Barking or Barkley. Interviewer: If there is a second referendum and the result is Leave again, would you accept it? Barking: Of course!If he's not plain lying, what is that about? Explain to me the logic. There's a referendum which says Leave. Barking doesn't like this and wants another referendum. This time he says of course he'd accept Leave. Why? Why not accept Leave, now?
How did Tony's mate from the Royal Opera House get the job of Tony's Deputy at the BBC? Well anyway...she's leaving after a three-year stint. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6603605/BBCs-female-Deputy-DG-announces-resignation-435-000-year-job-three-years.htmlNever mind; I'm sure Tony has some other mates or political appointees in mind.
Another example of BBC top brass intervening once the BBC have broken the law. Maybe it’s their legal department or senior managers attempting damage limitation. I picked it up today from the story about a BBC editor on trial for naming a Rotherham rape victim on a radio news bulletin. There does seem to be a desire to cover up wrongdoing within the BBC management culture. ExtractThe court heard that, after mistakenly broadcasting her real name he wrote an email to the witness, saying: "I made a human error. It was a moment of confusion I will regret forever."But the email was not sent due to advice from his superiors, the court heard.
Oh Lord, more Abbott. Today it's Question Time. She was on Any Questions? last week. Not sure what the attraction is but in any case, isn't it time to give someone else a turn?
Anon. - Oh no, please leave her on - she's the funniest thing I've seen on tv this week! Her little problem with sums (again) was a hoot: slight confusion about the meaning of being ahead in the polls...
Make that the second funniest thing this week:Andrew Neil over on This Week was on sparkling form - his quip: "If you're feeling as lonely as one of Chris Grayling's brain cells..." left the regulars convulsed.
I think Fiona Bruce probably spoke for longer in her second episode of QT than the first, impossible though that might seem. It really is the Fiona Bruce Show, like the Evan Davis Show and the David Aaronovitch Show on Radio 4. Great think about this QT was the audience from Derby that for once seemed to have a strong Leave contingent.
She did. I found it maddening. She treats Question Time as if it's presenting a programme like Newsnight, following a script and interviewing guests, in which type of programme, she is of course one half at least of the discussion and the controller of it. That's not what Question Time is. The invasion of personal space, with the travelling hands, and the jabbing biro at the chap on her right, really got on my nerves as well. She should just ask the question, then mostly shut up and let the panel speak, followed by comments from the audience. I remember why I used to like Dimbo. Oh dear, things must be bad.
Yes, that occurred to me...it was the equivalent of a Newsnight panel "discussion". I also noticed the invasion of personal space. If it was the other way round, then Mr Stewart would have had to resign for Fallonesque behaviour...not that I'm suggesting she was physically attracted to Rory Stewart (that would be a bit of a stretch)!
Saw Andrew Neil interviewing Nick Boles re his Norway/Norway Plus/EEA/Who Knows What? option. Neil gave him a good roasting but Boles still got away with a lie regarding the way the European Economic Area (the joint economic area for the EU and EFTA states) operates. He said that Norway was not subject to the ECJ but the EFTA Court. This is a lie. With respect to the EEA, where there is a dispute between an EU state and an EFTA state which relates to provisions identical to EU law (very likely in relation to the EEA, where the idea is to replicate a lot of EU provisions) then the matter is referrred to a Joint Committee for resolution. If the Joint Committee can't agree, the matter will be referred to the ECJ. So Norway is in such circumstances subject to rulings of the ECJ.
They do pick 'em don't they - I saw him interviewing Blair this evening. Blair and Boles both fanatics who'd do anything to stop us leaving.
I saw Mishal Husain's report on the pressure on the Gaza hosptial system in the light of injuries to Palestinians at what she carefully referred to as "the boundary" with Israel. I heard the first few seconds of her introduction to a similar item on Today this morning. Firstly a contrast - I am pretty sure she referred in her TV report to the Israel blockade only. I thought at the time - but isn't Egypt blocking them as well? Then this morning on radio she referred to both blockades, quite pointedly. I suspect there have been complaints. Why refer to the border with Israel, a recognised UN Member state as "the boundary"? That is immediately to side with Hamas. I cannot recall but she gave the impression most people killed or injured were protestors. But there is strong evidence that many of the people being killed or injured are Hamas members and activists "ordered" to the front. This connection between Hamas and the assaults on the "boundary". Again, with her Fake News report she gave the impression there were protests "at" the border rather than active attempts to cross the border. She referred to I think it was a couple of hundred deaths. But that begs some questions:1. Hamas have been caught out inflating casualty figures before now. http://time.com/3035937/gaza-israel-hamas-palestinian-casualties/How do we know they aren't on this occasion. Husain took them as gospel as far as I could see. 2. Why does this small conflict get so much attention? Why aren't the deaths in the Congo given far more attention? Why doesn't the BBC focus on Islamic terrorism in Pakistan (her family's homeland) where over 1000 people died in 2017 and over 2000 were injured? 3. Why doesn't she report that all the people killed will be viewed not as protestors but as martyrs in a military struggle, with their families being awarded pensions by Hamas? It's reasonable to ask if there is a strong incentive for young impressionable men brought up on Jihad propaganda to actively put themselves in danger, to bring honour and wealth to their family.
I predict we are about to see the mother of all onslaughts by the BBC against Boris following his speech this morning. It’s already started on The Guardian website, alaways a sign of things to come at the BBC.
It didn’t take long - Chris Morris has done a Reality Check on his Turkey statements
Beat me to it Arne! And of course it relies heavily on the Government's Migration Advisory Committee's reports. The MAC is heavily weighted to people from pro-migration organisations like the LSE and the EU-funded Migration Observatory. I wouldn't trust them an inch. In any case it's not just wages, it's also job conditions. Mass immigration facilitates the headlong rush towards the gig economy.
The BBC have been leading with a story all morning on medicine shortages linked to Brexit. The suddenly the story seems to have been dropped and buried.Why, I wondered?Then I looked on Guido - it reports that it is because shortages are less than they have been for a couple of years. Another example of fake news at the BBC?
Perhaps they should run a reality check! :-)
I see Mishal is again totting up acceptable relative deaths across the border. Game girl, I'll give her that. Mishal++ ? Not, as such, too impartial, mind.
As I pointed out above, she doesn't seem too bothered by the 1000 plus deaths per annum of people in Pakistan, resulting from Islamic terrorism.
The Media programme on Wednesday:'Who needs fact-checkers?''Facebook has contracted a UK charity to help stop fake news. ...' I've noticed the activities of certain 'charities' lately and am curious about what constitutes a charity and when is a pressure group a political force rather than a charity. This has arisen in connection with for example, refugees or, if fact-checked, so-called refugees, and even the activities of the BBC have come into question for raising money from the public under Children in Need and giving it to certain pressure groups, some of which, if fact checked, may be well dodgy. Now this Facebook fact-checker charity is called Full Fact and it's more interesting than I would have imagined when I entered a search. Going by Wiki, 'Full Fact applied to the Charity Commission for charitable status when it was being founded in 2009 but this was refused. An appeal was heard by the commission's tribunal in 2011 but this was rejected on the grounds that the stated objective of "civic engagement" was too political in nature. The wording was changed to "the advancement of public education" and charitable status was then granted in 2014.' Tell me more!'Full Fact has been sponsored to develop automated fact-checking tools by the Omidyar Network and Open Society Foundations.' Ah, it's that man again, the billionaire! 'Live is one of the tools that is intended to immediately check statements against a database of verified facts. The other tool is called Trends and this will track and display the spread of false information.'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_FactAnd up she pops on the BBC!
And a helpful plug on the BBC, on More or Less:'The fact-checking charity Fullfact has announced a new partnership with Facebook, which aims to make it easier for social media users to distinguish fact from fiction. Tim Harford talks to Fullfact director Will Moy about the scale of the challenge before them.' Another item I note in the same programme: 'The BBC reports that as many as 1.7% of the world have intersex traits. Tim Harford speaks to an expert in the field, endocrinologist Dr Bernard Khoo about why that number is too high.'So why is the BBC 'reporting' it? They wouldn't have an agenda or anything like that to promote, connected to certain minority interests and minority pressure groups who like to push the idea that there is a lot of it about? Of course not. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000222z
It looks as if Facebook has been carrying anti-Brexit fake news, according to The Daily Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/#source=refresh Where are those fact checkers when they're needed?
From today’s Guardian website. Abbott using the racism card on Fiona Bruce. Diane Abbott has accused BBC Question Time of legitimising racist abuse after claims that the shadow home secretary was singled out before and during Thursday night’s episode of the political discussion programme.The Labour politician claimed she had been unfairly mocked in the warm-up and had been interrupted more often than other panellists by Fiona Bruce, the programme’s new chair.“We are appalled by the treatment of Diane Abbott on BBC’s Question Time,” a spokesperson for Abbott said. “It was clear that a hostile atmosphere was whipped up, propped up by reports of inappropriate and sexist commentary in the audience warm-up session.
Heh. The race-obsessed race-row promoting BBC served up a race row of its own by one of its very own special favoured status people. You couldn't make it up. Although the BBC says someone did!And there's Abbott whining about being interrupted when she butted in before Isabel Oakeshott got to the end of the first sentence. 'One word', as Oakeshott said, was all she'd been allowed before Abbott interrupted her.
It's Friday afternoon...so what does that bring? Well it always seems to bring the verdicts on cases which our PC masters might find embarrassing: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-46865455https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-46904928I guess they must have been worried how this case might turn out as well as it also concluded today...https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46920537
Under the title of 'The Battles That Won Our Freedoms', a gem on Freedom of Information from the secret cult that is the special broadcaster itself:'In this episode, Phil Tinline asks Professor David Vincent to trace the history of the struggle against Britain's culture of secrecy, culminating in a series of causes celebres in the 1980s...' https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000222q
There are many things about the BBC that you can be disgusted by but one that gets me is the way they allow the Far Left to present themselves as sweet and cuddly, while anyone on what they call "the Far Right" either (a) never gets on their channels or (b) if they do are subjected to barrister-badgering style questioning of the "when did you last beat your wife?" variety. Today I heard Adrian "Useless" Chiles getting all cosy with Faiza Shaheen - Far Left pro-Corbynista. It was all "when you get elected, having unseated Ian Duncan-Smith [clearly Adrian was enjoying the mental image] will you have been practising your "hear hears"." Cue cute and loveable dialogue. Can you imagine if he had Tommy Robinson on. I don't accept TR is Far Right since I identify Far Right with ideological racism. I'd say he was a Working Class Nationalist. However, for the purposes of this thought experiment, let's suppose he is "Far Right", can you imagine Chiles engaging in such good natured badinage with him? Of course not. Chiles would summon up his inner football thug and put the boot in. Shaheen's politics and economics match those of countries like Venezuala, Cuba, China and the (ex) Soviet Union which have seen the deaths of millions of people, political oppression, denial of free speech, murder of gays and suppression of democracy. Why is she never asked any "hard" questions while on the BBC about the history of "real socialism"? Why is it all light and fluffy teddy bears and cocoa?
Is there a Trevor in the house? According to the lengthy programme note, someone of that name is involved in Icons, a programme to find the greatest person of the twentieth century. I wonder who set this up and what the purpose of it is.https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0by86v5/icons-the-greatest-person-of-the-20th-century-series-1-1-leadersSt Mandela has been nominated but I saw a suggestion it should have been Nkrumah instead. Heresy! Besides, the teenagers wouldn't know who that is. There's only one African they've heard of. Maybe two if you count Tutu. The nominees in the Entertainment category have raised eyebrows or in some cases, hackles: Charlie Chaplin, Marilyn Monroe, Billie Holiday and David Bowie. What? No Beatles, No Elvis, no Lennon or McCartney? No Sinatra. No Louis Armstrong. What? No great opera singers, too numerous, from Caruso, Gigli, Corelli to Callas, Gobbi, di Stefano to Pavarotti, Sutherland and so on. So many other entertainers and genres, dancers, composers, song writers, arrangers, conductors. Impossible.
This is really the epitome of BBC Bias..."Control the agenda and you control the result". And of course, the BBC can rely on a lot of "lobby voting" to get the desired answers (so far, it's David Bowie and Alan Turing). What an absurdly limited (and of course PC) list of potential Icons! It seems we are being encouraged in each scale to think on a world scale...I very much doubt Tanni Grey-Thompson is a name known much outside London let alone outside the UK. That said, what the hell are Alfred Hitchcock - serial groper of female stars - Charlie Chaplin - serial groper of female stars - doing there? :)
Yes, it's not hard to figure out why some of those featured have been chosen. And who'd be likely to win. Incidentally, CC allegedly more than groping. I expect the teenagers don't know anything about his actual life or character. Hitchcock more widely known about, I think. What's the BBC's excuse? Oh the teenagers again.
Personally I'm more of the "art cancels out life" school of thought but I was just applying BBC (supposed but actually double) standards to their "Icons". Mandela was also a self confessed wife-beater - something the BBC like to forget.
LOL - Paul Mason getting something off his chest. Accusing the BBC of broadcasting "racist cruelty" via Question Time! Hilarious!! I love it when the lefty-liberals fall out with each other. Remember last week it was that Fake News stuff about "praise for Fiona Bruce" on the BBC Website. How are they gonna handle this? Once the Guardian go to town on it they can't ignore it. Will Fiona suddenly become "the worst broadcaster in television history"? Watch your back Fiona - if the BBC decides you are surplus to requirements, that's it. The End. https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1086285377881681922?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1086285377881681922&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fbiasedbbc.org%2Fblog%2F2019%2F01%2F18%2Fweekend-open-thread-19-january-2019%2FI think Mason has reacted so badly because BBC official policy is clearly to support a Rigged Rerun Referendum that will deliver a Remain result. Corbyn and his pals (obviously meaning Mason included) see that as a threat to their grab for power as it might then result in seepage of Labour votes to the Lib Dems, Conservatives, UKIP and other places.
They all sound completely crazy. I don't know whether it is done deliberately and cynically for effect, for political advantage or whether it is the actual effect of relentless indoctrination and obsession with 'race' on the balance of their minds. Look at that fellow on last week, ranting and looking angry and wild-eyed. It's the same over-the-top thing. Is there a syndrome? What should we call this BBC induced mind disorder by indoctrination?
Another good example of BBC Fake News. They have been promoting the "No Beef - No Relief" diet all week without telling us its promoter is a billionaire who flies around the world in a private jet. https://order-order.com/2019/01/18/environmentalist-behind-mad-new-diet-globe-trotting-billionaire-private-jet/#disqus_thread
More FAKE NEWS from the BBC...All day long the BBC have been pushing the Buzzfeed-Cohen-Russia thing. Now they are reporting..."A spokesman for Mr Mueller - who is investigating alleged Russian interference in the US presidential election and whether Trump campaign figures were complicit - said Buzzfeed's "description of specific statements" and "characterisation of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony are not accurate"."The BBC hid behind Buzzfeed to provide a huge anti-Trump headline. Will the BBC now put Full Fact "advisories" on all the misinformation they have pumped out over the last 48 hours? Of course not. They LURV Fake News (as long as it's anti-Trump, anti-Brexit and pro-PC).
Outrageous - sneering Sopel pushed this hard on BBC 1 news last night. The BBC are very happy to rush through unverified accounts when it suits their narrative.
BBC R4 Today "sports news" at 7.30 featured Jens Lehman (German, ex Arsenal goalkeeper) asking UK to stay in the EU. (There was no statement from an ex Tottenham Leave supporting striker provided as balance).
The BBC are absolutely brazen at the moment. They smell victory but are further damaging what’s left of their reputation by being part of the undemocratic elite. And I don’t think the final victory will be theirs.
I see Nick Bryant has penned (or rather rehashed a similar article from last year) about American Presidents and Trump in particular. To what purpose? You don't need second sight to guess without reading it. To bash trump. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46895634This article appears in a news section of the BBC website with no indication it is an opinion piece - and not just any old opinion piece, but one dripping with visceral hatred of Trump. So it is clearly Fake News - partisan opinion masquerading as news. How can this possibly pass muster in terms of the BBC own (much ignored) impartiality rules. Even if everything Nick Bryant said was true, rather than being instead a misleading selection of partial facts, there are still huge gaps in his article. How in the current era can a senior experienced journalist assess the impact of a President without mentioning economic growth?! lol Of course, the reason he doesn't mention that is because the economy has been growing impressively and that is therefore a positive story, with impressive 4% plus growth (currently well over 3%). He does mention briefly some positive economic indicators in a short para buried in the middle of the article but still manages to criticise Trump as somehow himself diminishing their impact (faulty, convoluted reasoning is a Bryant trademark). The article is just another rehash of Bryant's potted history of American Presidents, of the sort anyone can access in a bookshop or online. It's not what he's paid to do, which is be the BBC's New York correspondent. New York is not even the seat of government in the USA, so it's puzzling as to why he takes upon himself the mantle of Historian in Chief when it's just his job to report on events in the Big Apple (largely not very interesting - could be summed up as "a lot of people made a lot of money today"). We've heard way too much from NBC - Nick Bryant Codswallop. Time to close down the station.
Quite bizarre! Classic headline juggling by the BBC. The BBC has a headline on its USA-Canada page (the one you see first but gets junked after a while, which is why they take liberries with it). It says "Mueller disputes Buzzfeed's Trump report". Disputes? Buzzfeed said his inquiry had evidence supplied by Cohen re whatever, but Mueller has denied the report is accurate. That is Mueller rebuts Buzzfeed's claims. You use "dispute" when we don't know who has full access to the truth. In this case we know Mueller has full access. In the headline to the story itself, the BBC concedes as much. It now becomes:"Buzzfeed's Trump lawyer report not accurate - Mueller's office". That is a much fairer headline. No apologies from Zurcher, the BBC's resident Anti-Trump Fanatic who built up an edifice of accusation on the basis of the Buzzfeed story. It reminds me, the Insane Media in the USA love to count up Trump's alleged "lies" - currently over 7,000 according to the Washington Post. I don't think anyone is going to try and claim that Trump is a pendant when it comes to accuracy but I'd like to suggest to him that he learns to preface all his statements with "Some say..." "It's been reported..." "Many people are arguing..." "Respected commentators have stated that..." - you know...like the BBC does to give its reporting a Teflon coating.
Not a point of bias but just to note out of interest: I happened on a programme late at night recently on the World Service about the assassination of Benazir Bhutto; then another one last night which I thought must be a repeat but turns out it's a documentary series by Owen Bennett Jones whose name I recognised from here. 'The award-winning inside story: who killed Benazir Bhutto? A 10-year investigation.' It's very detailed about her death and the surrounding circumstances and has apparently been highly praised and awarded various prizes. 'Through the mystery of this murder we reveal a little of how Pakistan works. The Assassination is a portrait of a woman and the country she would rule by a man who knows both as well as any British journalist, Owen Bennett Jones.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csy54p
Several mentions on R4 today , including BH and TWTW, of a "referendum" held in the local paper in Grantham about a statue to Mrs T. The "referendum" went against the building of a statue ,but it was built anyway. Ha! Implies the Beeb, referenda are not binding! Good grief. They really have gone over the top. Can we get our license fees back because the Beeb is now a political campaigning organisation?
I heard the dig on TWTW, but haven't heard BH yet. That they made the point twice in one day is very BBC. Good spot, Ozfan.