Saturday 23 May 2015

"Andrew Neill (sic), Nick Robinson, Lord Patten, Jeremy Paxman, Jeremy Clarkson"

I suspect that, like many a BBC type, you've probably all got those lovely illegal highs and lots of pink champagne out tonight and are gorging yourselves silly on the delights of the Eurovision Song Contest (and, for any real fans, Scott and David Brims are co-hosting a 'Eurovision live blog' over at Biased BBC), but...

I'd just like to share a 'below the line' exchange at The Commentator which quite tickled my funny bone: 

Edward Studor • 10 days ago
The BBC is institutionally biased. It is now impossible for the BBC NOT to be biased. Everyone who is employed there has to come from the 'right background' or 'will fit in'. This is BBC recruiting code, either passed on by telephone, memo, or on a form, that they must be/are left-wing and come from an Oxford/Cambridge background. And of course everyone knows that they only advertise their jobs in the Guardian. For the BBC to be impartial you'd have to close the whole lot down and start again.
Tethys  @Edward Studor • 10 days ago
Andrew Neill
Nick Robinson
Lord Patten
Jeremy Paxman
Jeremy Clarkson
Edward Studor  @ Tethys • 9 days ago
So out of 19995 BBC employees you could only find five who are slightly right of centre?
Daedalus  @Edward Studor • 7 days ago
He could only find 4 actually, Paxman has gone.
WFC  @Daedalus • 7 days ago
And Clarkson - so only 3.
Leftyliesrefuted  @WFC • 6 days ago
And Patten stepped down from the Beeb last year - so only 2.
Still, that means there are only 19993 Leftists at the Beeb. So quite well-balanced really.
Not to be a smart-arse but, actually, I make that 19992 Leftists at the BBC. We've got to be fair to the BBC after all.

OK, I'll let you get back to Eurovision now. The votes of the Icelandic jury are due in shortly.

(And, gosh, did I just hear the Arnold Schoenberg Choir? They weren't singing Schoenberg though. That's a shame, as a bit of Schoenberg on Eurovision would surely go down a storm with the audience. Kol Nidre, with Conchita Wurst providing the speaking part, who could resist?)

P.S. Maybe the BBC needs to invite Bridget Kendall along to assist Graeme Norton with his politically-inept guesses of which country will give douze points to their political allies. 

He seemed surprised when Romanian-speaking Moldova voted for Romania. And his statement that Latvia was "breaking ranks" by voting for Sweden rather than Russia betrays a certain lack of awareness concerning the of the history of the Baltic States, as did his shock that Lithuania gave Russia nil points. And he seemed staggered that Serbia and Montenegro (of Serbia-Montenegro fame) voted for each other. 

This is important. It really is. It really, really, really is. Really. Honestly. Bridget Kendall must accompany Graeme next year - especially if David Cameron brings the EU referendum forward a year.

And, yes, God help me, I really am watching this. I love elections. Ed Balls has already lost his Eurovision deposit. (He's not having a good year).


  1. Nice to see others are taking up the same lines of argument on the institutional bias at the BBC. And we always joke about the Neil/Robinson/Patton line as a parody of defenders of the indefensible, yet there it is in real life. There's a large audience waiting for the full evidence to be laid out before them.

  2. I thought Patten is a leftie ? DP, I wish he was "Patton" !

    1. Patten is a Warmist CINO, so leftie compared to anyone in the center, yes.

  3. 'Old Blood 'n Guts Chris' they used to call him. More Don Corleone when he was 'warning' folk about horses' heads in their beds if anyone had the temerity to expect the BBC to be objective.

    That sequential filleting by a succession of Commentator posters is rather sublime. It almost seems coordinated. A bit like weekends at BBBC when various permutations of troll ebb and flow to create (successfully) a massive furball of nothingness. It's a pity about Scott. He once could joust well, but now seems teetering back on needing a bit of help from friends clearly doing him no favours egging him on there.

    Always love it when Nick Robinson is trotted out for a membership he held when he was a lad. Folk can change. Have any of those who try this on read what he chooses to run with (too often based on anonymous sources) vs. quietly doesn't mention? The funny part is it has resulted in him copping a lot of flak for actually on occasion just doing what an editor in his position is meant to do, and hold folk to account, and he really doesn't respond to friendly fire well at all. Which can entertain.

    1. It does seem almost too good to be true, doesn't it?

      It's a funny thing, this blogging lark. I feel like I've known Scott for years - which I kind of have. He's been commenting there, and I've been reading his comments, at least since David Vance became the blog's owner (in the days of P.M. Gordon Brown).

    2. Wow, that long?

      What draws him back, over and over, defies explanation. There really are reasons for concern, medically.

      Yes, on occasion, he can score a point and I am sure some chums give him a pat on the back, but he has long descended into being a parody on par with others who I am surely are perfectly well aware they are, but don't care as long as they can disrupt things.

      He actually appears to feel he is a morally superior, but I am not so sure when confronted by his own double standards it doesn't register as a hit he can't shake off.

      Hence his periods of sullen silence when slapped down and especially when shown up and pwned.

      The odd thing is I recall him complaining bitterly about censorship and being banned, when clearly he is impossible to get rid of.

      One reason on my project I am thinking of disabling commentary, at least that I have to moderate. Life's too short.

    3. I think you're right to think of disabling comments, given what you're planning. What your new blog would provide doesn't really need comments, being 'a blog of record'.

      I would recommend though providing a link, via your 'Contributors' page perhaps, for people to email you with feedback - a happy compromise, maybe.

    4. With Scott, it's all personal. He hates David Vance, followed him over from A Tangled Web, and stayed on as he learned to hate others. He isn't interested in defending the BBC, per se. It's all about attacking right wingers and ideological opponents. On rare occasions, he can make sound, reasonable arguments against the more extreme anti-homosexual stances of some people over there. And he can also point out instances where the BBC did report something we said they didn't, or catch errors. Those things are beneficial to everyone, but unfortunately it's all infused with defamatory comments and insults. He would even randomly hurl insults at me when bitching at somebody else on a topic in which I wasn't even involved. Just for no reason, he'd throw in insults to various people, or smear everyone by association. His behavior and obsession with personal attacks, the anger, and the open hatred, overwhelms any occasional positive contribution. If only he could act like the adult he claims to be and take the high road.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.