...and any other matters that take our fancy
Watched the Andrew Marr interview of Ruth Davidson this morning. He was constantly trying to interrupt her and deflect her from answering the questions that he had asked; very strange. Presumably he was unhappy that she was pointing out that Nicola Sturgeon did not speak for Scotland but only for the minority SNP administration - and yes they are a minority administration. She also pointed out that opinion polls all showed that the majority view in Scotland was against another Independence referendum. Again Andrew Marr tried to play down this fact. Not Andrew Marr's finest hour - could it possibly be that he is biased?
I was intrigued by a prominently placed article on the BBC News website this morning: 'Food and drink exports from Scotland hit record high'. Further down the page: 'Exports to EU countries were worth £2.3bn, up £133m, which the Scottish government said underlined the importance of European markets'.By putting out this news story, are the BBC trying to counter the argument that Scotland's economic outlook is weaker now than it was at the time of the Scottish Independence Referendum?
It's part of the BBC's anti-Brexit agenda. Any assistance to the FREEDOM movement is acceptable collateral damage. The BBC would be a big loser if Scotland went independent, so it's not really pro-FREEDOM. The key is that enough people believe that Scotland will break away for sure if Britain leaves the EU, so it's a reason to stop Brexit.
Check this out BBC's Brexit coverage pessimistic and skewed, say MPshttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39335904The final paragraph or two had me in stitches.
That last line. The fat lady is singing. Like a stuck record. Do they seriously think anyone is convinced?
Yes, The BBC appear to be proud of their biased reporting of Brexit.
BBC is accountable to no one. I'm pleased that those MPs will find some safety in numbers, but they will find the BBC has marked their cards now.
Peter:But which last line?- they've added to their article since 1st thing this morning. They've also done a pretty good job of hiding it - first thing, it was tucked away as last item, now I can't find it other than via clockwork Orange's link!
Ozfan: Yes, I think it'll be a while before we see Jacob Rees-Mogg back on Question Time. Talking of which, did anyone see it last week? The,delighted, audience reaction when the elderly gent asked when the English would be allowed a referendum to decide whether they wish Scotland to remain part of the uk clearly made Dimbleby very uncomfortable. I wonder why...
Sisyphus: you are right. Clearly another classic BBC 'evolving the story' effort. along with some nifty smoke and mirrors on the location. Clearly they know they are sussed, but still feel dodging the sunlight is worth it for those not so fussed about a national broadcaster who plays fast and lose with just about every aspect of broadcasting with integrity.Lucky I have the habit of 'saving as PDF' as a matter of course in case they decide to claim what now is, was not once. They have pulled this one, and used the #purposesof exemption to prevent any proof being provided... from their side at least.
Peter: Like the saving as PDF idea. Didn't like the way the 6pm news managed to forget to report the MPs' letter - well, the Beeb had more important fish to fry, didn't it? - Like giving (Saint) Martin a good send off. Most saints have to wait 'til they're a statue before they get a coat of whitewash!
Best laugh I've had so far this week. Three Labour MPs? Red Tories, obviously.That's a lot of MPs, though, so something must be up. Too many for a quickie from a few die-hards. Craig, have you been sending them your data?It is best understood as a warning from the BBC's detractors...And there you have it. Discrediting the plaintiffs, playing the man and not the ball. Presenting the complainants as being already anti-BBC completely undermines the validity of the complaint before we're allowed to address the argument. Lazy language and not deliberate? Perhaps, but we judge them by their previous form.
Sisyphus. Recommended. It is an easy option, on Safari at least. Captures the whole article in one shot. Plus comments on screen below if a HYS. Have used it a few times when BBC officials have referred to their revised versions to try and blow off a complaint. They don't react well to being caught out, mind.Going back again, I notice they have arrived at a last para that suits the narrative and editorial technique described by David perfectly:'Conservative MP and former Education Secretary Nicky Morgan, who campaigned for Remain during the referendum, tweeted that the letter was "another attempt by leading Brexiteers to silence those whose coverage and questions they don't like #chilling".'That #chilling must have sent shivers down their spines. Luckily for the BBC, questions they don't like can be dealt with by expediting, or avoided with a #purposesof exemption.Point that out to a BBC editor on Twitter, and there is also the blocking option.Unique.
The BBC endlessly refer to their relationship with the public, yet the only significant aspect of this relationship is that they despise the public.
But BBC loves the public's money.
Likely why James Purnell is always looking at new ways to claw it back from those of us determined to legally avoid funding his editorial and pension contributions.
Well yes, that is the other significant aspect.
Speaking of the relentlessly misleading anti-Brexit coverage, here's another example this afternoon on the Business Live page.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-39306564"Goldman Sachs is to move hundreds of people out of London before any Brexit deal is struck as part of its contingency plans for the UK leaving the European Union, the Wall Street firm's Europe chief executive Richard Gnodde has told CNBC."However, read the CNBC report, and what Gnodde actually says is:"We'll hire people inside of Europe itself and there will be some movement," and the report goes on to say that 'Goldman Sachs also confirmed that this movement away from London would not necessarily result in a net reduction of workers in the U.K.'None of this appears in the BBC story.http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/21/goldman-sachs-confirms-london-jobs-will-move-to-europe-in-first-stage-of-brexit-reshuffle.htmlThe BBC clearly decided to completely ignore the letter from the MPs, whose point is now crystallised in emphatic fashion within hours, and plough on regardless.
I think I just heard Radio 5's Nihal Arthanayake, a man who bristles at accusations that the BBC has a left-wing bias, twice refer to the 'Daily Fail'. The 'Daily Fail's' article about Countryfile's anti-Brexit bias was the source of the problem.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4330652/Countryfile-viewers-rage-BBC-anti-brexit-tone.html
Have a look at this not very subtle hit job on Ivanka Trump and the President:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-38654766The BBC is essentially saying Ivanka having her own office in the White House and working with her father's Administration is directly analogous to how a bunch of corrupt dictators have empowered their own daughters.
When it's the BBC and other media in the attack zone we don't hear much about mental illness, not jumping to conclusions, criticism of security forces etc etc.
A major change in BBC editorial policy is in evidence. They quickly went with the authorities use of the term 'terrorist', and even have a picture of the suspect on the website, easily giving permission for prejudice. Curiously, the reason given so far for defining it as a terrorist attack is that "It looks like the type of attack that jihadis have wanted to carry out in Britain."Jihadis have nothing to do with Islam, of course. That will be tomorrow's agenda.
Today we've seen an appalling attack on our democratic institutions but every single day around the country our democratic institutions are under attack from parallel courts, a secretive unofficial school system, and the spreading of hate against those who don't follow that benighted dogma. Does the BBC tell the truth about that? No. It does quite the reverse - it spreads fake news and disinformation.
BBC evening news showed a photo of the suspected Westminster terrorist with his face blurred out. Now, why would that be? Even the Beeb's fellow-travellers at the Guardian are showing the picture uncensored.
The Sykes Rule in effect. It would give permission for prejudice.
It was a rhetorical question!
I believe the answer to your question is nowadays a phenomena that is quite common at the BBC and goes by the generic term of "censorship".Oh, McGuiness's death reminds us that it wasn't so long ago that the BBC fearlessly stood against censorship and even employed actors to give us the words of Irish terrorists straight to our homes.
They still have the photo of the suspect on a stretcher on the website. It's a side angle from a distance but the beard is pretty visible. Perhaps not enough to incite hatred of Muslims, so it's still up.
Surely this attack will be an embittered Brexit and Trump supporter who`s alienated and frustrated by migrants being refused entry in Phoenix, Milo getting a platform to speak. Oh-and Nicola not getting a referendum. In short-a white nationalist who wants us to stay in the EU...er, don`t ask me to explain the madness-I don`t need to join the dots.BUT-I can say one thing-it will have nothing and nothing to do with Islam. Got that?
Not sure what you are saying here. Most posters here completely understand the threat of Sharia and don't need any education in what Islam preaches. But if you are trying to insinuate that anti-Sharia equates with White Nationalism then I think you should go elsewhere.