After 10 years of Conservative rule blighted by austerity and Brexit-weariness, it takes an almost breathtaking audacity - hostile critics might say the brassiest neck in the business - to campaign for a fourth consecutive Tory term in office as the face of change. It takes, in other words, Boris Johnson.
The opening paragraph of John Pienaar’s article today smacks of personal opinion to set a particular tone rather than valuable political insight.
'About 74' - I wonder what percentage of that total are 'far-right' terrorists - sorry, I mean 'terror prisoners'. Given the false equivalence the BBC are pushing, no doubt their reporters could find out and let us know.
November's three open threads mentioned the time of the month. So, engaging in a spot of (perhaps inelegant wordplay), I thought I'd continue the theme. '
Advent' means 'the coming of (something)'. And December has come, this very day. Today is also the start of Advent for Christians. Allelujah! So it's the coming of both December and Advent. The advent of December and Advent.
On a similar 'what on earth does that mean?' point, however, seriously, what's with the Little Black Sambo monicker? I've (politely) begged you before not to use it as it risks discrediting us as a site. I've seen your comments many places elsewhere as Little Black Censored. You're not extreme and I often agree with you. So why post under such a needlessly provocative, racist monicker and why use that image?
Normally one's sympathies would be entirely with the victims of terror, but what if the victims were closely involved with an ideological approach that enables terror?
We are then in a very complex moral terrain...as Michael Buerk might say...
I am deeply suspicious of the "Learning Together" initiative (organisers of the Fishmongers Hall event where the London Bridge terror attack was launched) on a number of grounds:
1. They have not been transparent about their role since the terror attack, despite inviting the terrorist to their conference and despite their conference organiser being one of the victims. So far the only relevant intervention I have seen in the news was a Cambridge head of faculty I think speaking tonight some emoluent, but essentially meaningless, words. He didn't seem to be directly related to "Learning Together". Remember - if this had been a right wing think tank that had invited a Far Right convicted terrorist to their conference who subsequently went on a murderous rampage, the BBC would give no quarter. They would be terrier-like in pursuit of (a legitimate) news story. Any concerns about the emotional impact on the organisers about the traumatic impact of media attention on the conference organisers would be set to one side.
2. This whole episode exposes something that has worried me for a long time - the way academia has entered the public political sphere and become a player via various "units", "initiatives" and "observatories" (choose your fashionable label). We have for instance the "Migration Observatory" (which has received funding from, amongst others, the EU) based in Oxford University which is constantly weighing in on the side of mass immigration in public debate - often being called upon by the BBC to contribute to their flagship news programmes and offer a veneer of academic respectability to the argument for an extra 6 million people from abroad every decade. Of course, the Migration Observatory are always favoured over the much more objective Migration Watch.
3. How much of our tax is being funnelled into these politicised propaganda operations? What are the accounting arrangements? "Learning Together" seemed to receive funds from within Cambridge University - but surely there are all sorts of conflicts of interest involved here...academics awarding tax money to fellow academics with little oversight. Are we sure public money is being used with probity? It seems extremely odd that such a conference would choose one of the most expensive conference locations in the capital. Or were they benefitting from a cheap hire for some reason?
4. What is Learning Together's legal status? It's part of a national network (so it claims). Is it a charity, a private company, a co-operative,or a sole trader operation? Does anyone know? Who runs it? Does anyone know? Would it, for instance, have a duty of care in law to its members/staff/participants in events? If so, how does that work if someone makes a claim against them? Does "Learning Together" have public liability insurance? If not, why not - given it's organising conferences?
5. To what extent is a body like "Learning Together" really an effective rehabilitation organisation and how much is it a sort of continuing Gap Year exercise in virtue signalling - akin to being seen to build a well in Zambia on Instagram? Today I have heard claims made about the wonderful and effective work it has been doing. Sorry - claims are claims and evidence is something entirely different. No violent criminal or terrorist was ever "rehabilitated" by a multi-agency conference in the City of London in my view. A few may see an opportunity for advancement, which is fair enough - if they can make a new life as a poster boy or girl for one of these virtue-signalling organisations, I don't blame them at all. But conferences for a few "stars" are not rehabilitation for the generality of difficult repeat offenders.
Some of the above comments may appear a bit harsh.
They are certainly not aimed at good people who do real good in very difficult circumstances. But we do have to realise that we are engaged in an existential struggle - there are people out there who don't just want to change our foreign policy: they want to conquer us, change our culture and make us adopt a completely different (and wholly reprehensible) code of life.
They've appeared weak and absurd at times before now, but then - as with 9-11 - they have suddenly become a direct and deadly threat. Who can tell when we might next see a 9-11 or worse threat become reality?
In these circumstances we have to limit sentiment I think, however hard on us that is. We certainly can't applaud naivety at this time.
Wow! Mishal thinks there are no verses in the Koran supposed to inspire fear in unbelievers. :) Mishal - of Pakistani heritage and educated in Saudi Arabia - seems strangely unfamiliar with the Koran.
Odd thing is - Mishal is not quoting all those verses full of lurv in the Koran...and seems unaware of the 134 or so verses that threaten unbelievers with all manner of unpleasant things in this world and the next.
But even so, impartial Mishal is sure Boris hasn't read the Koran.
I am damn sure he's more than skimmed it! Not least because he is from a Muslim family a few generations back!
Good to see more BBC staff wading in and tackling the Conservative PM in an impartial way... :)
"Would be interesting to know if Boris Johnson had read the Quran when he wrote this in 2005 http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/16th-july-2005/12/just-dont-call-it-war …"
The question I am afraid has to be: Is Mishal being sincere (but ignorant) here or is she indulging in Taqiyya? Only she can tell us.
In the aftermath of the Marr "interruptyou-interview" these are my thoughts:
1. The "safety first" strategy of the Conservative campaign has to be abandoned for the last 10 days. The BBC and MSM are so suppressing Boris's message that it is now extremely dangerous to acquiesce in that process. It appears weak and allows Labour to rampage at will.
2. Boris needs to go on the offensive and drop some anti-PC bombs that the PC media will not be able to ignore. He needs to put out messages on Islamic extremism, Sharia law, sentencing of terrorists, welfare freeloaders and mass immigration that Corbyn and co will have to react to.
3. He needs to go for broke on Corbyn's pro-terrorism. The Conservatives have been spooked about this because of (nice but ineffective) Zac Goldsmith's Mayoral campaign in London collapsing when he referenced Sadiq Khan's pro-terrorism actions. There is no parallel. Huge swathes of the country are just asking to be tipped over into never voting for Corbyn. But they need a lead. This isn't a London election, it's a national election. Boris needs to give the lead now.
Andrew Marr accuses Boris Johnson of being an Islamophobe because he correctly explained that the Koran is designed to instill fear in the hearts of non-Muslims. Meanwhile Marr and his other disgusting colleagues in the bogus news media business pay no attention to what is really happening on our streets:
Lichfield makes the point that by voting Leave, the people of the city 'won' against the Remain establishment in the 2016 Referendum. He goes on to affirm that so far as the Remainers are concerned 'win' really means 'lose' and the once proud people should accept that their voices are to be ignored.
You need a dry humour to swallow the Guardian line that racism from the local population is one of the elements of radicalisation. Talk of bombing pubs is the a good one-liner - try and find a traditional workingman's pub nowadays that isn't boarded up.
All the chatter today is about issues of security and the records of aspirant leaders. I thought this article a must-read (I'm an older person and remember the events well).
Manna from heaven for the BBC when Jack Merritt’s father tweets;
‘Don’t use my son’s death, and his and his colleague’s photos - to promote your vile propaganda. Jack stood against everything you stand for - hatred, division, ignorance.’
They couldn’t have wished for a better quote to support their narrative which they have been carefully constructing since the attack.
Cuts in the criminal justice system are to blame as are the nasty Tories. Learning together is good, Not enough has been done in rehabilitation. Don’t change sentencing laws. It’s nothing to do with the ROP. Only one of the 74 released has gone on to kill again. Hope not hate.
Let’s not ask the difficult questions (which will divide us), let’s hold a vigil instead and all will be well.
The BBC website has an article on Learning Together, which doesn't answer any really important questions:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50623646
It's really a puff piece for what is now described as a "programme" (though it wasn't previously described as that by its organisers). Why does it need separate funding from the University of Cambridge if it's part of the University of Cambridge? That doesn't make sense. Does it have its own bank account? Is it covered by the University's rule on financial probity?
I find Learning Together's Modus Operandi very troubling. It seems we have academics awarding money to other academics, most probably known to them, running a semi-autonomous "programme". This programme, far from being "innovative", just seems to be the bog standard "education plus talk" approach to prisoner rehabilitation (nothing wrong with that per se but it's not exactly new or rocket science). But it raises questions about accountability and risk assessment.
Who is measuring the success of the programme? Well, it appears the very academics who received the funding and designed the programme. Likelihood of said academics deciding it was a waste of money? Zero.
Then there's this tweet from an ex prisoner participant:
"I participated in a ‘Law, Society and Justice’ course at Grendon Prison last year. We discussed topics from intersections of class and race with law through to justice for Palestine. Every week we had brilliant discussions that transcended our very different positions in life."
Is that reassuring? - that the programme encourages prisoners (I'm guessing Islamic terrorist prisoners included) to discuss "justice for Palestine". How is that played out? Do these Jihadi types suddenly turn round and say "No - you've got a point. Israel has a right to exist."
Call me cynical, but I don't think so. The "intersectionality" jargon suggests to me that this programme is feeding a sense of group identity grievance rather than focussing on individual responsibility and recovery.
Hatred, division, ignorance?...his grief excuses him but I suggest he goes on to the Guardian comments section if he wants to see what hatred looks like.
Steyn: "Truly, parody is dead. I gave it a go, but no satirist can compete with reality. As a teenager I read Evelyn Waugh's magnificent Decline and Fall, and in all the years since have never failed to raise a laugh from the mere thought of its modish prison governor so in thrall to his progressive reformist theories that he cannot see the obvious reality of the madman in his charge, and thus issues him the woodworking tools with which he beheads the chaplain."
I referenced the prison scenes in Decline and Fall when I first heard about this...as Steyn says - this is beyond parody.
"Did you not know that there is enmity and natural antipathy between your kind and mine? Did you not know that a serpent in the bosom, a mouse in a bag and fire in a barn give their hosts an ill reward?" - The Farmer and the viper.
The Steyn article is very good: measured but firm and unflinching in the face of moral blackmail. Like him, I groaned when I heard useless Dick denounce the attack as "senseless". Not for the assailant - for him it was full of sense and purpose. He wished to see a Global Caliphate installed, with full application of Sharia law. His attack would speed that end result - and who can gainsay him? Such attacks do create fear, lower our quality of life (increased security measures and so on) and also, in our society, they are met with further promotion of Islam as a peaceful religion, burnishing its image among the credulous.
Zoe Ball got in on the subtle bias message this morning, promoting a Channel 4 "dispatches" programme to be shown tonight, apparently about poverty in Britain. She says its an important watch "in the run up to christmas and the election" Really ? I wonder why ? Not even as it it's a BBC programme... I wonder if Ball is a lefty-liberal airhead, or full on champagne socialist airhead ?
She was the one on the radio chanting 'Ooooh Jeremy Corbyn' after his appearance at the last-but-one Glastonbury. At that time she had a Radio 2 Saturday afternoon slot. Both of your options would suit her well.
Like Vine, she has an obscenely high salary and uses virtue signalling to compensate for her embarrassment of riches. They all do.
She is thinking - I’m very fortunate and will patronise the less fortunate which will excuse my wealth. I’m a hypocrite and I have nothing in common with the great unwashed but will pretend to care for them and their poorness by showing faux empathy.
I also heard it being promoted by Emma Barnett on BBC radio as well - odd, eh, promoting your media rivals in that way, but "all in a good (anti-Tory) cause" I guess.
Child poverty is a serious problem in the UK but a lot of it relates to irresponsible parenting - parents are often addicts who will spend and additional money you throw at them on their addictions or other stupid spending. Such truths are not welcome on the BBC.
Sensible solutions should be pursued, eg maybe creating debit cards for child spending, so money can't be diverted into parent-centred expenditure.
Don't forget that having an unplanned pregnancy is a consequence of irresponsibility itself - so the least responsible people are likely to have the most children.
As if on cue, the BBC One news tonight leads with the vigil for Jack Merritt and Saskia Jones, Sadiq Khans speech ‘we will not be cowed’ and David Merritts tweets about politicising his sons death and on feeding hate.
The focus of Daniel Sanfords report was on the effectiveness of the probation service and radicalisation programmes.
Mark Easton then reported on the effect of budget cuts at the police and prison service and in doing so pointed the finger of blame.
The BBC response to this tragedy follows the well worn path of vigils, candles and tales of bravery. The really difficult questions were left unasked and until they are addressed nothing will change.
Yep, totally predictable. How ironic as well that they are now starting to admit that Muslim prisoners control some prison wings (rather than the staff). This is exactly what Tommy Robinson told Sandford and other journalists. Did they listen? Of course not - they were too busy constructing their "Dangerous Far Right" narrative to notice.
"Why did the chicken cross the road?" "Because it was trying to get away from Nish Kumar's unbearably PC and totally humourless routine."
"Knock-knock" "Who's there?" "Nish" "Nish who?" "Niche comedy - my speciality is I have an unfunny act."
"Did you know Nish Kumar's doing a charity event." "No I didn't - what's the cause?" "It's to help out poor comedians. He hopes people will be charitable and laugh at his pathetic and unfunny jokes."
As yu might expect, the BBC report on their website follows the line of fellow bbc employee Greg James who said the behaviour of some of the crowd was "appalling".
An article sympathetic to Kumar and hostile to the audience. So whoever wrote the article immediately took sides and came to his defence.
'Comic Nish Kumar booed off stage at charity bash'
A 'charity bash' is something that only the far-right would attend. Cricket is in the BBC's book a far-right activity - unless it's 'street cricket' or similar played by Asians in their countries of birth or that of their parents/ grandparents or great grandparents. I remember Terry Wogan was a great supporter of the Lords Taverners - how times change.
The 12 noon news on Radio2 led with Pres. Trump saying he wasn’t interested in the NHS even if it was handed on a silver platter. The report went on to say that Trump also thought that Boris was very capable.
To give some sort of ‘ other side of the story’ they finished with an awkwardly shoehorned quote from Lord Patten who said that ‘unfortunately Boris is turning the Conservative party into a narrow nationalist party and Trump likes nationalists’.
A rather obvious and transparent bit of opinionated bias masquerading as news.
Good morning, I'm Libby Lefty and here is the BBC Fake News. Jeremy Corbyn has apologised over the anti-semitism row...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50643493
Absolutely fake. There was no apology. He said:
"Our party and me do not accept anti-Semitism in any form. Obviously I am very sorry for everything that has happened, but I want to make this clear - I am dealing with it, I have dealt with it."
He's sorry "for everything that's happened" - I bet he is, for the effect on his poll ratings, but that's not an apology either to the public at large or the Jewish community in particular. In fact, it's the antithesis of an apology, it's a justification. He says he personally done nothing wrong. He claims wrongly that his Party do not accept anti-semitism in any form when it has allowed people like Naz Shah to remain in positions of influence even after confessing to promoting anti-semitism. So it does accept anti-semitism.
Also, not he didn't apologise to the Jewish community in any shape or form.
But isn't that a helpful headline for Labour to be taken on board by the credulous.
You are right MB. It was a mealy mouthed apology and as always he dodged a direct apology to Jews.
But to BBC ears it was a fullsome one and sufficient to enable them to use it as evidence. They will be able to build a supportive narrative with those words .
Sky also running with it being an apology... the British Board of Jewish Deputies spokesperson was trenchant but made the tactical mistake of also describing it as an apology...an insincere one and then a "sham" one. She should have just denied it was an apology because it really, really wasn't.
OFCOM have rejected the Conservatives complaint about the C4 climate debate
They said Channel 4's use of editorial techniques ensured that the Conservative's viewpoint on climate and environmental issues was adequately reflected and given due weight.
Really- when has the Conservative viewpoint on anything ever been given due weight on C4?
It's pretty amazing when you think that 99% of teachers and academics are anti-Conservative, 98% of TV and radio comedy is anti-Conservative, 95% of TV news presenters and reporters are anti-Conservative, 98% of actors are anti-Conservative, the Church of England and most other main Churches are anti-Conservative, 80% of the press is pro-Remain, 90% of business if pro-Remain, 95% of films and plays develop anti-Conservative themes, and 100% of trade unions are anti-Conservative that our Remain-supporting Conservative Party is still getting over 40% in the polls!
Poor Lord Hall, he must be worried he'll have to make another tour of North London dining tables apologising for the BBC's failure to deliver...
'90% of business if [is] pro-Remain' You might be right about all the others, but it is questionable whether business throughout the UK is pro-remain. I have no doubt that the City bankers and their fellow gamblers are, but many SMEs sell all over the world. They are used to export markets outside the EU, and have the necessary know-how to operate under WTO rules.
Your main point - 'that our Remain-supporting Conservative Party is still getting over 40% in the polls!' Did you mean that? If you meant 'Get Brexit Done' Conservative Party, then it is a surprise that, despite the onslaught of anti Conservative rhetoric, they are still ahead in the polls.
Not for the first time, I carelessly typed Remain for Leave! Yes I meant the "Get Brexit Done" Conservative Party (although probably 50% of candidates are probably still secret Mayist Remainers!)
Fair comment Arthur about business - maybe I should have qualified it as 90% of business representatives "interviewed in the media"...that would have been much more accurate.
Thanks for clearing that up. The one unheard voice over Brexit is that of the farmers. We haven't heard how, after Brexit, they will be helped with their subsidies. They will be helped without doubt - but for now they appear to be sitting collectively on the fence - apart from the NFU, which like the CBI are of course pro-Remain. Most farmers are naturally Conservative, and will back Boris. Farmers are most mercenary - if they are paid to underproduce, they will. They have operated for years in a false market - by switching to produce rape seed or whatever crop pays well. Brexit might bring a new realistic level of farm-gate prices. We'll see.
We've discussed on here the BBC's role in creating a false equivalence between anti-semitism and Islamophobia. Also the BBC's pushing of the "we are bored/confused by this whole election nonsense".
Well, I heard deputy Political Editor Norman Smith on R4 Midnight News create a new false equivalence. According to Norman, the criticisms of Labour's anti-semtism have been balanced out by Labour's charges that the Conservatives will sell the NHS to President Trump. And we are bored and confused by both.
The Referee Delusion: "Both sides are complaining about my refereeing decisions. That makes me a good referee." Nope, you might just be a crap Referee or on the take.
The Centrist Delusion: "Because I receive complaints from both right and left that means I am not politically biased." Let's remember that Stalin was criticised by those on the left for his mealy-mouthed approach to revolution! :) That didn't make him a centrist.
The BBC is primarily a soft Left Guardian-type organisation. It is sympathetic to the Far Left: it doesn't dispute their aims, only their methods (taxing BBC high earners' wealth). It detests and distrusts everyone to the right of Ken Clarke. It does not in any way give fair representation to the views of the 45% who vote for non-Left parties or the 52% who voted for Leave.
You want to prove you're not biased to the lefty-liberal side of politics. What is the journal of choice for your article? Why, the Guardian of course! :)
We could go on.
Is the BBC fair and proportionate in focussing on negative impacts of either the Remain or Leave option? How many news items have there been about the negative impacts of continued EU membership?
Is Nick Robinson fair and proportionate in disputing Boris's veracity so tenaciously but giving McDonnell, Corbyn, Abbott, Phillips, Swinson, Clarke and all the rest a free pass? (If Robinson wants, I could give him a stack of bare-faced lies told by that bunch which will make Boris sound like a whited sepulchre of truth.)
Is the BBC fair and proportionate in its coverage of terrorist groups or does it allow some groups that if favours, like the IRA, to pose as likeable and legitimate individuals pursuing purely political goals?
Is Emma Barnett fair and proportionate between the genders or does she assume women are hard done by in our society in comparison with men? Does she somehow manage to ignore figures for industrial injury, early death, employment in dirty or high risk occupations, addiction, suicide,incarceration and so on when considering which gender is more hard done by?
Is the BBC generally fair and proportionate in its description of Extinction Rebellion's insane policies which would within 10 years lead to deaths of hundreds of millions across the planet, collapse of the NHS, 50% mass unemployment and widespread poverty or does it imply they are morally sound policies driven by strong ethical convinctions rather than dangerous programmes put forward by Far Left anti-capitalist nutjobs?
1. It's the things that aren't there that are sometimes important. Have you noticed how Project Fear is not really being wheeled out in this election campaign, despite this being billed as a Brexit election? Think of all the thousands of hours of broadcast time given over to scare stories over the last three years: we won't be able to fly, we won't have any fresh produce, we won't get any medicines from abroad, we won't be able to trade with mainland Europe, we won't be able to make sandwiches, our car industries will collapse, we will all be £40,000 poorer, hundreds of thousands of sheep will be slaughtered (that was a good one - they all end up being slaughtered any way!), we won't be able to harvest crops, terrorists will have free run in the UK, the NHS will collapse and so on.
Surely the BBC and the pro-Remain parties would love to air these fears during the election campaign?
They aren't getting much of an airing. I think that's because the Conservatives are clearly pro-Leave. The BBC and the rest of the MSM, plus the pro-Remain parties, don't want to expose these absurd Project Fear claims to any sort of scrutiny. It's all very well promoting Project Fear when you know the BBC will simply amplify the story uncritically...quite another when a pro-Leave party will welcome the focus on Brexit and counter any arguments.
2. Rather than being stigmatised as a pro-hate, racist party, UKIP have been given a respectful hearing on their manifesto launch...despite being in seemingly terminal chaos. Hmmm...it's almost as if they wouldn't mind UKIP taking a few points off the Conservatives.
The piece addresses the strange fact that the women didn't seem to know how to ride a bike and that families didn't want their young daughters to ride bikes. Hilarious moment when project leader says her approach is: "You're in New Zealand now - it's safe for your daughters to ride a bike." She either doesn't know, or is pretending not to know, the real reason why they don't want their daughters riding bikes. Numerous Fatwas have been issued against the practice (for women and girls) citing the reasons.
As so often the whole item goes by without once mentioning the I word, M word, K word or F word - all of them completely relevant.
The announcement of the 2019 Turner Prize winner(s) was made last evening. The BBC's Arts Editor Will Gomphertz gave us his opinion:
... '"Maybe annual awards like the Turner Prize and the Booker Prize, which also didn't have a single winner this year, are reaching their sell-by date: an anachronism from a bygone binary age of winners and losers."
We've said it many times before, it's a painting prize - no paintings to be seen again this year - and no winner either!
... 'The Turner Prize is now beyond parody as is Will Gompertz and his irritatingly upbeat reports on woke art.' ...
Will's notes for the 2020 Turner Prize have been leaked:
And the winner is - Greta Thunberg. Her ability to put herself at the centre of global debate over climate change impressed the judges. Her videos and stills of of her 2019 Atlantic crossing provided a compelling narrative of fearless commitment. Her exhibition piece included sounds of the sea, which the judges found deeply moving. There was also a passing nod to the Tate who administer the prize and its connection to the slave trade. The sounds, said the judges, would have been those very sounds heard by the slaves during their Atlantic crossing.
Will's notes conclude with his own tribute to GT and his endorsement of such a worthy winner of this great prize.
It has been widely reported today that Diane Abbott’s son has been arrested after 'biting one police officer and spitting at another outside the Foreign Office.
So far as I can tell this has not been reported anywhere on the BBC.
I can’t image this would be the case if it were Priti Patel’s son. I’m sure the BBC would be in full attack mode in order to cause major damage.
Another case of not being fair and proportionate Fran?
Very one sided reporting on the Trump impeachment hearing. They have censored all mention of Professor Kaplan's mean-spirited comments at the hearing about Trump's son Baron. They also do not report that Kaplan has made significant financial donations to campaigns by Obama and Elizabeth Warren and has joked about walking on the other side of the street to avoid being close to a Trump hotel. It's almost as if they want you to think she's an objective, non-partisan consitutional expert.
The article explains that the perps were allegedly 'shot while trying to escape the scence of a reconstruction of the rape'.
Martha Kearney asks her interviewee, "Why were these men shot ?", implying that Indian police simply did away with the accused. Her interviewee replies "I don't know".
The BBC News website Election 2019 has no fewer than six images of Andrew Neil's interview studio. We can guess how importantly the BBC treats AN's contribution to their election coverage. Boris has stolen their thunder by no putting his head on the block. The 'oven ready' interview reference tells all. It was a concerted strategic effort to damage Boris Johnson.
Then he tries to wriggle out of it...claiming he didn't realise it was political as he didn't watch it to the end. Then gives us a load of guff about how important NHS is to him and his family.
FFS it was a GMB video!!! GMB is a founder member of the Labour Party and is its third biggest affiliate union. Are you telling me that one of the BBC's top news staff didn't know that?
They seem to have forgotten some infamous quotes from her at the inquiry in a way they never forget quotes from some other people (letterboxes anybody?).
She appeared three times on Woman's Hour since the fire and been interviewed sympathetically and uncritically every time, once as a "guest editor" (before the inquiry has delivered its judgement).
Why is the BBC so partisan about her? Hmmm... no need to explain all that. People involved in the project cannot be allowed to fail.
The BBC is no longer an observer of our General Election campaigns, it is a willing, dogged and enthusiastic participant. Here are some of the ways in 2019 it has really entered the campaign:
1. Using opinion pieces falsely labelled "Reality Checks" to deliver verdicts on the claims and policies of the parties, but in particular the Conservative Party to which it adopts a hostile stance. Well done Chris Morris!
2. Issuing tactical voter guides.
3. Engaging in insanely interruptive interviews with the main players, with Conservatives interviewees beearing the brunt.
4. Editing down political speeches to virtually nothing and then getting their correspondents to tell the public what has been said.
5. Using a declined invitation to attend an interview with the BBC as negative propaganda (with lead story status on both bulletins and on the website).
6. Liking tweets or retweeting them in favour of Labour or other anti-Conservative parties.
7. And now, the latest, actually telling politicians and public (a) what the campaign should be about and (b) what policies they should adopt:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50599633
Here's Andy Verity's take:
"No party's manifesto contains the unpopular measures required to fix growing generational inequality. For young people to afford family homes would require not just cheaper mortgages but lower house prices. How about a stated policy to bring house prices down?
Those wanting to climb the housing ladder would benefit because, other things being equal, the price of their current place would fall by less than that of the one they were buying. But a policy goal of lower house prices might frighten floating voters.
Similarly, pensioners' incomes (net of housing costs) are now higher than those of people of working age. Why then do working people pay higher taxes for state pensions to rise, despite being on lower incomes than the minority of those who benefit?
The answer lies, one suspects, in the grey vote. Cutting universal pensioner benefits or scrapping the triple-lock state pension protection might make fiscal sense. It's absent from the manifestos, one suspects, because lots of pensioners make sure they vote. "
This is typical BBC fare: it signals virtue (wanting to help families find homes), it demands a solution but doesn't indicate how in detail the solution would work, it is economically illiterate (despite being written by their economics correspondent) and it ignores completely the effects of mass immigration (how does Mr Verity think his "solution" would work if the other favoured BBC policy of no borders and no penalties for illegal entry was implemented given net migration would then rise to over a million).
Verity's policy recommendation appears to be "tax pensioners a lot more and then subsidise home ownership for working families".
Well, would this work? If housing supply remains the same or falls, the answer is no. Working families will simply offer more for the houses they want, which in many cases will simply return money into the hands of pensioners selling off their houses.
You have to increase housing supply if you are going to increase demand.
But how do you do that when you are bringing in over 600,000 people every year to live mostly in the southern half of the country and you have millions of business visitors every year who are free to buy housing?
I find it extremely concerning that the BBC's "Economics Correspondent" can't see the problem but instead thinks "taxing the old and subsidising the young" is some kind of solution to something.
When my local MP (now Conservative Party candidate)'s leaflet fell onto the mat the other day, I was encouraged to see a commitment to 'introduce legislation to prevent biased reporting by the BBC and MSM of parliamentary matters' (or words to that effect). I can't tell whether this is general Conservative Party policy or whether it's a personal crusade by Bill Cash.
Channel 4 subtitles quote Boris as saying "people of colour" when in fact he said "people of talent" - talking about border control. Channel 4 apologised for their 'mistake'. Why do both the BBC and Channel 4 have this rat-like smell permeating everything they put out about Boris Johnson?
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, the Conservatives win the election. Two things must happen;
- Tony Hall must go overnight and an interim DG should be appointed to overhaul the BBC to address the overtly left wing / liberal bias. The renewal of the Charter should only be considered once there has been a complete overhaul of all aspects of the Corporation's role; news, current affairs, drama, entertainment etc.
- Channel 4 needs a similar overhaul. It must be quickly moved into the private sector. It has lost every idea of balance in almost all programming with Channel 4 news a complete disgrace.
God help us when "deep fakes" become more prevalent. At least C4 owned up and apologised, unlike JC after his "stupid woman" put-down of Theresa May in the Commons.
Channel 4 can just be sold off. But the BBC needs careful treatment.
There is a danger if you just remove the licence fee PC billionaires from around the world will move in to save it and ramp up the PC propaganda (if that were possible) - a sort of CNN on steroids.
Even if the BBC disappeared, that would simply leave the field open to Netflix (Obamas now involved in production decisions), Sky and ITV - in other words PC propaganda will continue.
That's why on balance I think constraining and reforming the BBC is the answer.
Best debate so far. Fair play to Robinson, a dyed in the wool Remainer who is not shy of showing his bias on Today - he conducted the debate fairly with minimal interruptions for either Leader. It was all the more refreshing for that. His interventions were light touch and to the point.
It doesn't redeem the absolutely appalling Marr interview of course. That remains a huge smelly stain on the BBC's coverage.
Yes - Robinson would make an excellent replacement for Fiona Bruce on QT. Re: Marr, HIGNFY has just shown a sequence from his interruptathon with Boris - anyone surprised that they forgot to show the M.How many? B. '74' M. 'You're avoiding the question' exchange?
Yes, possibly. They have certainly pushed their luck, though I can't really see the Conservatives doing much about it.
I think the Corbynistas may now be realising that it was a mistake for them to declare open season on Jewish people as people like David Elstein and Michael Grade put the boot in.
But I think more generally, there is still in this country an idea of "fair play" and the partisan behaviour of BBC and Channel 4 is not going down well with the public at large I think.
That said, tonight's debate on the BBC was the fairest I have seen, and - in an old fashioned way - allowed us to hear what the Leaders had to say. I congratulate Nick Robinson on that - for somehow leaving behind the appalling bias he normally gives vent to on Today. :)
I like that he agrees with me that Kissinger advising Nixon to go to China and reach an accommodation with the Maoist Communist regime led to the creation of a monster. Assinine concept! Nixon-Kissinger told us economic liberalism will lead to political liberalism...
The elite of Washington are absolute morons!!
They are making us import fascism! :)
Calling out Google on its Communist-friendly policies.
After 10 years of Conservative rule blighted by austerity and Brexit-weariness, it takes an almost breathtaking audacity - hostile critics might say the brassiest neck in the business - to campaign for a fourth consecutive Tory term in office as the face of change. It takes, in other words, Boris Johnson.
ReplyDeleteThe opening paragraph of John Pienaar’s article today smacks of personal opinion to set a particular tone rather than valuable political insight.
Indeed. A post is coming up shortly about this. Thanks for pointing it out.
Delete'About 74' - I wonder what percentage of that total are 'far-right' terrorists - sorry, I mean 'terror prisoners'. Given the false equivalence the BBC are pushing, no doubt their reporters could find out and let us know.
ReplyDelete"Advent of December" - what on earth does that mean?
ReplyDeleteNovember's three open threads mentioned the time of the month. So, engaging in a spot of (perhaps inelegant wordplay), I thought I'd continue the theme. '
DeleteAdvent' means 'the coming of (something)'. And December has come, this very day. Today is also the start of Advent for Christians. Allelujah! So it's the coming of both December and Advent. The advent of December and Advent.
On a similar 'what on earth does that mean?' point, however, seriously, what's with the Little Black Sambo monicker? I've (politely) begged you before not to use it as it risks discrediting us as a site. I've seen your comments many places elsewhere as Little Black Censored. You're not extreme and I often agree with you. So why post under such a needlessly provocative, racist monicker and why use that image?
It seems our taste in children's literature does not agree. I have a great respect for this site.
DeleteHowever, goodbye.
Normally one's sympathies would be entirely with the victims of terror, but what if the victims were closely involved with an ideological approach that enables terror?
ReplyDeleteWe are then in a very complex moral terrain...as Michael Buerk might say...
I am deeply suspicious of the "Learning Together" initiative (organisers of the Fishmongers Hall event where the London Bridge terror attack was launched) on a number of grounds:
1. They have not been transparent about their role since the terror attack, despite inviting the terrorist to their conference and despite their conference organiser being one of the victims. So far the only relevant intervention I have seen in the news was a Cambridge head of faculty I think speaking tonight some emoluent, but essentially meaningless, words. He didn't seem to be directly related to "Learning Together". Remember - if this had been a right wing think tank that had invited a Far Right convicted terrorist to their conference who subsequently went on a murderous rampage, the BBC would give no quarter. They would be terrier-like in pursuit of (a legitimate) news story. Any concerns about the emotional impact on the organisers about the traumatic impact of media attention on the conference organisers would be set to one side.
2. This whole episode exposes something that has worried me for a long time - the way academia has entered the public political sphere and become a player via various "units", "initiatives" and "observatories" (choose your fashionable label). We have for instance the "Migration Observatory" (which has received funding from, amongst others, the EU) based in Oxford University which is constantly weighing in on the side of mass immigration in public debate - often being called upon by the BBC to contribute to their flagship news programmes and offer a veneer of academic respectability to the argument for an extra 6 million people from abroad every decade. Of course, the Migration Observatory are always favoured over the much more objective Migration Watch.
3. How much of our tax is being funnelled into these politicised propaganda operations? What are the accounting arrangements? "Learning Together" seemed to receive funds from within Cambridge University - but surely there are all sorts of conflicts of interest involved here...academics awarding tax money to fellow academics with little oversight. Are we sure public money is being used with probity? It seems extremely odd that such a conference would choose one of the most expensive conference locations in the capital. Or were they benefitting from a cheap hire for some reason?
(continued)
Delete4. What is Learning Together's legal status? It's part of a national network (so it claims). Is it a charity, a private company, a co-operative,or a sole trader operation? Does anyone know? Who runs it? Does anyone know? Would it, for instance, have a duty of care in law to its members/staff/participants in events? If so, how does that work if someone makes a claim against them? Does "Learning Together" have public liability insurance? If not, why not - given it's organising conferences?
5. To what extent is a body like "Learning Together" really an effective rehabilitation organisation and how much is it a sort of continuing Gap Year exercise in virtue signalling - akin to being seen to build a well in Zambia on Instagram? Today I have heard claims made about the wonderful and effective work it has been doing. Sorry - claims are claims and evidence is something entirely different. No violent criminal or terrorist was ever "rehabilitated" by a multi-agency conference in the City of London in my view. A few may see an opportunity for advancement, which is fair enough - if they can make a new life as a poster boy or girl for one of these virtue-signalling organisations, I don't blame them at all. But conferences for a few "stars" are not rehabilitation for the generality of difficult repeat offenders.
Some of the above comments may appear a bit harsh.
They are certainly not aimed at good people who do real good in very difficult circumstances. But we do have to realise that we are engaged in an existential struggle - there are people out there who don't just want to change our foreign policy: they want to conquer us, change our culture and make us adopt a completely different (and wholly reprehensible) code of life.
They've appeared weak and absurd at times before now, but then - as with 9-11 - they have suddenly become a direct and deadly threat. Who can tell when we might next see a 9-11 or worse threat become reality?
In these circumstances we have to limit sentiment I think, however hard on us that is. We certainly can't applaud naivety at this time.
emoluent=emollient
DeleteWow! Mishal thinks there are no verses in the Koran supposed to inspire fear in unbelievers. :) Mishal - of Pakistani heritage and educated in Saudi Arabia - seems strangely unfamiliar with the Koran.
ReplyDeleteOdd thing is - Mishal is not quoting all those verses full of lurv in the Koran...and seems unaware of the 134 or so verses that threaten unbelievers with all manner of unpleasant things in this world and the next.
But even so, impartial Mishal is sure Boris hasn't read the Koran.
I am damn sure he's more than skimmed it! Not least because he is from a Muslim family a few generations back!
Good to see more BBC staff wading in and tackling the Conservative PM in an impartial way... :)
https://twitter.com/MishalHusain/status/1201098194245050368
This is what Mishal has to say:
"Would be interesting to know if Boris Johnson had read the Quran when he wrote this in 2005 http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/16th-july-2005/12/just-dont-call-it-war …"
The question I am afraid has to be: Is Mishal being sincere (but ignorant) here or is she indulging in Taqiyya? Only she can tell us.
In the aftermath of the Marr "interruptyou-interview" these are my thoughts:
ReplyDelete1. The "safety first" strategy of the Conservative campaign has to be abandoned for the last 10 days. The BBC and MSM are so suppressing Boris's message that it is now extremely dangerous to acquiesce in that process. It appears weak and allows Labour to rampage at will.
2. Boris needs to go on the offensive and drop some anti-PC bombs that the PC media will not be able to ignore. He needs to put out messages on Islamic extremism, Sharia law, sentencing of terrorists, welfare freeloaders and mass immigration that Corbyn and co will have to react to.
3. He needs to go for broke on Corbyn's pro-terrorism. The Conservatives have been spooked about this because of (nice but ineffective) Zac Goldsmith's Mayoral campaign in London collapsing when he referenced Sadiq Khan's pro-terrorism actions. There is no parallel. Huge swathes of the country are just asking to be tipped over into never voting for Corbyn. But they need a lead. This isn't a London election, it's a national election. Boris needs to give the lead now.
Andrew Marr accuses Boris Johnson of being an Islamophobe because he correctly explained that the Koran is designed to instill fear in the hearts of non-Muslims. Meanwhile Marr and his other disgusting colleagues in the bogus news media business pay no attention to what is really happening on our streets:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/OzraeliAvi/status/1196174509578997760
These are dark times but I would say that the Guardian here give us a laugh every paragraph - albeit it a rather dry laugh...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/30/usman-khan-cobridge-stoke-on-trent-neighbours-shock?CMP=share_btn_tw
The once proud city of Stoke-on-Trent is fast becoming a dystopian wilderness - see John Lichfield's piece from UnHerd recently:
Deletehttps://unherd.com/2019/11/stoke-the-city-that-britain-forgot/
Lichfield makes the point that by voting Leave, the people of the city 'won' against the Remain establishment in the 2016 Referendum. He goes on to affirm that so far as the Remainers are concerned 'win' really means 'lose' and the once proud people should accept that their voices are to be ignored.
You need a dry humour to swallow the Guardian line that racism from the local population is one of the elements of radicalisation. Talk of bombing pubs is the a good one-liner - try and find a traditional workingman's pub nowadays that isn't boarded up.
All the chatter today is about issues of security and the records of aspirant leaders. I thought this article a must-read (I'm an older person and remember the events well).
ReplyDeletehttps://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2019/12/neil-obrien-corbyns-long-and-infamous-record-of-retreat-appeasement-and-support-for-terror.html
The Conservatives are too timid about bringing this into the election campaign. They need to use direct quotes and keep hammering away at it.
DeleteManna from heaven for the BBC when Jack Merritt’s father tweets;
ReplyDelete‘Don’t use my son’s death, and his and his colleague’s photos - to promote your vile propaganda. Jack stood against everything you stand for - hatred, division, ignorance.’
They couldn’t have wished for a better quote to support their narrative which they have been carefully constructing since the attack.
Cuts in the criminal justice system are to blame as are the nasty Tories. Learning together is good, Not enough has been done in rehabilitation. Don’t change sentencing laws. It’s nothing to do with the ROP. Only one of the 74 released has gone on to kill again. Hope not hate.
Let’s not ask the difficult questions (which will divide us), let’s hold a vigil instead and all will be well.
The BBC website has an article on Learning Together, which doesn't answer any really important questions:
Deletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50623646
It's really a puff piece for what is now described as a "programme" (though it wasn't previously described as that by its organisers). Why does it need separate funding from the University of Cambridge if it's part of the University of Cambridge? That doesn't make sense. Does it have its own bank account?
Is it covered by the University's rule on financial probity?
I find Learning Together's Modus Operandi very troubling. It seems we have academics awarding money to other academics, most probably known to them, running a semi-autonomous "programme". This programme, far from being "innovative", just seems to be the bog standard "education plus talk" approach to prisoner rehabilitation (nothing wrong with that per se but it's not exactly new or rocket science). But it raises questions about accountability and risk assessment.
Who is measuring the success of the programme? Well, it appears the very academics who received the funding and designed the programme. Likelihood of said academics deciding it was a waste of money? Zero.
Then there's this tweet from an ex prisoner participant:
"I participated in a ‘Law, Society and Justice’ course at Grendon Prison last year. We discussed topics from intersections of class and race with law through to justice for Palestine. Every week we had brilliant discussions that transcended our very different positions in life."
Is that reassuring? - that the programme encourages prisoners (I'm guessing Islamic terrorist prisoners included) to discuss "justice for Palestine". How is that played out? Do these Jihadi types suddenly turn round and say "No - you've got a point. Israel has a right to exist."
Call me cynical, but I don't think so. The "intersectionality" jargon suggests to me that this programme is feeding a sense of group identity grievance rather than focussing on individual responsibility and recovery.
Hatred, division, ignorance?...his grief excuses him but I suggest he goes on to the Guardian comments section if he wants to see what hatred looks like.
An interesting article in Conservative Woman:
Deletehttps://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/liberal-thinking-and-a-price-paid-in-lives/
A thought occurs to me. Was Fishmongers Hall chosen for its symbolism, being so close to London Bridge, the site of the earlier terror attack.
Learning Together - This is also well worth a read from Mark Steyn
Deletehttps://www.steynonline.com/9887/unlearning-together
Steyn: "Truly, parody is dead. I gave it a go, but no satirist can compete with reality. As a teenager I read Evelyn Waugh's magnificent Decline and Fall, and in all the years since have never failed to raise a laugh from the mere thought of its modish prison governor so in thrall to his progressive reformist theories that he cannot see the obvious reality of the madman in his charge, and thus issues him the woodworking tools with which he beheads the chaplain."
DeleteI referenced the prison scenes in Decline and Fall when I first heard about this...as Steyn says - this is beyond parody.
"Did you not know that there is enmity and natural antipathy between your kind and mine? Did you not know that a serpent in the bosom, a mouse in a bag and fire in a barn give their hosts an ill reward?" - The Farmer and the viper.
DeleteThe Steyn article is very good: measured but firm and unflinching in the face of moral blackmail. Like him, I groaned when I heard useless Dick denounce the attack as "senseless". Not for the assailant - for him it was full of sense and purpose. He wished to see a Global Caliphate installed, with full application of Sharia law. His attack would speed that end result - and who can gainsay him? Such attacks do create fear, lower our quality of life (increased security measures and so on) and also, in our society, they are met with further promotion of Islam as a peaceful religion, burnishing its image among the credulous.
DeleteZoe Ball got in on the subtle bias message this morning, promoting a Channel 4 "dispatches" programme to be shown tonight, apparently about poverty in Britain. She says its an important watch "in the run up to christmas and the election"
ReplyDeleteReally ? I wonder why ? Not even as it it's a BBC programme...
I wonder if Ball is a lefty-liberal airhead, or full on champagne socialist airhead ?
She was the one on the radio chanting 'Ooooh Jeremy Corbyn' after his appearance at the last-but-one Glastonbury. At that time she had a Radio 2 Saturday afternoon slot. Both of your options would suit her well.
DeleteLike Vine, she has an obscenely high salary and uses virtue signalling to compensate for her embarrassment of riches. They all do.
DeleteShe is thinking - I’m very fortunate and will patronise the less fortunate which will excuse my wealth. I’m a hypocrite and I have nothing in common with the great unwashed but will pretend to care for them and their poorness by showing faux empathy.
I also heard it being promoted by Emma Barnett on BBC radio as well - odd, eh, promoting your media rivals in that way, but "all in a good (anti-Tory) cause" I guess.
DeleteChild poverty is a serious problem in the UK but a lot of it relates to irresponsible parenting - parents are often addicts who will spend and additional money you throw at them on their addictions or other stupid spending. Such truths are not welcome on the BBC.
Sensible solutions should be pursued, eg maybe creating debit cards for child spending, so money can't be diverted into parent-centred expenditure.
Don't forget that having an unplanned pregnancy is a consequence of irresponsibility itself - so the least responsible people are likely to have the most children.
DeleteAs if on cue, the BBC One news tonight leads with the vigil for Jack Merritt and Saskia Jones, Sadiq Khans speech ‘we will not be cowed’ and David Merritts tweets about politicising his sons death and on feeding hate.
ReplyDeleteThe focus of Daniel Sanfords report was on the effectiveness of the probation service and radicalisation programmes.
Mark Easton then reported on the effect of budget cuts at the police and prison service and in doing so pointed the finger of blame.
The BBC response to this tragedy follows the well worn path of vigils, candles and tales of bravery. The really difficult questions were left unasked and until they are addressed nothing will change.
Yep, totally predictable. How ironic as well that they are now starting to admit that Muslim prisoners control some prison wings (rather than the staff). This is exactly what Tommy Robinson told Sandford and other journalists. Did they listen? Of course not - they were too busy constructing their "Dangerous Far Right" narrative to notice.
DeleteOne of the BBCs favourite comedians gets found out. I bet he is still wondering what he did wrong.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-7748277/Chaos-Lords-Taverners-Christmas-charity-lunch-comedian-Nish-Kumar-booed-off.html
Oh God, here comes the Guardian op-ed opinion piece.
Delete'Nish Kumar, was it racism ? Here's why it was."
"Why did the chicken cross the road?" "Because it was trying to get away from Nish Kumar's unbearably PC and totally humourless routine."
Delete"Knock-knock" "Who's there?" "Nish" "Nish who?" "Niche comedy - my speciality is I have an unfunny act."
"Did you know Nish Kumar's doing a charity event." "No I didn't - what's the cause?" "It's to help out poor comedians. He hopes people will be charitable and laugh at his pathetic and unfunny jokes."
As yu might expect, the BBC report on their website follows the line of fellow bbc employee Greg James who said the behaviour of some of the crowd was "appalling".
DeleteAn article sympathetic to Kumar and hostile to the audience. So whoever wrote the article immediately took sides and came to his defence.
The BBC have rushed to his defence. This piece turns the blame firmly on the audience:
Deletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-50644317
'Comic Nish Kumar booed off stage at charity bash'
A 'charity bash' is something that only the far-right would attend. Cricket is in the BBC's book a far-right activity - unless it's 'street cricket' or similar played by Asians in their countries of birth or that of their parents/ grandparents or great grandparents. I remember Terry Wogan was a great supporter of the Lords Taverners - how times change.
I bet Terry charged! He did for Children in Need - £70,000 a time.
DeleteVirtue signalling lefty "comics" - They don't like it up 'em !
DeleteThe 12 noon news on Radio2 led with Pres. Trump saying he wasn’t interested in the NHS even if it was handed on a silver platter. The report went on to say that Trump also thought that Boris was very capable.
ReplyDeleteTo give some sort of ‘ other side of the story’ they finished with an awkwardly shoehorned quote from Lord Patten who said that ‘unfortunately Boris is turning the Conservative party into a narrow nationalist party and Trump likes nationalists’.
A rather obvious and transparent bit of opinionated bias masquerading as news.
Trump is so clever! :)
DeleteGood morning, I'm Libby Lefty and here is the BBC Fake News. Jeremy Corbyn has apologised over the anti-semitism row...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50643493
Absolutely fake. There was no apology. He said:
"Our party and me do not accept anti-Semitism in any form. Obviously I am very sorry for everything that has happened, but I want to make this clear - I am dealing with it, I have dealt with it."
He's sorry "for everything that's happened" - I bet he is, for the effect on his poll ratings, but that's not an apology either to the public at large or the Jewish community in particular. In fact, it's the antithesis of an apology, it's a justification. He says he personally done nothing wrong. He claims wrongly that his Party do not accept anti-semitism in any form when it has allowed people like Naz Shah to remain in positions of influence even after confessing to promoting anti-semitism. So it does accept anti-semitism.
Also, not he didn't apologise to the Jewish community in any shape or form.
But isn't that a helpful headline for Labour to be taken on board by the credulous.
You are right MB. It was a mealy mouthed apology and as always he dodged a direct apology to Jews.
DeleteBut to BBC ears it was a fullsome one and sufficient to enable them to use it as evidence. They will be able to build a supportive narrative with those words .
Sky also running with it being an apology... the British Board of Jewish Deputies spokesperson was trenchant but made the tactical mistake of also describing it as an apology...an insincere one and then a "sham" one. She should have just denied it was an apology because it really, really wasn't.
DeleteOFCOM have rejected the Conservatives complaint about the C4 climate debate
ReplyDeleteThey said Channel 4's use of editorial techniques ensured that the Conservative's viewpoint on climate and environmental issues was adequately reflected and given due weight.
Really- when has the Conservative viewpoint on anything ever been given due weight on C4?
Hopefully the days of OFCOM and Channel Four are numbered.
DeleteIt's pretty amazing when you think that 99% of teachers and academics are anti-Conservative, 98% of TV and radio comedy is anti-Conservative, 95% of TV news presenters and reporters are anti-Conservative, 98% of actors are anti-Conservative, the Church of England and most other main Churches are anti-Conservative, 80% of the press is pro-Remain, 90% of business if pro-Remain, 95% of films and plays develop anti-Conservative themes, and 100% of trade unions are anti-Conservative that our Remain-supporting Conservative Party is still getting over 40% in the polls!
ReplyDeletePoor Lord Hall, he must be worried he'll have to make another tour of North London dining tables apologising for the BBC's failure to deliver...
'90% of business if [is] pro-Remain' You might be right about all the others, but it is questionable whether business throughout the UK is pro-remain. I have no doubt that the City bankers and their fellow gamblers are, but many SMEs sell all over the world. They are used to export markets outside the EU, and have the necessary know-how to operate under WTO rules.
DeleteYour main point - 'that our Remain-supporting Conservative Party is still getting over 40% in the polls!' Did you mean that? If you meant 'Get Brexit Done' Conservative Party, then it is a surprise that, despite the onslaught of anti Conservative rhetoric, they are still ahead in the polls.
Not for the first time, I carelessly typed Remain for Leave! Yes I meant the "Get Brexit Done" Conservative Party (although probably 50% of candidates are probably still secret Mayist Remainers!)
DeleteFair comment Arthur about business - maybe I should have qualified it as 90% of business representatives "interviewed in the media"...that would have been much more accurate.
Thanks for clearing that up. The one unheard voice over Brexit is that of the farmers. We haven't heard how, after Brexit, they will be helped with their subsidies. They will be helped without doubt - but for now they appear to be sitting collectively on the fence - apart from the NFU, which like the CBI are of course pro-Remain. Most farmers are naturally Conservative, and will back Boris. Farmers are most mercenary - if they are paid to underproduce, they will. They have operated for years in a false market - by switching to produce rape seed or whatever crop pays well. Brexit might bring a new realistic level of farm-gate prices. We'll see.
DeleteArthur, the more unheard voice over Brexit is that of the fishermen. Not many left I suppose.
DeleteWe've discussed on here the BBC's role in creating a false equivalence between anti-semitism and Islamophobia. Also the BBC's pushing of the "we are bored/confused by this whole election nonsense".
ReplyDeleteWell, I heard deputy Political Editor Norman Smith on R4 Midnight News create a new false equivalence. According to Norman, the criticisms of Labour's anti-semtism have been balanced out by Labour's charges that the Conservatives will sell the NHS to President Trump. And we are bored and confused by both.
Unsworth gives wise and insightful counsel or...maybe not
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/04/bbc-impartiality-precious-protect-election-coverage
The Referee Delusion: "Both sides are complaining about my refereeing decisions. That makes me a good referee." Nope, you might just be a crap Referee or on the take.
DeleteThe Centrist Delusion: "Because I receive complaints from both right and left that means I am not politically biased." Let's remember that Stalin was criticised by those on the left for his mealy-mouthed approach to revolution! :) That didn't make him a centrist.
The BBC is primarily a soft Left Guardian-type organisation. It is sympathetic to the Far Left: it doesn't dispute their aims, only their methods (taxing BBC high earners' wealth). It detests and distrusts everyone to the right of Ken Clarke. It does not in any way give fair representation to the views of the 45% who vote for non-Left parties or the 52% who voted for Leave.
‘But over time achieving fair and proportionate coverage will be the standard we hold ourselves to’ says Unsworth.
DeleteFair and proportionate is just one measure - I personally think they fail on this. Or I should say their reporters and presenters often fail.
Is John Sopel fair and proportionate on his assessment of POTUS?
How about Andrew Marr with his Boris interview?
Or Mark Easton with his view on immigration?
You want to prove you're not biased to the lefty-liberal side of politics. What is the journal of choice for your article? Why, the Guardian of course! :)
DeleteWe could go on.
Is the BBC fair and proportionate in focussing on negative impacts of either the Remain or Leave option? How many news items have there been about the negative impacts of continued EU membership?
Is Nick Robinson fair and proportionate in disputing Boris's veracity so tenaciously but giving McDonnell, Corbyn, Abbott, Phillips, Swinson, Clarke and all the rest a free pass?
(If Robinson wants, I could give him a stack of bare-faced lies told by that bunch which will make Boris sound like a whited sepulchre of truth.)
Is the BBC fair and proportionate in its coverage of terrorist groups or does it allow some groups that if favours, like the IRA, to pose as likeable and legitimate individuals pursuing purely political goals?
Is Emma Barnett fair and proportionate between the genders or does she assume women are hard done by in our society in comparison with men?
Does she somehow manage to ignore figures for industrial injury, early death, employment in dirty or high risk occupations, addiction, suicide,incarceration and so on when considering which gender is more hard done by?
Is the BBC generally fair and proportionate in its description of Extinction Rebellion's insane policies which would within 10 years lead to deaths of hundreds of millions across the planet, collapse of the NHS, 50% mass unemployment and widespread poverty or does it imply they are morally sound policies driven by strong ethical convinctions rather than dangerous programmes put forward by Far Left anti-capitalist nutjobs?
////ELECTION BRIEFING////
ReplyDelete1. It's the things that aren't there that are sometimes important. Have you noticed how Project Fear is not really being wheeled out in this election campaign, despite this being billed as a Brexit election? Think of all the thousands of hours of broadcast time given over to scare stories over the last three years: we won't be able to fly, we won't have any fresh produce, we won't get any medicines from abroad, we won't be able to trade with mainland Europe, we won't be able to make sandwiches, our car industries will collapse, we will all be £40,000 poorer, hundreds of thousands of sheep will be slaughtered (that was a good one - they all end up being slaughtered any way!), we won't be able to harvest crops, terrorists will have free run in the UK, the NHS will collapse and so on.
Surely the BBC and the pro-Remain parties would love to air these fears during the election campaign?
They aren't getting much of an airing. I think that's because the Conservatives are clearly pro-Leave. The BBC and the rest of the MSM, plus the pro-Remain parties, don't want to expose these absurd Project Fear claims to any sort of scrutiny. It's all very well promoting Project Fear when you know the BBC will simply amplify the story uncritically...quite another when a pro-Leave party will welcome the focus on Brexit and counter any arguments.
2. Rather than being stigmatised as a pro-hate, racist party, UKIP have been given a respectful hearing on their manifesto launch...despite being in seemingly terminal chaos. Hmmm...it's almost as if they wouldn't mind UKIP taking a few points off the Conservatives.
It's good to know the BBC is spending our money wisely on really important news stories and setting out the facts so clearly and objectively...er...
ReplyDeleteFor instance this one from New Zealand about recent female migrants being given free bikes and free cycle lessons:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-50583274/freedom-through-bike-lessons-for-nz-refugees
The piece addresses the strange fact that the women didn't seem to know how to ride a bike and that families didn't want their young daughters to ride bikes. Hilarious moment when project leader says her approach is: "You're in New Zealand now - it's safe for your daughters to ride a bike." She either doesn't know, or is pretending not to know, the real reason why they don't want their daughters riding bikes. Numerous Fatwas have been issued against the practice (for women and girls) citing the reasons.
As so often the whole item goes by without once mentioning the I word, M word, K word or F word - all of them completely relevant.
The announcement of the 2019 Turner Prize winner(s) was made last evening. The BBC's Arts Editor Will Gomphertz gave us his opinion:
ReplyDelete... '"Maybe annual awards like the Turner Prize and the Booker Prize, which also didn't have a single winner this year, are reaching their sell-by date: an anachronism from a bygone binary age of winners and losers."
We've said it many times before, it's a painting prize - no paintings to be seen again this year - and no winner either!
“We've said it many times before, it's a painting prize - no paintings to be seen again this year - and no winner either!”
DeleteThe Turner Prize is now beyond parody as is Will Gompertz and his irritatingly upbeat reports on woke art.
... 'The Turner Prize is now beyond parody as is Will Gompertz and his irritatingly upbeat reports on woke art.' ...
DeleteWill's notes for the 2020 Turner Prize have been leaked:
And the winner is - Greta Thunberg. Her ability to put herself at the centre of global debate over climate change impressed the judges. Her videos and stills of of her 2019 Atlantic crossing provided a compelling narrative of fearless commitment. Her exhibition piece included sounds of the sea, which the judges found deeply moving. There was also a passing nod to the Tate who administer the prize and its connection to the slave trade. The sounds, said the judges, would have been those very sounds heard by the slaves during their Atlantic crossing.
Will's notes conclude with his own tribute to GT and his endorsement of such a worthy winner of this great prize.
It has been widely reported today that Diane Abbott’s son has been arrested after 'biting one police officer and spitting at another outside the Foreign Office.
ReplyDeleteSo far as I can tell this has not been reported anywhere on the BBC.
I can’t image this would be the case if it were Priti Patel’s son. I’m sure the BBC would be in full attack mode in order to cause major damage.
Another case of not being fair and proportionate Fran?
BBC Fake News:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50651514
Very one sided reporting on the Trump impeachment hearing. They have censored all mention of Professor Kaplan's mean-spirited comments at the hearing about Trump's son Baron. They also do not report that Kaplan has made significant financial donations to campaigns by Obama and Elizabeth Warren and has joked about walking on the other side of the street to avoid being close to a Trump hotel. It's almost as if they want you to think she's an objective, non-partisan consitutional expert.
I can't comment on biased bbc. Are they being targeted by our enemies!
ReplyDeleteVery interesting conversation on Today (8.42 a.m).
ReplyDeleteI'd just finished reading this article :
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/06/indian-police-shoot-dead-four-men-suspected-of-hyderabad
The article explains that the perps were allegedly 'shot while trying to escape the scence of a reconstruction of the rape'.
Martha Kearney asks her interviewee, "Why were these men shot ?", implying that Indian police simply did away with the accused.
Her interviewee replies "I don't know".
Mmmmmm.
The BBC News website Election 2019 has no fewer than six images of Andrew Neil's interview studio. We can guess how importantly the BBC treats AN's contribution to their election coverage. Boris has stolen their thunder by no putting his head on the block. The 'oven ready' interview reference tells all. It was a concerted strategic effort to damage Boris Johnson.
ReplyDeleteHuw Edwards impartial? Likes a tweet asking people to vote Labour in support of the NHS...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/huw-edwards-labour-nhs-bbc-impartiality-a4306281.html
Then he tries to wriggle out of it...claiming he didn't realise it was political as he didn't watch it to the end. Then gives us a load of guff about how important NHS is to him and his family.
FFS it was a GMB video!!! GMB is a founder member of the Labour Party and is its third biggest affiliate union. Are you telling me that one of the BBC's top news staff didn't know that?
BBC still on first name terms with Dany Cotton...a subtle form of defence...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50686015
They seem to have forgotten some infamous quotes from her at the inquiry in a way they never forget quotes from some other people (letterboxes anybody?).
She appeared three times on Woman's Hour since the fire and been interviewed sympathetically and uncritically every time, once as a "guest editor" (before the inquiry has delivered its judgement).
Why is the BBC so partisan about her? Hmmm... no need to explain all that. People involved in the project cannot be allowed to fail.
The BBC is no longer an observer of our General Election campaigns, it is a willing, dogged and enthusiastic participant. Here are some of the ways in 2019 it has really entered the campaign:
ReplyDelete1. Using opinion pieces falsely labelled "Reality Checks" to deliver verdicts on the claims and policies of the parties, but in particular the Conservative Party to which it adopts a hostile stance. Well done Chris Morris!
2. Issuing tactical voter guides.
3. Engaging in insanely interruptive interviews with the main players, with Conservatives interviewees beearing the brunt.
4. Editing down political speeches to virtually nothing and then getting their correspondents to tell the public what has been said.
5. Using a declined invitation to attend an interview with the BBC as negative propaganda (with lead story status on both bulletins and on the website).
6. Liking tweets or retweeting them in favour of Labour or other anti-Conservative parties.
7. And now, the latest, actually telling politicians and public (a) what the campaign should be about and (b) what policies they should adopt:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50599633
Here's Andy Verity's take:
"No party's manifesto contains the unpopular measures required to fix growing generational inequality. For young people to afford family homes would require not just cheaper mortgages but lower house prices. How about a stated policy to bring house prices down?
Those wanting to climb the housing ladder would benefit because, other things being equal, the price of their current place would fall by less than that of the one they were buying. But a policy goal of lower house prices might frighten floating voters.
Similarly, pensioners' incomes (net of housing costs) are now higher than those of people of working age. Why then do working people pay higher taxes for state pensions to rise, despite being on lower incomes than the minority of those who benefit?
The answer lies, one suspects, in the grey vote. Cutting universal pensioner benefits or scrapping the triple-lock state pension protection might make fiscal sense. It's absent from the manifestos, one suspects, because lots of pensioners make sure they vote. "
This is typical BBC fare: it signals virtue (wanting to help families find homes), it demands a solution but doesn't indicate how in detail the solution would work, it is economically illiterate (despite being written by their economics correspondent) and it ignores completely the effects of mass immigration (how does Mr Verity think his "solution" would work if the other favoured BBC policy of no borders and no penalties for illegal entry was implemented given net migration would then rise to over a million).
Verity's policy recommendation appears to be "tax pensioners a lot more and then subsidise home ownership for working families".
Well, would this work? If housing supply remains the same or falls, the answer is no. Working families will simply offer more for the houses they want, which in many cases will simply return money into the hands of pensioners selling off their houses.
You have to increase housing supply if you are going to increase demand.
But how do you do that when you are bringing in over 600,000 people every year to live mostly in the southern half of the country and you have millions of business visitors every year who are free to buy housing?
I find it extremely concerning that the BBC's "Economics Correspondent" can't see the problem but instead thinks "taxing the old and subsidising the young" is some kind of solution to something.
When my local MP (now Conservative Party candidate)'s leaflet fell onto the mat the other day, I was encouraged to see a commitment to 'introduce legislation to prevent biased reporting by the BBC and MSM of parliamentary matters' (or words to that effect). I can't tell whether this is general Conservative Party policy or whether it's a personal crusade by Bill Cash.
ReplyDeleteAnother story missing from the BBC News website is this:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/dec/06/channel-4-apologises-over-subtitle-error-on-viral-boris-johnson-clip
Channel 4 subtitles quote Boris as saying "people of colour" when in fact he said "people of talent" - talking about border control. Channel 4 apologised for their 'mistake'. Why do both the BBC and Channel 4 have this rat-like smell permeating everything they put out about Boris Johnson?
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, the Conservatives win the election. Two things must happen;
Delete- Tony Hall must go overnight and an interim DG should be appointed to overhaul the BBC to address the overtly left
wing / liberal bias. The renewal of the Charter should only be considered once there has been a complete overhaul of all aspects of the Corporation's role; news, current affairs, drama, entertainment etc.
- Channel 4 needs a similar overhaul. It must be quickly moved into the private sector. It has lost every idea of balance in almost all programming with Channel 4 news a complete disgrace.
God help us when "deep fakes" become more prevalent. At least C4 owned up and apologised, unlike JC after his "stupid woman" put-down of Theresa May in the Commons.
DeleteChannel 4 can just be sold off. But the BBC needs careful treatment.
DeleteThere is a danger if you just remove the licence fee PC billionaires from around the world will move in to save it and ramp up the PC propaganda (if that were possible) - a sort of CNN on steroids.
Even if the BBC disappeared, that would simply leave the field open to Netflix (Obamas now involved in production decisions), Sky and ITV - in other words PC propaganda will continue.
That's why on balance I think constraining and reforming the BBC is the answer.
Best debate so far. Fair play to Robinson, a dyed in the wool Remainer who is not shy of showing his bias on Today - he conducted the debate fairly with minimal interruptions for either Leader. It was all the more refreshing for that. His interventions were light touch and to the point.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't redeem the absolutely appalling Marr interview of course. That remains a huge smelly stain on the BBC's coverage.
Yes - Robinson would make an excellent replacement for Fiona Bruce on QT.
DeleteRe: Marr, HIGNFY has just shown a sequence from his interruptathon with Boris - anyone surprised that they forgot to show the M.How many?
B. '74'
M. 'You're avoiding the question' exchange?
No surprise at all!
DeleteA good thing from this election is that maybe C4 and BBC bias has jumped the shark - to use an Americanisation
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/alliehbnews/status/1203076569335500800
Yes, possibly. They have certainly pushed their luck, though I can't really see the Conservatives doing much about it.
DeleteI think the Corbynistas may now be realising that it was a mistake for them to declare open season on Jewish people as people like David Elstein and Michael Grade put the boot in.
But I think more generally, there is still in this country an idea of "fair play" and the partisan behaviour of BBC and Channel 4 is not going down well with the public at large I think.
That said, tonight's debate on the BBC was the fairest I have seen, and - in an old fashioned way - allowed us to hear what the Leaders had to say. I congratulate Nick Robinson on that - for somehow leaving behind the appalling bias he normally gives vent to on Today. :)
Interesting interview with Sebastian Gorka...
ReplyDeleteI like that he agrees with me that Kissinger advising Nixon to go to China and reach an accommodation with the Maoist Communist regime led to the creation of a monster. Assinine concept! Nixon-Kissinger told us economic liberalism will lead to political liberalism...
The elite of Washington are absolute morons!!
They are making us import fascism! :)
Calling out Google on its Communist-friendly policies.
Here's the link:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ybGFmbyXNs
He's very good I think in making it clear we are in a culture war. He's originally from Central Europe so he knows all about culture wars.