It's interesting what the BBC thinks is important in an interview:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45096519
I heard the WATO interview with Lord Sheikh and I heard him say* that he was unhappy with the Burka remarks because he had supported Boris Johnson in previous election campaigns and "this was how he repaid the Muslims..." That's an intriguing way of looking at politics isn't it? Your personal support for an individual politician is somehow linked to a kind of "bloc support" by a whole religious community. How does that work Lord Sheikh? It sounds like such bloc support requires payment in kind, since you feel Boris did not make good on the payment, did not properly repay the community for that support. All very instructive I thought, but the BBC decided it was irrelevant of course.
* or think I did - he has a very thick overseas accent and unusual syntax that does not make his English readily comprehensible (despite him presumably living in this country for many decades)
The BBC is concerned about the declining rate of increase in life expectancy in the UK - on of the worst among advanced countries.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45096074
What's been the biggest change in the UK in the last 50 years? The demographic change resulting from mass immigration. So now over a quarter of new births are to women from overseas and there are perhaps 10 million plus people living in communities that follow their own cultural traditions, imported from overseas.
We now have large communities - millions of people with much high rates (x 4 to x11) of Type 1 diabetes, we see many more women not experiencing multiple child births, we see many more women being confined largely to the home or being pretty much completely covered up when out and about, and we see many more cousin marriages with attendant much higher rates of infant abnormalities (around x13 more than with non-cousin marriages) plus much high rates of diseases such as AIDS and TB among migrant groups. You'd think the BBC's Hugh Pym - commenting on the results of the survey on WATO today - might have referenced mass immigration as a potential causal factor, but instead choice to raise the dark possibility that the reduced rate of increase was the result of "cuts in social care".
6 pm R4 radio news managed to find a professor to blame it on "the cutz".
Also, continuing to stoke the anti Boris brigade, they included vox pops with 3 muslims in North London ... you can guess the outcomes. Simple propaganda.
The Mail records this story and rightly leads with a description of the perpetrator as "A Sudanese asylum seeker..."
The BBC manages to hide the story low down on its England page and does not mention the man's national or asylum seeking status. One would have the impression he was a long term UK citizen, thanks to that non-reporting.
Note also they managed to avoid referencing the victim statements.
As far as the BBC is concerned that was "Job well done...": buried and distorted.
Also, "note the quotes" as we say. The BBC manage to minimise the crime by referring to the perpetrator as a predatory-sex-offender and put that description in single quotes. But you won't find that quote reference in the body of the article...odd but very BBC. The Mail, by contrast, used the R word in the headline, so we know this is an extremely serious offence.
Yes, agreed. The BBC and the majority of establishment hide some of the facts in cases like this in the interests of social cohesion and to prevent stoking anti-immigration sentiment. Didn’t one BBC reporter remind us not so long ago that you have to be very careful with your words when reporting.
It’s dishonest and creates fake news and it’s one of the main reasons BBC is losing trust.
The BBC is careful to avoid direct lies as far as possible. But misleading the public by omission of important facts is definitely Fake News. There are many more ways of delivering Fake News than just lying, as we all know here.
Wendling (sharing a byline with unusual modesty) suddenly, after nearly 2 years, decides to reference Q Anon...why? - because suddenly, en masse, the American liberal media have decided to do so and anathematise it as a "conspiracy theory".
I do follow Q Anon occasionally...it's quite a fascinating story. I've no idea whether it's genuine. Certainly Trump has helped it along. Recently he said "17 times" (apropos nothing much) four times in quick succession in a speech. He made it sound like 17 was an important number. Q just happens to be the 17th letter. Another time his hand movement unmistakably described a Q in the air. Sometimes his tweets have followed on a similar Q comment just minutes lated.
If Q is not genuine he/she/they have got lucky quite a few times. The things I have gleaned are that there is a (Trumpian) plan both in the foreign and domestic spheres. In foreign policy, he's working through the issues. Q predicted the rapprochment with N Korea well ahead of it happening, when most liberals were predicting nuclear war. Taking the Mullahs on was also prefigured. In the domestic sphere he's working to dismantle the Clintonian deep state and its network of alliances.
You might wonder why Trump still survives while he has been targeted by the CIA, FBI and DOJ working together. Well, the way Q Anon explains it, it's clear that Trump has Military Intelligence onside. In fact there are those who claim he was headhunted as a presidential candidate by the military who were appalled at what Obama-Clinton and their allies in the Deep State were doing.
Very good observation...I saw that and, even as an experienced bias-spotter, that passed me by! :) Completely unnecessary in an unbiased report. He could simply have told us the USA is in a powerful position to exert its will...not really part of the BBC script though is it? Unless they are emoting about a David v Goliath type struggle that it suits them to put in emotional terms, they like to suggest the US can never win Conflict X whatever the conflict might be. I must admit, I was a bit surprised to hear Simon Jack tell it like it is, given all his pro-EU Brexit reporting. He should check his report card...he might get marked down for that.
I had a dream last night. I dreamt of Radio 4's schedule for the next day:
7.30am Today - Interview with Jordan Peterson in which he isn't interrupted or subjected to confrontational questions.
7.55am Today - Thought for Today - A traditional Imam sets out why he wants Sharia to rule the world, why he thinks all women should cover up, why a woman's witness is worth half that of a man's and why cutting off of hands for the crime of theft is a good idea.
8.10am Today - Non-confrontational interview with the author of "Single Parenting is Behind the Crime Wave in London".
8.20am Report about how dysfunctional the EU is becoming with a north-south divide, huge migrant ghettoes, populist v elite governments and net contributors v net beneficiaries...
9.00am Desert Island Discs - Rod Liddle chooses his favourite discs.
10.00am Women's Hour - Why after centuries of feminism do large numbers of women still prefer to be home makers focussed on raising their children? Why aren't there more female sewage workers, long distance lorry drivers and refuse collectors? Female warriors - why are female political leaders like Mrs Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, and Golda Meir so keen to take their countries to war?
Noon - You and Yours - an investigation into bogus and ineffective charities that lie to the public and spend most of their money on their staff (who are often related to the directors of the charity).
1.00pm World At One - Extended and sympathetic interview with Tommy Robinson about his inhuman incarceration.
2.05pm The Archers - A young female character decides it would be wrong to try and raise her baby on her own and, she is going to try and make a go of it with the father of her baby. Also, she decides she will investigate methods of contraception in the early 21st century, as she feels she has been somewhat remiss in that regard. Meanwhile the new Asian owner of the stables has been found guilty of massive financial corruption and is imprisoned for 5 years. Also, the Ambridge women in the village cricket team prove a complete disaster, performing far worse than the men.
2.20pm Climate Change - Is It Real? A climate sceptic scientist argues that the case for anthropogenic climate change has been overstated.
3.00pm All in the Mind - A psychologist explains why sitting around moping and complaining all day long is the worse thing you can do if you are suffering some mental discomfort. Don't define every little problemette as a mental health issue. Get out and exercise...that will soon cure your so called insomnia. Oh, and stop comfort eating. That won't do you any good either. Being fat is not good for you. Sharpen up you lazy slob.
5.00pm PM - BBC reporters look at how mass immigration is contributing to the housing crisis, strains on the NHS, the crime wave and the relative decline in productivity in the UK. Mainstream politicians face bullying questioning about why they are failing to deal with this issue.
6.30pm Am I Right or Am I Wrong? New topical game show mocks virtue signalling, political correctness, right on celebs, millionaire left wing comedians and socialist politicians.
7.00pm The Archers - Pat's horrified to discover one of the sheep is transgendering. But it's all perfectly natural according to Pip.
7.20pm Front Row - Christopher Booker introduces the arts show. The show reviews a ballet, an opera and a production of The Tempest, each of which finds no parallels with the contemporary political scene.
8.00pm Science Now Actually reports on scientific discoveries rather than virtue signalling.
8.30pm Medicine Now Actually reports on medical advances rather than virtue signalling.
9.00pm Drama - An honest police officer investigating a knife murder discovers a seething cauldron of gang violence based on ethnic hatreds between various migrant communities in London. His female seniors in the service try to stop him doing his job and he is disciplined. He is then unfairly hounded by the Guardian, Independent and BBC news media. Eventually he is proved right when Breitbart News receive and publish an audio-tape proving he was set up.
10.00 pm The World Tonight - Why Trump is getting it right...a look at Trump's triumphs in the economy, in domestic politics and abroad.
11.00pm The National Anthem...followed by Jerusalem, Pomp and Circumstance, Rule Britannia, The British Grenadiers, Liliburlero, and I Vow to Thee My Country.
I read this on the Guy Fawkes website about Remainiac Dominic Grieve MP. Checked it out on Wikipedia:
"Grieve is president of the Franco-British Society.[30] He was awarded the Legion of Honour in 2016.[30] He broadcasts in French on French radio and television.[31]"
But have you ever heard it mentioned on the BBC, ITV or Sky? Nope, neither have I. If Boris had received a Congressional Medal of Honor from Donald Trump, we know the BBC would mention it at least three times a day!
More fake news from the BBC on the Turkish economy and lira crisis. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45113472
The main reasons it is tanking: 1. The Turkish Central Bank is not making the tough decisions necessary to stabilise because a. Erdogan has control of the previously independent and respected central bank. b. His son in law is finance minister c. Erdogan is opposed to interest rate rises
The result is that they have zero credibility in the market to put things right.
The BBC skirt around this and waffle on about the peripheral issues. The readers are being misled - as is often the case.
The BBC is completely schizoid on Turkey...they don't know whether they support Erdogan or the Kurds, whether Erdogan's brand of political Islam (is there a non-political version?) is to be admired or feared, whether Turkey's alleged denial of the Armenian holocaust is an issue or not, whether Erdogan is too close to Putin or too close to Trump. They want them in the EU, but they don't want to frighten the horses, so claim it will never happen. Turkish immigrants are well integrated into European societies like Germany except when they say they're not. And so on...
It's those "men" again...in this case a man from Rochester, in fact a "Rochester man"...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-45147682
I thought this was about some far right lunatic...I had to go nearly half way through the story before I discovered he was a pro-IS operative who just happened to "use the name Ali Hussain" (no particular reason for that odd choice of alternative moniker then BBC?). The only real clue what this is all about: "The phone also contained videos in which Ludlow stated his hatred of unbelievers and his desire to establish Sharia law." Hmmmm...funny that. It's also as if he's read something that tells him that is the true path...but no clues as to what he might have read or what he might believe in. No M word, no I word.
High minded BBC types used to claim they had a "mission to explain"...now they seem to have a "mission to obfuscate".
Pugnazious over at Biased BBC has spotted an interesting differential in the treatment of this story...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45128677
Also, Up2snuff notes in passing something that I too have noticed - that the BBC Website's word search facility is about the worst one you'll find on any major website on the internet. Remember - they've got £4 billion to play with but can't even get that right.
...about a dodgy data sale from a Mumsnet-type online website to the Labour Party, compared to how the Cambridge Analytica story was treated by the BBC. Here it's hidden on the technology page, as though there are no political implications.
Jon Sweeney campaigning vigorously for anti-democratic Brexit cancellation. Lots of snidey anti-Brexit comments. Basically it's a political ad for the People's Vote UK Blair Front organisation. Newsnight don't even bother to pretend to be achieving balance. They know they are untouchable with May in charge.
Isn't this an inordinate amount of time and effort being spent on the part of the BBC to memorialise a street conflict in a foreign country that led to the death of one person, when there are so many such conflicts around the world almost every day? Why are American lives considered by the BBC to be so much more important than the lives of people from other, often much poorer countries with much bigger problems - places like South Africa, Congo, Kenya, Brazil, Mexico, India and so on where far worse street conflicts take place?
I remember 11 anti-Maastricht demonstrators were shot by the Police in Denmark in 1993. Can't recall the BBC ever referring back to that in the intervening period. Wrong protest, wrong country, wrong background.
But clearly they think they can turn Charlottesville into some sort of Sharpeville Massacre legend.
Also, I note the BBC fail in their memorial article to give any space to the view of the ACLU (the NOT right wing American Civil Liberties Union) that the problem was the failure of the authorities to keep demonstrators and counter demonstrators apart (something that Tommy Robinson has complained about in the UK - it seems on most occasions to be a deliberate tactic to create violence and mayhem).
For clarification: I don't support the Confederacy, slavery, Jim Crow laws, or racial oppression. But I do support free speech and sensible discussion about how you manage cultural artefacts from the past that may be "problematic", to use a BBC word whether it's the reliefs in Stalin's Metro or Confederate generals in the South of the USA. But it's not a problem for the BBC to spend our licence fee money obsessing about. Virtually all our statues in places like London are of people who would now be anathematised as racists, supporters of genocide of native people (e.g. Marx,Darwin, HG Wells),religious bigots, oppressors of working people, transgressors of female personal space or war mongers. Are we going to melt down all of them?
As it shows more pesky meddling by the EU in our everyday lives, it hasn't received much attention. Incidentally, if your property (like mine) has halogen spotlights controlled by a dimmer-switch, you will need to change the switch as well as the bulbs.
ps. I'm reliably informed that LED spotlights are available which are compatible with dimmer-switches and double switches - so you can go ahead and replace halogens one by one as they fail with LEDs - but halogen bulbs will no longer be stocked by supermarkets.
There's changing your mind, like Gavin Esssler over leaving the EU and then there's this: "Samantha Kane has changed gender three times, from male to female and then back to male, before transitioning a second time to female..." https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bclbmv
It's a powerful story, according to BBC but in case we missed it early this morning, they are obliging by repeating it at 5 40 this evening. Must keep up with the agenda.
The article is a typical D'Ancona affair, hoisting a flag of convenience over the moral high ground in a fundamentally dishonest display of aggression. Emily chooses to quote in part a sentence from the article. It is this:
"There will be no campaign to free the Bullingdon One (though you can bet that the populist right would love nothing more)." (She left out the part in parentheses.)
Presumably the snide remark amused her...which shows just how shallow she - and the rest of her luvvie media pals - are.
The moral crossroads is not as D'Ancona describes it.
We have already passed the crossroads. We have travelled far down the road towards totalitarian denial of free speech. Who 20 years ago could have imagined that in our time a couple of light hearted remarks about a ghastly garment associated with religious intolerance and oppression would be sufficient cause for a Metropolitan Police Commissioner to inquire whether a speech offence has been committed?
We are already at the point where everyday speech is being patrolled by the Police and that is a very serious issue that should worry everyone. But who could have thought that the Conservative Party would be conniving in this attack on our liberties by the illiberal followers of a totalitarian ideology?
D'Ancona's family hails from Malta - where the state and its allies has developed special (lethal) ways of dealing with inconvenient journalism, so he should be aware of the dangers. Doubly so, since - ironically - he once worked for Index on Censorship...
You'd think with that background he would be concerned about free speech. But no, Remainiacs would sacrifice their first born in order to keep us in the EU so squashing free speech is of little concern to them.
D'Ancona's central thesis is dishonest. He argues that there is no threat to telling jokes about a religion: "That freedom has not been imperilled by this particular case." (interesing he refers to it as a "case"). What country does he live in? Humour (as we have seen north of the border) is no defence against the laws restricting free speech. To pretend things are otherwise is dishonest.
Journalists should be the first people into the line to defend free speech, but it seems the modern British journalist cares more about the EU, identity-based politics, and crushing populism.
"In this case, Johnson’s “authenticity” resides in his signal that is acceptable to use demeaning, dehumanising language about Muslim women in religious clothing." He seems to have overlooked that if anything's demeaning and dehumanising, it's the practice of women and even girls being shrouded and invisible in these ridiculous garments. And that's leaving out any consideration whether it is strictly speaking a religious garment, or more of a cultural practice or an instance of female subjugation and separation.
Anyway from that point on, he wound himself up into a state of high indignation and prophetic doom almost enough to launch him skyward from his newfound pulpit.
I’ve found it very interesting the way BBC have reported the Turkish lira crisis. Thy are completely at odds with every other news organisation including The Guardian.
The BBC have Trump in the dock for this crisis. Both headlines and articles have this bias.
Elsewhere it is about Turkish internal issues and their monetary response.
I shouldn’t be suprised by this but the lack of objectivity and omissions are startling.
Was in Waterstones today and took a brief look at Evan Davis's highly political anti-populist tome "Peak Bullshit"...
It's amazing how arrogant BBC folk are in their assumptions. He was quoting some website in the USA visited by 2 million people that had fake news stories on it...but I wondered, were they satirical fake news stories...because the BBC loves to blur the boundaries between news and comedy. On HIGNFY, News Quiz, the Mash Report, Mock the News and so on...programmes specifically connected to the news, their paid minions make up stories about people the BBC perceives as enemies - Trump, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Katy Hopkins and so on...although these are news-related shows they are also branded as comedy, which allows the "talent" to fabricate stories, make assertions about the people that are clearly false or otherwise traduce them. Of course, for Evan Davis none of that is "bullshit", anymore than him asking Nigel Farage about the Paddington movie (citing it as an example of how we should address migration issues0was "bullshit", though it certainly was, and very targetted BS at that.
It was clear from the Davis book, that he is only concerned about Fake News as it affects the ability of the elite to maintain control over politics and society.
BBC News Website - headline was "Westminster Car Crash - Pedestrians Injured"...headlines like that can kill. The BBC has a duty as a public broadcaster to put people on the alert. For all we know this could be the first of several co-ordinated attempts. But the BBC's first instinct is to play it down despite the numerous statements from witnesses saying it was a deliberate attack.
The amended headline is still playing it down - an almost disappointed "Westminster car crash treated as terror attack"...Why not a more direct "Westminster - driver terror attack"?
The BBC must be very pleased with themselves tonight because they have kept this very low key and said that the suspect is a British National. On the website, they also now say it’s an ‘attack’. (in quotations!)
I've already heard the phrase "mental health issues" from a BBC journo...can't be long now before it's confirmed that this was not a terrorist incident but a personal mental health crisis which should remain confidential. And yes he is a British national for the BBC, although other less enlightened news outfits mention he was not born in the UK.
The BBC has so many more Chiefs than Indians it's ridiculous...no longer a PC phrase of course...
But they'll have Director of News, Director of TV, Director of Policy, Director of Diversity, Director of BBC1 (and on ad infinitum) and Director of Education, Director of This and Director of That...all potentially covering the same areas as Kamal Ahmad...who clearly is now thinking in terms of completely closing down any semblance of democratic debate on BBC channels.
It's a shame, there was a time a few months ago (maybe when he was pitching for the job?) when I thought he was adopting a much more responsible approach than his colleagues to Brexit and its likely outcomes.
But it seems that after all he is just as mad as the other frogs in the box.
Interesting that the Mail can give us all this info about him allegedly driving a vehicle into people without any possibility of "collapsing a trial" but poor old Tommy Robinson still faces lengthy imprisonment by a so-called "independent judiciary" for a far less blatant, or even non-existent, example of pre-trial bias.
He just said that the White House press secretary hadn't said she knew definitively that he had never, ever used the N word, even though she is not joined at the hip to him so could not possiby ever, wever, never (sorry Anthony Zurcher but I am getting down to your childish level) know whether or not he had ever used the N word... It would be surprising if he had never, ever used it given he is quite old and there are songs from Rolling Stones albums which use the word and which he might have sung along to...
I missed this! Kamal Ahmed has been made Editorial Director of News.
It just goes to show that finding the negative aspect of every bit of economic good news has its rewards.
Ahmed is also the master of blaming Brexit.
Towing the BBC line and playing the long game in the interests of your career at the BBC clearly pays off.
Zurcher, Lineker and Maitlis are examples of how employees constantly virtue signal their liberal credentials to keep their stars in the ascendency.
It’s s good game to play when the salary rewards are so high. I’m sure they are all still in one of the only remaining final salary pension schemes too.
MB & Sir Topham - I'd missed the elevation of Kamal Ahmed & its significance. It seems that Mr Ahmad shares John Simpson's view that the BBC should be careful about giving 'false equivalence' to 'marginal views'. According to Hugo Dixon, a founding member of the People's Vote Campaign, 'marginal' would include Leave supporters and AGW deniers. So that's it: The Ministry of Truth will prevent us proles from falling into error by only presenting us with their view of the 'truth'. Lord help us! (Source: The Times, Thunderer)
... 'Sir Cliff Richard privacy case: BBC will not go to Court of Appeal' ....
... 'In the letter, the BBC's director-general Tony Hall writes: "The BBC has decided not to seek permission from the Court of Appeal to appeal against that judgment - even though we are advised and believe that the judge erred in law' ...
.... 'Analysis by BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman
Many will ask why the BBC has decided not to seek permission to appeal against a judgment its director of news and current affairs felt represented a dramatic shift against press freedom and reduced scrutiny of the police.
And why, if it was the right thing to do to run the original story, to vigorously contest Sir Cliff's legal action in court and to remain bullish about the possible justification for an appeal following the judgment, is it now the right thing not to try to appeal through the courts?
The BBC's answer is that it has been told that it would not win an appeal.' ....
So, no proper heartfelt apology to Cliff Richard apart from mumblings into the pavement, no remorse, no sackings or suspensions - in fact promotions since then for Fran Unsworth and Dan Johnson. It's business as usual at the BBC. Damages and legal costs are estimated at £1.9m with more costs to follow. - all part of the money-go-round at the licence payers' expense.
Did anyone catch the article, concerning Noel Edmonds in the Sunday Times this week? Noel, until now not my favourite TV personality, had been invited, with a number of other celebrities including, of course a rapper no-one has heard of, to take part in an amateur rally rally in south-east Asia for a programme to be aired on Sunday. He decided to go as he was told that as well as the rally they would be immersed in local culture as well as having an opportunity to drive some classic cars in challenging circumstances. Noel has a nice line in sarcasm. He said driving to Tesco was more challenging,the local hotels they were staying in were 5 star hotels from international chains. The rally was effectively over when one participant rolled his car on the 1st corner and another, not use to a manual gearbox, wrecked the driveline in pretty short time.From then on they were forbidden to race each other and any overtaking scenes were staged. It is well worth a read but Noel's most telling comment " I fear that today's BBC management operates to the same low standards as our bankers. - protecting your own agenda to the detriment of national interests. "
Yes, I saw a short article about it somewhere, not The Sunday Times. It was all over the tabloid press. There was a riposte from the BBC as well - possibly in some specialist magazine about motor racing or whatever in that line.
Peter Hitchens has posted on his blog about Israel and Jews and what he has termed Judophobia - partly, he says, to annoy people who deploy phobia coinages: "But I’m all in favour of reasoned criticism, and some humour, and I’m weary of foolish people calling this ‘Islamophobia’ as if it was some sort of disease." And he draws a distinction between being critical of Islam and Judophobia or disliking Jews for what they are. http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2018/08/forget-burkas-christianitys-the-faith-that-is-really-under-siege.html Complementing the blog post he reposted a long essay he wrote in 2006 on the arguments about Israel Palestine and attitudes to Jews http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2018/08/reflections-on-judophobia-in-the-west-and-the-middle-east-.html A short section of it about prejudice and how opinions are formed, mentions the BBC:
"But of course most people don't form their opinions in this way. They pick them up, as they pick up other fashions, from what they hear around them, from the prejudices of the media, which become their prejudices by a subtle process. These, by the way, don't take the form of the BBC correspondent saying "Israel wickedly bombed civilian targets last night". You only catch it on the edge of a remark. The reporters themselves often don't know they are doing it. It is their unconscious choice of verbs and nouns, their tone of voice, the selection of pictures and the attitudes to spokesmen that you have to watch."
I think that is true in a sense; they do think they are being right and right-thinking (righteous rather than right-wing thinking) in a lot of what they do and say. But they also have deliberations, policies, directions, agendas and manipulations. It is by no means all sub conscious or inadvertent.
I have always found Hitchens unsound on Sharia ideology. Sadly, this only confirms my doubts. In his columns he does it the honour of calling it "a great religion" and a "faith". He says he has "quite a lot of sympathy" with bits of it. He claims that he has never found any of its followers upset by "serious argument" - go tell that to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, says I. Then, to cap it all, he misses the point completely: "One of the supreme achievements of a free civilisation is the ability to disagree without hating your opponent. We need to relearn it." Well (a) that's not actually true - you were perfectly at liberty to hate Mrs Thatcher, just not allowed to remove her without resort to the ballot box and (b) it's not generally "we" who have the problem - it is totalitarians, whether of the political or so-called "religious" variety.
I did find that statement about great religion jarring and wondered if it was put in to conform to some editorial line. Maybe it's the fact that he is always defending Christianity and feels obliged to include others as part of a larger defence of religion.
I think that's pretty much it Anonymous. And I think that also goes back to the sibling rivalry thing...his brother having been such a prominent atheist. Also, I think if he can't quite understand how a monotheistic religion might not offer wise moral guidance. I think he feels that to concede that would impact on the other monotheistic religions he is close to - Christianity and Judaism. I've never heard him speak kindly of Hinduism, Taoism or Buddhism, despite those religions having much to offer the world.
They're a striking pair of brothers. Peter defends Christopher, saying that he was a very reasoned atheist or something along those lines. But then too Peter does like to confound expectations. There's a contrarian streak in him. He posted a podcast of James Delingpole interviewing him which Delingpole found very hard going because of this. He couldn't get a grip on him. He'd just disagree and contend all the time.
On the other hand, when he goes on the BBC, his combativeness comes into its own. He knows their game so well he's always prepared and quick to pounce when they try to cut him off so he's effective.
It’s already been alluded to, but Peter Hitchens spent most of his life overshadowed by his much more brilliant older brother. I can't help feeling that a great deal of what he says is a reaction to that. I didn’t always agree with Christopher Hitchens, but I always enjoyed disagreeing with him. Listening to him was always a stimulating experience. I’m afraid I can’t say that about Peter Hitchens.
BBC1 6pm News. Either I was hallucinating or the BBC has done some proper investigative journalism and revealed that the Manchester bomber was, in all probability, radicalised by the imam of his local mosque, who is given to urging worshippers to wage jihad. Better catch it quickly because I don't see it surviving 'til 10pm edition
By then they'll probably have Lord Dodgy and the Muslim Council of Britain on, demanding a retraction, an apology and an official investigation - into the impropriety and phobic nature of the allegation, of course.
Sisyphus - I commented on this on another thread. Superficially it was a heartening and welcome restoration of some semblance of balance...but there is a sinister side to this. You will have seen from the story that the BBC cannot trust its reporters or its translators to assess whether a Mosque sermon was given in support of violent Jihad...nope,the BBC had to go to "Islamic scholars" to make that assessment, as though they had the final word. What if the "Islamic scholars" had said "nothing to see here, move along please" - would the BBC have dropped the story? It seems to be this is Sharia compliance. The BBC are giving Islamic scholars the right to decide what is incitement to violence and what isn't. As a licence fee payer I am not at all happy with that. It's a bit like going to a Marxist Professor and asking them to adjudicate whether a particular Communist's speech was an incitement to violence, rather than going to a non-Marxist barrister or other expert.
And the very last sentence in that report was: We have passed the tape to the Manchester police who said they will listen to it to see if a crime has been committed.
Will this guy be locked up? I doubt it.
What happened to the first duty of a state to protect its citizens?
Anthony Zurcher confesses a liking for gold braid, simplistic sentiment, braggadocio, military discipline for university graduates and all the rest...just so long as the guy in question is a fully paid-up Trump-basher.
Newsnight turns its attention to Q Anon...in line with US liberal media which also ignored it until recently...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ac9wj2ZVRM
Presented by "Mad John" Sweeney.
"Very fake news!" as someone might say.
Here are some of the fake elements:
1. It was implied Q Anon had made some specific claims that I have never seen, and I keep up with him/her pretty regularly.
2. There was no reference to the Q Proofs - Trump signing Q, Trump mentioning "17" several times with great emphasis in a speech (Q is the 17th letter) or Trump following up Q Anon drops with his own similarly themed tweets a minute or two later.
3. It was implied Q Anon was making a lot of money from this...as far as I know you can't make money off 4 Chan or 8 Chan where he/she posts...I might be wrong, but the big money would be in the You Tube channels commenting on the Q posts, none of which claim direct access to Q.
4. In general terms Q Anon seems fairly accurate about what is/has been happening. Or do you believe that there hasn't been a Deep State war going on (basically the leadership of the FBI/CIA/DOJ versus Military Intelligence)? - seems to me difficult to maintain that, although the MSM seem to alternate between mocking Deep State analysis as a conspiracy theory and using it themselves to explain events. Q Anon has been describing that war in progress and also the attempts to nail the Clintons and others for their corrupt actions in government. Q Anon suggests that there is a "Plan" both domestic and foreign which Trump is working his way through...it certainly feels like that. In terms of the Plan on foreign policy we seem to be in the Iran phase now.
5. I've no idea whether Q Anon is "genuine" (what does that mean in this context?) or not, but so far I have found him/her a much better guide to the future than the BBC News and other MSM pundits...according to them he should be out by now, disgraced and impeached...according to them the USA should be on the brink of economic collapse, not enjoying 4% growth and record low unemployment...They were wrong about him getting the Republican nomination, about him keeping the nomination, they were wrong about the polls and the election result, they were wrong about prospects for impeachment...as far as I can see they were wrong about the Russia-Trump collusion claim.
Lots of comment around about the three days of national mourning ordered by the BBC Panjandrums for American Aretha Franklin...
The coverage of her death has been absurdly excessive compared to the mini-obits for many other great singers and performers like the Four Tops' Levi Stubbs - who sold way more records than Aretha Franklin...or Mick Ronson, David Bowie's collaborator or Nina Simone who wrote great songs as well as singing them. How long are they going to give Bob Dylan if they give Aretha 10 mins lead on national news?
It's a sign I think of Colourism Derangement Syndrome. The BBC - along with much of the MSM - suffers from some weird sort of impulse to over-represent people of colour in their programmes. It's only people of colour ie black or brown people. Other minorities such as Chinese, East Europeans, South Americans, Filipinos and Japanese can go whistle as far as the BBC are concerned.
There's no doubt Aretha was a great singer but the BBC are hugely exaggerating her social significance, possibly influenced by her closeness to the Obamas. I particularly liked her emergency rendering of Nessun Dorma in absence of Pavarotti - very good I thought, even if not all the notes were Puccini's. You can find it on You Tube.
Aretha Franklin was undoubtedly a huge, huge star in the USA but this is the UK. She didn't really have a massive impact here compared with people like Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson or Chuck Berry.
MB, the BBC's eulogies to Aretha Franklin were way over the top. She wasn't particularly popular in UK, or in my memory in the USA either. But she was a black woman which is pretty much top of the victim tree in BBCland.
On the R4 news I had to listen to a full 10 minutes of eulogy before the item I was waiting for, which was on the Didsbury Iman preaching jihad. Far more newsworthy to a UK audience than the death of a US singer from natural causes. But that's the BBC's values on display.
On the Didsbury Iman item, anyone heard why the recording is released now? Where has it been for last year or so? Who taped it? Seems a story that we are not being told.
She did sell 70 million records, so there's no arguing with that...but I think that was mostly in the USA. Her best known work was with mainly Jewish composers. She had a soul voice, but a lot of her songs were pure pop.
The BBC is happy to mention "Black" in relation to music but the truth is that in terms of popular music, Jewish performers and composers have had as big a role as people of African or Euro-African descent. The BBC just doesn't like to admit it.
Regarding Didsbury...well, yes...there's a story we aren't being told... Also, remember the BBC with its vast resources could do undercover recordings at Mosques (not just sermons but religious teaching, lectures, general chit-chat) any time it wanted...but I sure that's the last thing they would want to do!
Hilarious! Karma!! Evan Davis has besmirched Farage and UKIP as "Far Right"...now made Corbynistas are having a go at him for being a "Far Right" groupie! lol
Evan Davis's byline on Twitter contains one of the biggest fibs ever...Evan states: "the BBC has no views". Yeah, of course Evan...no views at all.
EVAN DAVIS: Did you see the Paddington Bear movie last year? NIGEL FARAGE: No. EVAN DAVIS: Terrific movie with a kind of rather sort of moving, in a sense, proclamation of the virtues of multiculturalism, which I know you hate, because he's a bear, and he's different and he feels very at home and is made to feel welcome here. Now would that be a 'metropolitan elite' movie that is kind of a tragedy...a travesty of British patriotism, of British values?
I'm thinking of bringing out a children's book "Evan the Bear Goes to Peru"...in which hitherto undiverse Peruvians are enriched by the little bear's lessons in economics, transgenderism and urban powerhouse politics. They are so impressed by this "magic-talk" (charla mágica) that they decide to invite all the bears in the world to visit Peru. Things go well until, unfortunately, they invite a 1000 pound Grizzly Bear who develops toothache on the flight over. After that the sensible Peruvians ban all bears from entering the country. I am sure it will be a big seller - just need to find a publisher.
Front page of the BBC website today. Extreme right is infiltrating politics says ex Met terror chief Mark Rowley.
A typical politically charged headline to capture your attention. He said white supremacist groups displaying aggressive intolerance and advocating violence are on the rise. It may well the case, but the irony is that he can’t see that the cause may be another group displaying aggressive intolerance.
But you only ever get one side of the story from the BBC and they just love soundbites from ’experts’ supporting their worldview.
He's a dimwit. I thought he'd retired. Have they just put him in a back room somewhere out of sight? He was an embarrassment as a senior police officer. Of course having old duffers in those top jobs isn't anything new.
Increasingly it's like we're living in some Alice in Wonderland version of the Soviet Union...certain facts are ruled unhelpful and ignored by the BBC, like this one about a bit of nepotism at the UN during Kofi Annan's tenure...
I'm really sorry. You all need to shut up. You're clearly displaying a thin-centric discourse. https://issueafterissue.wordpress.com/2018/08/03/the-science-behind-anti-fat-bias-issue-after-issue-the-keith-network/
Have you noticed how many of our major cities in the UK are dominated by statues which, by today's standards, are definitely thin, or at least borderline thin...?
I would like to propose in a spirit of diversity, equality and tolerance that any statue with a BMI of less than 25 be pulled down and broken up, to be sold as scrap.
I am sure this will give our obese brothers and sisters - or indeed our gender-neutral siblings - much solace and help usher in the wonderful world of equality and happiness promised by the BBC (even though none of their TV presenters are anywhere near obese...).
The BBC is really on board the People's Vote campaign.
This can only be described as a puff piece for the campaign...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45235655
It's obviously based on a campaign press release.
The BBC - despite its billions of pounds - can't be bothered to solicit comments from opponents. It is also misleading to describe it simply as the government "ruling out" a second referendum...Parliament "ruled in" the first referendum as the one that counted.
The People's Vote Campaign is supported by the European Movement UK, a propaganda outfit that receives money from the EU. The BBC don't want you to know that.
Since when have "hundreds" of people attending a demo been anything other than a sign of failure and lack of public interest? Many thousands attended Free Tommy Robinson demos but the BBC ignored those demos.
I'm puzzled by the line, "The People's Vote, a cross-party group including some Labour and Lib Dem MPs, want a vote on the final Brexit deal", and I've just heard Radio 4 saying it includes Lib Dems and Labour MPs.
I could have sworn Conservative Anna Soubry was a founder and is still a leading figure in it. As the Independent put it in April, " Conservative’s Anna Soubry, Labour’s Chuka Umunna, Liberal Democrat’s Layla Moran and the Green Party’s Caroline Lucas gathered at the launch of the campaign in Camden in north London on Sunday".
Was the BBC wrong about that (a typically stupid error by their staff) or was it "wrong" about that (deliberately didn't want you to know some Conservative MPs were on board)? Hmmm...can't really think of a Machiavellian reason why the latter might hold, but perhaps I am just not as Machiavellian as the BBC. One issue might be that Conservative MPs, now governing, all individually stood on a manifesto ruling out such a referendum.
Anyone see on BBC News tonight the lengthy informercial for the People's Vote Campaign (BBC hanging their bias on the hook of a million pound donation from a greedy businessman - although they have given nothing like similar coverage to Aaron Banks' massive donation to stop the Chequers Deal)?
The BBC don't tell us that Mr Dunkerton is not just the "concerned businessman" they present but describes himself as "a bit of a leftie" and once stood for election as a Labour councillor:
Mr Dunkerton is being presented as the very model of the modern British (Euro-Region 7) businessperson. But how does that square with the facts?
Ethical Consumer reviewed Superdry's environmental policies and awarded the WORST rating in this category. They showed no proper understanding of the environmental impact of their product cycle.
Superdry lost a mark for having a totally inadequate toxics policy.
Ethical Consumer awarded the company its worst rating for Supply Chain Management.
Not going well so far!...Ethical Consumer also gave Superdry its worst rating for likely use of tax avoidance strategies.
Ethical Consumer noted that Superdry's CEO received £3,611,750 - well above its advisory limit of £1 million.
Superdry has been implicated in exploiting impoverished Indian workers labouring in sweatshops for 28p an hour under appalling conditions:
‘There is a mutual sense of victimhood from Donald Trump and white evangelicals’ - says Nick Bryant tonight on BBC news.
He referred to Donald Trump as the former property tycoon during his report which focused on white Christians from middle America. There was a mocking tone throughout because being white, Christian and a Trump supporter is just about the worst of the worst in the BBCs eyes.
I wouldn't want to have to decide between Sopel, Zurcher and Bryant if I was on the committee awarding the Most Biased Reporting Against Trump award at the annual PC Media Awards. That would be a tricky one. Maybe Zurcher would win in terms of output, if not quality.
It is my sad duty to inform this site that Anthony Zurcher, the brilliant and insightful Senior North America Reporter for the BBC (part of the 200 strong BBC reporting team covering the USA), who has for many years been tragically suffering from an extreme form of Trump Derangement Syndrome, appears to be entering upon the final phase of the disease, where the patient loses all contact with reality and their utterances are completely devoid of meaning:
Just to add to that...isn't it strange how the BBC doesn't mind some conspiracist theorists but hates others! :)
One of the talking head experts that the BBC had on the "Mad John" Sweeney Q Anon report was one Paris Martineau...here's what she says in one of her tweets:
"uber, lyft, and countless other silicon valley startups have coopted the language of activists and the oppressed to further their scummy goals"
So she believes there is a conspiracy by Silicon Valley entrepreneurs to co-opt honourable goals of activists...who's controlling this conspiracy Paris? Tell us!
There's a clue later we she tweets in favour of someone who claims: "The language of colonialism is infecting outer space, thanks to dominance by rich white businessmen and politicians."
Another conspiracy!!
Then a little looniness - apparently according to one of her tweets "God vapes".
Then there's the issue of consistency, given her Newsnight contribution. Another tweet from Paris:
"when covering a conspiracy theory as toxic as QAnon you need to weigh the pros and cons of amplifying the beliefs contained within it, because no matter what you try and tell yourself, that's what you're doing when you publish that article or send that tweet"
She also posts fake tweets as though they are genuine:
"Funniest moment of the week was BBC Radio 4 Today programme presenter Justin Webb trying to lecture astronaut Tim Peake about science and religion. Major Peake, though he does not believe in God, had told a group of schoolchildren that his time in space had made him wonder if the universe might be designed...."
"Professor Webb (who as far as I know has never been in orbit) knew better. After saying that this sort of idea was associated with hillbillies who ‘don’t think much of science’ he compared Tim Peake’s view with the long-discredited opinion that the Sun goes round the Earth. Then he chided the spaceman for opening up something that was ‘settled’ and ‘pretty closed'."
The Evening Standard last Thursday: "...the Londoner spies a large number of actors, comedians and presenters with links to the BBC" [prominent in the anti-Brexit campaign]. "People's Vote stars cause BBC headache"
Of Gary Lineker's prior involvement: 'Senior figures at the BBC “didn’t like it”, we understand, but the corporation issued a statement saying: “Gary is not involved in any news or political output for the BBC… His personal political views do not affect the BBC’s impartiality.” '
“There is nobody in news and current affairs that has come out,” says one insider. “In its broader remit the BBC employs people with different views.” Another source said it was “not great”, that so many supporters had links to the corporation... ...“The BBC is the most powerful media platform in the UK and they are famous because of it. In that sense people might be annoyed.”
BBC website today. A man wielding a knife and shouting in Arabic was shot dead as he entered a police station south of Barcelona, Spanish authorities said on Monday.
Oh really, are you trying to hide some pertinant facts BBC? Just what was that he was shouting in Arabic? And why was he entering, to make an enquiry at the front desk?
Yes, they are. According to the French press eg 'Ouest France', the man was shouting 'Allahu akbar'. He was shot dead by the female police woman whom he was trying to stab. Interesting difference between UK & Spain: a senior Spanish police officer simply declared that the woman acted in self defence - here we prefer to submit our police to the additional trauma of an investigation by the Police Complaints Commission.
She might be right in her viewpoint - that the reported atrocity was genuine and that arm sales to KSA by the UK and USA are linked to it. That's not the issue.
Whether we like it or not (I don't) KSA is a big strategic ally of the UK so she is deliberately straying into highly sensitive political territory on her Twitter account, making her sympathies known.
We've previously had big allies of dubious character: the Soviet Union during WW2, but you'll never hear a BBC type question that particular alliance.
The point is, being allied with rather unsavoury nations is not exactly exceptional.
And I see she's getting praise from Corbyn supporters ("Orla, good to see there are still some objective journalists working at the BBC", one tweeted).
Here are four of her latest tweets:
* Bloodied schoolbags belonging to children who never came home after an airstrike by the Saudi-led coalition #Yemen. At least 33 children were killed. Where does Saudi Arabia get most of its arms? From Britain and the US.
*Hard to look at but important to see - survivors of airstrike by the Saudi-led coalition on school bus in #Yemen. The UK has sold about 5 billion pounds worth of arms to Saudi Arabia since the conflict began. So far no response from the UK gov - apart from a single tweet.
* Rushed to hospital with this school bag still on his back - a survivor of airstrike by #Saudi led coalition on school bus in #Yemen. The coalition defended the strike as a legitimate military action. Says it will investigate - which amounts to investigating itself.
* Many thanks to all those who have responded to our Yemen report. Thanks again to @NicolaCareem @antjclifford. We will continue highlighting this under-reported story every chance we get: Boys dig friends’ graves after air strike.
Either the BBC has a policy on news presenters' involvement in political controversy or it doesn't. It does have one, as we know. So, then the question is, do they ensure it is followed? Answer: no they don't. They let their news presenters punch holes in it. The BBC is failing in its public duty. If Guerin (who stood for the Irish Labour Party as a candidate before joining the BBC) can't understand why this is an important issue then she shouldn't be working for our public broadcaster.
Nice bit of co-ordination going on...we get on the BBC Health Page a story about a huge rise in measles cases in Europe (hang on...couldn't be anything to do with letting in millions of people from poverty stricken and war torn countries, with young unvaccinated babies, could it? - er no, I thought not, never is anything to do with mass immigration)...which nicely supports the top story which is NHS Lunatic Managers warning the NHS boss that Brexit will lead to a mass outbreak of bubonic plague in the UK...
Project Fear is fearlessly inventing stuff. Also, if we are going to be completely cut off from the EU after Brexit as the BBC suggests, surely we are less like to be getting measles from people elsewhere in Europe.
In contrast, ITV News is leading with the measles story but doesn't feature the NHS one at all (yet). The BBC nicked that NHS story from The Times, but isn't crediting the paper. (Sky, also reporting it, has acknowledged The Times).
Biggest July surplus in the government finances for 18 years, and April to July borrowing down to its lowest level since 2002.
Hell, there's a lot I'd take this government to task over, but they're certainly (finally) getting a grip on the haemorrhaging the public purse has suffered over the last decade.
An important story...you'd think.
Top story on the BBC News page? Well again...you'd think.
Second story...no. Third story...no. Fourth story...no - ah come on, you're having a giraffe!
Fifth, sixth, seventh, eight or ninth? Still no!
Tenth...no, eleventh...BINGO!
Here's the glorious 10 stories considered of greater importance to your BBC hack:
- Police chief Hillsborough charges dropped - Microsoft 'halts Russian political hack' - Businessman 'leaves £41m' to Oxfam - House of Fraser's main London store saved - Love Island 'puts off female firefighter' - (What the actual? Can't be bothered reading it) - Madonna's 'self-indulgent' Aretha tribute - Emotional email details cricket fan's last hours - CCTV shows Genoa bridge collapse - Hunt wants 'malign' Russia to face action - Big prostate steam treatment NHS approved
And here it is pictorially: http://oi64.tinypic.com/v7t9nm.jpg
Yep, following the general political strategy. At the moment they want to weaken this Conservative government, in order to facilitate the Stop Brexit movement. In the past, when it's suited them, eg in the early flush of the Cameronian government, they were far more supportive of the Conservatives as they heartily approved of the "detoxification" programme (promotion of people like Warsi). Now it's important to bury good news. They've also been burying the huge rise in our exports "despite Brexit".
Aye. Good news for this government shall not stand in a prominent place for the Beeboids.
Nor will it stand the test of time even in the lowly positions granted.
As I look again at the main BBC News page at 5pm before I leave work...
...POOF! There it was gone.
At least we still get to read about Adrian Chiles' drink problem though, which now has more prominence than the deficit story ever did. Clearly far more important as I'm sure we can all agree.
There seems to be a pattern with BBC news order. Any trivia about a certain sort of popular singer e.g. Madonna or Elton John moved house, will be given precedence over important economic news such as the quarterly employment figures; these will be put away in Business News - unless of course there's a political angle to be worked or a party row to be hyped. In this case the Treasury's figures were lucky to escape the Business News demotion but still managed only front page lower order. The lowest order among the 'also rans' is 'Buried in Berkshire' which means it will take a lot of looking and a lot of time to find. That is not reserved to economic news but applies to anything that doesn't suit the BBC.
Adrian Chiles has always been a very useful asset to the BBC. He has been chipping away at male working class culture for years...now he's moved on to alcohol.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45258081
There has always been a strong connection in male working class culture between various sports - football, rugby, darts, snooker - but also political debate and drink.
I suspect the BBC really despise pubs and are enjoying seeing them close down. The BBC seems they as centres of unregulated, subversive non-PC discussion. They would much prefer working class males to be at home playing computer games or watching videos on networks supervised by companies like Google, Microsoft, You Tube and the rest, getting their opinions from BBC News alerts to their smartphones.
So once again Chiles is doing useful work for the project in helping to undermine the drink culture and close down pubs.
The supposedly intelligent leftie Chiles said he was astounded when he realised he was damaging his health from his daily drinking which included four pints of Guinness, four bottles of beer, a glass of champagne and five glasses of wine.
... 'Mayor pledges to do everything in his power to make it harder for pubs to shut, as new figures show that London has lost 1,220 pubs since 2001' ...
And further down the article he reiterates his commitment:
... '“From the outset of my Mayoralty, I’ve made safeguarding and growing the night-time economy a key priority and this simply isn’t possible without a thriving pub scene. Together with my Night Czar, Amy Lamé, we will do all we can to protect pubs across London.”....
So who is the Night Czar?
https://www.london.gov.uk/people/mayoral/amy-lame
..... 'Amy Lamé, originally from New Jersey, arrived in London in 1992. Her first job was in a late night café-bar on the edge of Soho. She is now London’s first Night Czar.
Amy has a long and successful track record as a leader and collaborator in the cultural and creative industries. She is co-founder of the Olivier Award winning arts company and club night Duckie, and has hosted the club every Saturday at the Royal Vauxhall Tavern for 21 years. She also DJs at various club nights across the capital.
Amy co-founded and chairs RVT Future, a voluntary LGBT+ community group campaigning to preserve the iconic Royal Vauxhall Tavern. She is at the very heart of the conversation about venues under threat of closure in London.' .... 'Her debut book, From Prejudice to Pride: A History of the LGBT+ Movement – the first LGBT+ history book for children – is to be published by Hachette in June 2017.' ...
So, the future of the humble pub is safe for the future in London, and we know that with the likes of Mark Easton and the BBC around, London policies are applicable throughout the land.
Oh yes, Mark Easton with his expensive survey of Englishness which was launched with a fanfare but quickly buried without trace after it showed the rest of England cared about its heritage and culture but not in the way the London bubble expected or wanted.
Her Twitter account shows a good dealing of Mayor Lurv and Trump Hate - what a surprised. She quite explicitly accuses Trump of a "racist rant"...
https://twitter.com/amylame?lang=en
Couldn't see any reference to that recent survey showing London now has the most homophobic population in the UK...how did that happen Amy?
Predictably Amy also has a nice earner working as a BBC Radio 6 DJ...So you can add her to the list of BBC presenters who take overtly political positions.
I did smile when I saw this...I thought the Mayor had gone the whole hog with this statue...till I saw there was a cover that had to be removed...
The BBC's Great British Menu 2018 is well under way - we're into the second week. The premise of the programme is the build-up to a banquet to be held in celebration of the NHS's 70th anniversary. Every episode has reference to Aneurin Bevan. Every chef gives a corny name to their dish. One in today's programme was Windrush 'in celebration to the Windrush Generation many of whom worked for the NHS and helped build it'.
The problem I have with the programme is the hypocrisy of paying tribute to Bevan who was an advocate of democratic socialism and social justice by wheeling in a procession plates bearing beef fillet, scollops, lobster, caviar etc. At one stage this evening, James overcooked his lobster and had no alternative other than to cook another from scratch. I shudder to think what Bevan would think of this wasteful travesty.
I was going to write something about this. The NHS theme is right up BBC street. Plenty of scope for piety and posturing about the sacred institution and the sacred nurses and doctors. I laughed last week when one of the chefs named his dish after Florence Nightingale and had the plates of food carried into the judging room accompanied by lanterns, signifying The Lady of the Lamp.
This is funny because the BBC has an obsessive habit of promoting a black woman called Mary Seacole in place of Florence Nightingale as the pioneer of nursing. Even with my irregular tunings in, I've heard them banging on about her on Woman's Hour at least three times. Nobody had told the chef! How remiss of the BBC.
And it's not confined to those two programmes. A couple of weeks ago I was half-listening to University Challenge when I heard the tail end of a question about someone who had worked in, I think Panama, followed by the Crimea. Quick as a flash, one of the students jumped in with Florence Nightingale only to find out that he was wrong and the answer was Mary Seacole. I've found with this programme, usually the answer that comes to you first from the pool of common knowledge is the right one but no, not this time. Lady of the Lamp has been ushered out.
The BBC are very supportive of the rewriting of history to fit with their PC ideals. Mary Seacole was an early example. The now discredited immigration video aimed at children was a recent one.
She ran a little shop where amongst other things she sold some remedies for various ailments. The soldiers liked her. That was about it. A charming story was overinflated to serve a political purpose.
Newsnight: always good to see Sebastian Gorka knocking Evan around the ring...poor Evan was reduced to claiming at the conclusion,,rather unconvincingly I have to say, that he would have liked the interview to go on longer so he could take Gorka to task over a number of additional points.
1. Two out of the top 5 GDP growth countries in the world at the moment are run by populists. One is Donald Trump, a right wing populist. The other is Evo Morales of Bolivia, a left wing populist. Populism can be good for you.
2. These days the BBC sounds like some Victorian Gradgrind... they want "fact-checked facts cos when we's factchecked the facts, then we's arrived at the truth." Only one version of the truth allowed and that only on the basis of BBC-selected facts, some of them very dubious in their status as facts, at that. But I am old enough to remember 25 years or so ago when the BBC were head over heels in love with post-modernism. Back then they would have laughed in your face if you'd mentioned the importance of verifiable facts. Back then they loved Foucault who thought truth was a moveable feast and tried to sell the Iranian revolution as a triumph of progressivism. So all this attempt to lay the charge of truth-relativism at the door of the populist right is just another example of Fake News, I'm afraid. They and their academic pals got there first.
3. The BBC is now more race-obsessed than any Afrikaaner bureaucrat inspecting registration documents in the Transvaal back in 1960, or any Klansman from the South in the USA, or even possibly old Heinrich himself. The fawning over Spike Lee's barely coherent musings on politics is beyond ridiculous.
4. Has there ever been a time in our history when modern culture is more repressive, often absurdly so, or more afraid of free speech? There are parallels of course...the Puritans' banning of Christmas and hot cruss buns, has its equivalences in the modern age, banning of films, fun, and fantasy...Fear of truthful discussion about race mirrors fear of truthful discussion of s-e-x in the Victorian era. The Vikings weren't invited in, but it can hardly be said they added much to our culture, bringing terror and mayhem. I think you'd have to go back to the time of the Combination Acts or perhaps even Bloody Mary to find a period when the free speech of ordinary people was more constrained and circumscribed. I wish there was just one MP, just one, who had some understanding of what free speech is and why it is so important. I genuinely don't believe there is a single one in Parliament who seriously does, or if they do, they don't tell us.
There was a time when, if your neighbour set fire to a pile of leaves on a summer's evening, you chose between going round and punching him on the nose or 'tolerating' him by closing the windows and complaining to the wife.
Now the former action is only acceptable if the neighbour voted Conservative, UKIP or 'Leave', making him a 'nazi' and fair game, while 'tolerance' now requires you to open all windows wide and to wear a T-shirt decaring "This Is What A Leaf-Burner Looks Like!".
According to a discussion I came across online https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/2293867/bbc1-announcer-who-introduces-himself-as-anthony/p1 there's a continuity announcer on BBC who introduces himself as Anthony. Chummy. Is this a new thing? And there's one who can't or won't pronounce th but substitutes an f sound, as in Thursday becoming Fursday. He's Russell Evans.
I hadn't come across these novel practices as I've mostly been avoiding BBC apart from a few selected programmes. On scrolling past stations, I do notice that continuity and programme advertising voices now on the main channels are more often than not black males of a London rather surprisingly naff sound and quality. The one who won't pronounce th was the subject of complaints to Points of View some months ago but the BBC was dismissive of these - as was the announcer himself who wrote a piece in The Guardian justifying his BBC place and speech. I missed all that at the time.
This is the BBC's attempt to shoehorn their perceived diversity into the Cockney dialect - in their world of make believe, probably hoping for a response from the listeners such as 'Blimey, he's a true Londoner'. It just doesn't work, the effected dialect sounds slovenly.
I think the technical term now is "London Jamaican". I, a Londoner, often find myself perplexed by radio presenters speaking in that accent...(did he just say we have "three books under review" or "free books under review"?) - can't image what's it's like for someone from the Outer Hebrides or Ulster of Newcastle...must be completely incomprehensible.
Have you heard Trevor Nelson when he stands in for Ken Bruce? He takes pronouncing f’s instead of ‘th’ to a new level. There was a time when you wouldn’t even get on the radio but now it’s embraced and encouraged. It’s so infuriating I can’t listen to it anymore and I hate missing popmaster ; )
It’s further evidence that the BBC hates tradition and small c conservative Britain and is trying to reshape our culture to its own left liberal values.
Indeed, I don't think one wants a return to the dull conformity of the 1930s. You can still have a regional accent - Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Geordie, West Country (John Arlott's old fashioned Hampshire accent was a joy to behold), whatever, without having a particularised accent that makes you pretty incomprehensible to your fellow citizens elsewhere in the country. The equivalents of the extreme London accent, from places like Liverpool (I mean extreme Scouser with its very hard, guttural, k sound and soft squelchy s sound) don't ever get a look in on BBC Radio for the very good reason that BBC producers probably find it, unlike London Jamaican to which they are often exposed, completely incomprehensible.
The BBC are guilty of wishful thinking. It not illegal to pay hush money to women you had sex with or direct your lawyer to pay them off. Its also not illegal to lie about it. Not nice perhaps, but against the law? No.
I doubt whether it will damage him with the US electorate either.
The BBC continue to make Trump their main story but this is the UK not the US.
Not particularly - well not in relation to UK politics. I recall spotting an "identarian"...think Evan was flying a kite. Bit of a difficult one for the BBC...I think they prefer the Easton approach of suggesting that English people don't exist, and British people certainly don't exist, so "nativism" is simply impossible. Personally I prefer populism and perhaps the BBC realise that populism isn't that unpopular any more, so are casting around for something a bit more negative and demeaning. It's a dangerous gambit for the BBC since they would have to acknowledge that native populations are protected under UN Treaties.
Mmm...thinking about it, I suppose the BBC do need to start addressing the issue of what happens when the people who have always thought of themselves as culturally British, English, Scottish, Welsh, or Irish, have to be told they are now a collective minority in their own country. It will be a great day for the BBC, a day of celebration, but it will have to be managed. The sooner they start preparing the populace, the better.
Bit of a rum one this...what's their game?...the BBC doesn't normally run stories on links between crime and migration, unless they are studies from left wing think tanks disproving any such links...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45269764
Maybe it's just a case of democratitis - an allergic reaction to forthcoming democratic elections that can unseat or discomfort globalist PC liberal powers.
After all, they do refer to the issue as "potentially inflammatory" - as if the interests of the people of Sweden are of no account, as if people should be required to vote without access to accurate information about crime in their country.
Hmmm, interesting and a good spot MB. Maybe it’s thrown in for balance, hidden on the Europe page. Or an enthusiastic reporter doing their job properly. They’ll soon be slapped down and put right by the old hands.
Nope, something's going on. CH4 news tonight ran video footage of the migrant break-through at the Morocco / Spain border. The editorial visual message was definitely skewed to threat. I think there's a populist push back on the cards. The media need to introduce reasons that will facilitate action to undermine the rise of 'the far right' in Europe. Everything else has failed.
Sweden item now on Newsnight. Gabriel Gatehouse report - he can be good, but sometimes bad. "We often go in search of a narrative..." he says. How true! Now, it's all gone a bit post-modernist (what is truth?)..."Rate of crime is going down in Malmo" says the Police officer...hmmm...Might be true...Police officer explains it's nothing to with migration because they are 2nd or 3rd generation within migrant communities!! QED eh?...
Talking to a Sweden Democrat voter...Gatehouse slips in it has "roots" in neoNarzi movement...hmmm...
"Public discourse is catching up with private thought..."
Comic moment at the end as Marty Feldman lookalike, a Syrian refugee, in a headscarf came up to praise Sweden, declaring that Allah loved the question.
"Political correctness failed that guy (murder victim)?" GG puts question in form of statement: "So political correctness is killing people..."
GG gets in the ritual anti-Trump and anti-Farage notes towards the end.
He ends with:
"Beware the simple narrative...don't believe everything you see on TV."
As usual with GG you get the impression he is thoughtful and not really a virtue signaller like most younger reporters. But (referring to an earlier post of mine) he seems to be coming from a previous BBC generation, the post-modernist period, when talk was of "narratives" rather than quotas and virtue. He'll probably be marked down in his annual report.
From Pugnazious on BBBC: ... 'We did hear an astonishing comment this morning from a BBC presenter that ‘nobody cares that the government has reduced the deficit’ as news that the government has an extra £2bn in the kitty over and above its spending requirements.' ...
Do we know whose pearl of wisdom this was? It's deplorable. It shows a total disconnect between the BBC and the real world in which we the licence payers live.
Evan Davis referring to "Russian collusion" as an established fact in his interview with Lanny Davis...makes him look devious, or sloppy...especially as Lanny Davis goes on to state that the allegation Cohen had been in Prague was completely false (contradicting the heavy hints from BBC's Paul Wood, who seems to be relying on UK intelligence).
Newsnight never told us Lanny Davis "served as special counsel to the President from 1996 to 1998, during which time he also was the spokesman for Clinton in issues regarding campaign finance investigations and other legal issues, including President Clinton's impeachment trial" or that he has represented the government of Pakistan. An all-round good guy, it seems. :)
A story involving Trump, Russian collusion, CIA, FBI, MI5, and an ex-British spy. Talk about mysterious "firewalls"... What's not to like as far as the UK MSM are concerned? Hmmm..."something" because there is nothing at all about it on the BBC website...
Anyway, for those who are interested here's the background:
Evan Davis today on Radio 4 "Sweet Reason"...The programme today was focussed on "experts". Evan decided to start with three examples of "experts" getting it wrong. He chose three very BBC examples:
1. Some US "terror expert" making the false claim that the whole of Birmingham UK was a "no go" zone.
2. Nigel Lawson making allegedly false claims about climate change (myh attention may have wandered there, not sure was supposed to be false about the claims).
3. Alan Greenspan of the US Fed failing to realise the importance of government oversight before the banking collapse of 2008.
As I say, how very BBC when he could have chosen say (a) the considered view of "experts" that only 13,000 migrants would come to the UK from Poland, or (b) the failure of polling experts to see the Brexit Referendum victory coming or (c) the completely wrong prediction by Mark Carney of what would happen to the UK economy immediately after a Brexit vote (that it would go into recession).
Instead he chose his three PC-BBC examples, two of which, oddly, relate expert predictions from the USA (the BBC Americocentred as always).
Also the part of the programme I heard managed to make left wing economist Danny Blanchflower sound like a great economic seer whereas I recall him year after year predicting a double dip recession that never came.
Also, just remembered there was a really annoying bit where Davis was extolling the value of seeing issues "from all sides", and exercising "humility". Is that really the BBC MO? I think what Davis means is giving them an airing before dismissing them - the old West formula of "We're going to give you a fair trial before we hang you."
All in all I enjoyed the programme but, yes, you're completely right about it.
I was actually getting irritated at Evan Davis for misquoting Michael Gove on experts (i.e. only quoting the "I think people in this country have had enough of experts" bit and not completing the quote and pointing out that he was specifically talking about "experts with organisations from acronyms...saying they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong") but, thankfully, David Spiegelhalter stepped in, made that very point, and forced Evan to concede "Like we did".
That made me smile but the serious point is that Evan Davis knows what Michael Gove actually said - and actually meant - yet was still prepared to give the 'fake news' version of it here, even after playing the Channel 4 clip of the actual interview!
Maybe the moral for Evan here is: If you're a prominent BBC journalist and you know something is a famous misquote don't keep misquoting it or people might think you're deliberately smearing the person you're misquoting (unless you ARE deliberately smearing the person you're misquoting and are prepared to take that risk).
I remember Danny Blanchflower's endless partisan predictions of massively rising unemployment under the Tories that never came to pass. I even tracked them myself for fun once (off-blog). They so so way off that I can't believe anyone still takes him seriously. There's a flavour of them here:
It's interesting what the BBC thinks is important in an interview:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45096519
I heard the WATO interview with Lord Sheikh and I heard him say* that he was unhappy with the Burka remarks because he had supported Boris Johnson in previous election campaigns and "this was how he repaid the Muslims..." That's an intriguing way of looking at politics isn't it? Your personal support for an individual politician is somehow linked to a kind of "bloc support" by a whole religious community. How does that work Lord Sheikh? It sounds like such bloc support requires payment in kind, since you feel Boris did not make good on the payment, did not properly repay the community for that support. All very instructive I thought, but the BBC decided it was irrelevant of course.
* or think I did - he has a very thick overseas accent and unusual syntax that does not make his English readily comprehensible (despite him presumably living in this country for many decades)
The BBC is concerned about the declining rate of increase in life expectancy in the UK - on of the worst among advanced countries.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45096074
What's been the biggest change in the UK in the last 50 years? The demographic change resulting from mass immigration. So now over a quarter of new births are to women from overseas and there are perhaps 10 million plus people living in communities that follow their own cultural traditions, imported from overseas.
We now have large communities - millions of people with much high rates (x 4 to x11) of Type 1 diabetes, we see many more women not experiencing multiple child births, we see many more women being confined largely to the home or being pretty much completely covered up when out and about, and we see many more cousin marriages with attendant much higher rates of infant abnormalities (around x13 more than with non-cousin marriages) plus much high rates of diseases such as AIDS and TB among migrant groups. You'd think the BBC's Hugh Pym - commenting on the results of the survey on WATO today - might have referenced mass immigration as a potential causal factor, but instead choice to raise the dark possibility that the reduced rate of increase was the result of "cuts in social care".
not = now!
Delete6 pm R4 radio news managed to find a professor to blame it on "the cutz".
DeleteAlso, continuing to stoke the anti Boris brigade, they included vox pops with 3 muslims in North London ... you can guess the outcomes. Simple propaganda.
Vox Pop = fox the populace...
DeleteBBC Reality Checkout in full swing.
ReplyDeleteThe Mail records this story and rightly leads with a description of the perpetrator as "A Sudanese asylum seeker..."
The BBC manages to hide the story low down on its England page and does not mention the man's national or asylum seeking status. One would have the impression he was a long term UK citizen, thanks to that non-reporting.
Note also they managed to avoid referencing the victim statements.
As far as the BBC is concerned that was "Job well done...": buried and distorted.
Sorry forgot to put in the two links...here they are:
Deletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6034729/Asylum-seeker-raped-student-17-cemetery-replies-did-not-jailed.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-45103248
Also, "note the quotes" as we say. The BBC manage to minimise the crime by referring to the perpetrator as a predatory-sex-offender and put that description in single quotes. But you won't find that quote reference in the body of the article...odd but very BBC. The Mail, by contrast, used the R word in the headline, so we know this is an extremely serious offence.
Yes, agreed. The BBC and the majority of establishment hide some of the facts in cases like this in the interests of social cohesion and to prevent stoking anti-immigration sentiment. Didn’t one BBC reporter remind us not so long ago that you have to be very careful with your words when reporting.
DeleteIt’s dishonest and creates fake news and it’s one of the main reasons BBC is losing trust.
The BBC is careful to avoid direct lies as far as possible. But misleading the public by omission of important facts is definitely Fake News. There are many more ways of delivering Fake News than just lying, as we all know here.
DeleteThe BBC article seems to imply that his early admission of guilt is an act of kindness.
DeleteBBC Trendies:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-45040614
Wendling (sharing a byline with unusual modesty) suddenly, after nearly 2 years, decides to reference Q Anon...why? - because suddenly, en masse, the American liberal media have decided to do so and anathematise it as a "conspiracy theory".
I do follow Q Anon occasionally...it's quite a fascinating story. I've no idea whether it's genuine. Certainly Trump has helped it along. Recently he said "17 times" (apropos nothing much) four times in quick succession in a speech. He made it sound like 17 was an important number. Q just happens to be the 17th letter. Another time his hand movement unmistakably described a Q in the air. Sometimes his tweets have followed on a similar Q comment just minutes lated.
If Q is not genuine he/she/they have got lucky quite a few times. The things I have gleaned are that there is a (Trumpian) plan both in the foreign and domestic spheres. In foreign policy, he's working through the issues. Q predicted the rapprochment with N Korea well ahead of it happening, when most liberals were predicting nuclear war. Taking the Mullahs on was also prefigured. In the domestic sphere he's working to dismantle the Clintonian deep state and its network of alliances.
You might wonder why Trump still survives while he has been targeted by the CIA, FBI and DOJ working together. Well, the way Q Anon explains it, it's clear that Trump has Military Intelligence onside. In fact there are those who claim he was headhunted as a presidential candidate by the military who were appalled at what Obama-Clinton and their allies in the Deep State were doing.
Simon Jack, talking about US sanctions on Iran said
ReplyDelete“Like it or not, the worlds most important commodities are bought and sold in US dollars”.
‘Like it or not’ - how does that fit into the equation?
Why not just leave out that bit?
Otherwise it might suggest you would prefer it if they weren’t traded in dollars.
Very good observation...I saw that and, even as an experienced bias-spotter, that passed me by! :) Completely unnecessary in an unbiased report. He could simply have told us the USA is in a powerful position to exert its will...not really part of the BBC script though is it? Unless they are emoting about a David v Goliath type struggle that it suits them to put in emotional terms, they like to suggest the US can never win Conflict X whatever the conflict might be. I must admit, I was a bit surprised to hear Simon Jack tell it like it is, given all his pro-EU Brexit reporting. He should check his report card...he might get marked down for that.
DeleteI had a dream last night. I dreamt of Radio 4's schedule for the next day:
ReplyDelete7.30am Today - Interview with Jordan Peterson in which he isn't interrupted or subjected to confrontational questions.
7.55am Today - Thought for Today - A traditional Imam sets out why he wants Sharia to rule the world, why he thinks all women should cover up, why a woman's witness is worth half that of a man's and why cutting off of hands for the crime of theft is a good idea.
8.10am Today - Non-confrontational interview with the author of "Single Parenting is Behind the Crime Wave in London".
8.20am Report about how dysfunctional the EU is becoming with a north-south divide, huge migrant ghettoes, populist v elite governments and net contributors v net beneficiaries...
9.00am Desert Island Discs - Rod Liddle chooses his favourite discs.
10.00am Women's Hour - Why after centuries of feminism do large numbers of women still prefer to be home makers focussed on raising their children? Why aren't there more female sewage workers, long distance lorry drivers and refuse collectors? Female warriors - why are female political leaders like Mrs Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, and Golda Meir so keen to take their countries to war?
Noon - You and Yours - an investigation into bogus and ineffective charities that lie to the public and spend most of their money on their staff (who are often related to the directors of the charity).
1.00pm World At One - Extended and sympathetic interview with Tommy Robinson about his inhuman incarceration.
2.05pm The Archers - A young female character decides it would be wrong to try and raise her baby on her own and, she is going to try and make a go of it with the father of her baby. Also, she decides she will investigate methods of contraception in the early 21st century, as she feels she has been somewhat remiss in that regard. Meanwhile the new Asian owner of the stables has been found guilty of massive financial corruption and is imprisoned for 5 years. Also, the Ambridge women in the village cricket team prove a complete disaster, performing far worse than the men.
2.20pm Climate Change - Is It Real? A climate sceptic scientist argues that the case for anthropogenic climate change has been overstated.
3.00pm All in the Mind - A psychologist explains why sitting around moping and complaining all day long is the worse thing you can do if you are suffering some mental discomfort. Don't define every little problemette as a mental health issue. Get out and exercise...that will soon cure your so called insomnia. Oh, and stop comfort eating. That won't do you any good either. Being fat is not good for you. Sharpen up you lazy slob.
...continued...
Delete5.00pm PM - BBC reporters look at how mass immigration is contributing to the housing crisis, strains on the NHS, the crime wave and the relative decline in productivity in the UK. Mainstream politicians face bullying questioning about why they are failing to deal with this issue.
6.30pm Am I Right or Am I Wrong? New topical game show mocks virtue signalling, political correctness, right on celebs, millionaire left wing comedians and socialist politicians.
7.00pm The Archers - Pat's horrified to discover one of the sheep is transgendering. But it's all perfectly natural according to Pip.
7.20pm Front Row - Christopher Booker introduces the arts show. The show reviews a ballet, an opera and a production of The Tempest, each of which finds no parallels with the contemporary political scene.
8.00pm Science Now Actually reports on scientific discoveries rather than virtue signalling.
8.30pm Medicine Now Actually reports on medical advances rather than virtue signalling.
9.00pm Drama - An honest police officer investigating a knife murder discovers a seething cauldron of gang violence based on ethnic hatreds between various migrant communities in London. His female seniors in the service try to stop him doing his job and he is disciplined. He is then unfairly hounded by the Guardian, Independent and BBC news media. Eventually he is proved right when Breitbart News receive and publish an audio-tape proving he was set up.
10.00 pm The World Tonight - Why Trump is getting it right...a look at Trump's triumphs in the economy, in domestic politics and abroad.
11.00pm The National Anthem...followed by Jerusalem, Pomp and Circumstance, Rule Britannia, The British Grenadiers, Liliburlero, and I Vow to Thee My Country.
Quite, quite wonderful Mr Brains.
Delete"I may say you`re a dreamer-but, who knows?...maybe not the only one.."
I dare to dream with you sir!
"Imagine there's no countries" - yikes!!!
Delete"And no religion too..." Not so bad, I think we'd survive as long as we can keep philosophy, music and art. :)
I read this on the Guy Fawkes website about Remainiac Dominic Grieve MP. Checked it out on Wikipedia:
ReplyDelete"Grieve is president of the Franco-British Society.[30] He was awarded the Legion of Honour in 2016.[30] He broadcasts in French on French radio and television.[31]"
This isn't a joke it's really true!
https://uk.ambafrance.org/Dominic-Grieve-decorated-for-work-in-Franco-British-relations
But have you ever heard it mentioned on the BBC, ITV or Sky? Nope, neither have I. If Boris had received a Congressional Medal of Honor from Donald Trump, we know the BBC would mention it at least three times a day!
More fake news from the BBC on the Turkish economy and lira crisis.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45113472
The main reasons it is tanking:
1. The Turkish Central Bank is not making the tough decisions necessary to stabilise because
a. Erdogan has control of the previously independent and respected central bank.
b. His son in law is finance minister
c. Erdogan is opposed to interest rate rises
The result is that they have zero credibility in the market to put things right.
The BBC skirt around this and waffle on about the peripheral issues. The readers are being misled - as is often the case.
The BBC is completely schizoid on Turkey...they don't know whether they support Erdogan or the Kurds, whether Erdogan's brand of political Islam (is there a non-political version?) is to be admired or feared, whether Turkey's alleged denial of the Armenian holocaust is an issue or not, whether Erdogan is too close to Putin or too close to Trump. They want them in the EU, but they don't want to frighten the horses, so claim it will never happen. Turkish immigrants are well integrated into European societies like Germany except when they say they're not. And so on...
DeleteTop story on website tonight:
DeleteTrump tariff move pushes Turkish lira down
Fake news and opportunism - its not Trump causing their currency crisis.
Yes the tariffs did make the lira drop further but The BBC headline is misleading to name Trump as the cause.
It's those "men" again...in this case a man from Rochester, in fact a "Rochester man"...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-45147682
I thought this was about some far right lunatic...I had to go nearly half way through the story before I discovered he was a pro-IS operative who just happened to "use the name Ali Hussain" (no particular reason for that odd choice of alternative moniker then BBC?). The only real clue what this is all about: "The phone also contained videos in which Ludlow stated his hatred of unbelievers and his desire to establish Sharia law." Hmmmm...funny that. It's also as if he's read something that tells him that is the true path...but no clues as to what he might have read or what he might believe in. No M word, no I word.
High minded BBC types used to claim they had a "mission to explain"...now they seem to have a "mission to obfuscate".
Pugnazious over at Biased BBC has spotted an interesting differential in the treatment of this story...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45128677
Also, Up2snuff notes in passing something that I too have noticed - that the BBC Website's word search facility is about the worst one you'll find on any major website on the internet. Remember - they've got £4 billion to play with but can't even get that right.
...about a dodgy data sale from a Mumsnet-type online website to the Labour Party, compared to how the Cambridge Analytica story was treated by the BBC. Here it's hidden on the technology page, as though there are no political implications.
Sorry got those last two paras. mixed up - the penultimate one should have been the final one...no excuses but I haven't got access to £4 billion!
DeleteBut in this case, I heard on the nine o'clock news on Radio 4 tonight, "A white Muslim convert..."
ReplyDeleteI guess it was radio... :) They had to let you know that "important" skin colour tone fact.
DeleteHaha ... actually they just drew attention to the fact that Islam isn't a race.
DeleteJon Sweeney campaigning vigorously for anti-democratic Brexit cancellation. Lots of snidey anti-Brexit comments. Basically it's a political ad for the People's Vote UK Blair Front organisation. Newsnight don't even bother to pretend to be achieving balance. They know they are untouchable with May in charge.
ReplyDeleteIsn't this an inordinate amount of time and effort being spent on the part of the BBC to memorialise a street conflict in a foreign country that led to the death of one person, when there are so many such conflicts around the world almost every day? Why are American lives considered by the BBC to be so much more important than the lives of people from other, often much poorer countries with much bigger problems - places like South Africa, Congo, Kenya, Brazil, Mexico, India and so on where far worse street conflicts take place?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44619374
I remember 11 anti-Maastricht demonstrators were shot by the Police in Denmark in 1993. Can't recall the BBC ever referring back to that in the intervening period. Wrong protest, wrong country, wrong background.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1993/may/20/eu.politics
But clearly they think they can turn Charlottesville into some sort of Sharpeville Massacre legend.
Also, I note the BBC fail in their memorial article to give any space to the view of the ACLU (the NOT right wing American Civil Liberties Union) that the problem was the failure of the authorities to keep demonstrators and counter demonstrators apart (something that Tommy Robinson has complained about in the UK - it seems on most occasions to be a deliberate tactic to create violence and mayhem).
For clarification: I don't support the Confederacy, slavery, Jim Crow laws, or racial oppression. But I do support free speech and sensible discussion about how you manage cultural artefacts from the past that may be "problematic", to use a BBC word whether it's the reliefs in Stalin's Metro or Confederate generals in the South of the USA. But it's not a problem for the BBC to spend our licence fee money obsessing about. Virtually all our statues in places like London are of people who would now be anathematised as racists, supporters of genocide of native people (e.g. Marx,Darwin, HG Wells),religious bigots, oppressors of working people, transgressors of female personal space or war mongers. Are we going to melt down all of them?
Here's some EU related information that is unaccountably absent from the BBC's output - this should come under their obligation to 'inform'.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6049349/EU-ban-halogen-bulbs-end-month-making-lighting-homes-TWICE-expensive.html
As it shows more pesky meddling by the EU in our everyday lives, it hasn't received much attention. Incidentally, if your property (like mine) has halogen spotlights controlled by a dimmer-switch, you will need to change the switch as well as the bulbs.
ps. I'm reliably informed that LED spotlights are available which are compatible with dimmer-switches and double switches - so you can go ahead and replace halogens one by one as they fail with LEDs - but halogen bulbs will no longer be stocked by supermarkets.
DeleteThere's changing your mind, like Gavin Esssler over leaving the EU and then there's this:
ReplyDelete"Samantha Kane has changed gender three times, from male to female and then back to male, before transitioning a second time to female..."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bclbmv
It's a powerful story, according to BBC but in case we missed it early this morning, they are obliging by repeating it at 5 40 this evening. Must keep up with the agenda.
See Emily Play...
ReplyDeleteEmily Maitlis retweets a...wait for it...Guardian article (what a surprised) by Matthew D'Ancona, the extremist Remainiac.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/12/boris-johnson-moment-more-decisive-rivers-of-blood
The article is a typical D'Ancona affair, hoisting a flag of convenience over the moral high ground in a fundamentally dishonest display of aggression. Emily chooses to quote in part a sentence from the article. It is this:
"There will be no campaign to free the Bullingdon One (though you can bet that the populist right would love nothing more)." (She left out the part in parentheses.)
Presumably the snide remark amused her...which shows just how shallow she - and the rest of her luvvie media pals - are.
The moral crossroads is not as D'Ancona describes it.
We have already passed the crossroads. We have travelled far down the road towards totalitarian denial of free speech. Who 20 years ago could have imagined that in our time a couple of light hearted remarks about a ghastly garment associated with religious intolerance and oppression would be sufficient cause for a Metropolitan Police Commissioner to inquire whether a speech offence has been committed?
We are already at the point where everyday speech is being patrolled by the Police and that is a very serious issue that should worry everyone. But who could have thought that the Conservative Party would be conniving in this attack on our liberties by the illiberal followers of a totalitarian ideology?
D'Ancona's family hails from Malta - where the state and its allies has developed special (lethal) ways of dealing with inconvenient journalism, so he should be aware of the dangers. Doubly so, since - ironically - he once worked for Index on Censorship...
You'd think with that background he would be concerned about free speech. But no, Remainiacs would sacrifice their first born in order to keep us in the EU so squashing free speech is of little concern to them.
D'Ancona's central thesis is dishonest. He argues that there is no threat to telling jokes about a religion: "That freedom has not been imperilled by this particular case." (interesing he refers to it as a "case"). What country does he live in? Humour (as we have seen north of the border) is no defence against the laws restricting free speech. To pretend things are otherwise is dishonest.
Journalists should be the first people into the line to defend free speech, but it seems the modern British journalist cares more about the EU, identity-based politics, and crushing populism.
"In this case, Johnson’s “authenticity” resides in his signal that is acceptable to use demeaning, dehumanising language about Muslim women in religious clothing."
DeleteHe seems to have overlooked that if anything's demeaning and dehumanising, it's the practice of women and even girls being shrouded and invisible in these ridiculous garments. And that's leaving out any consideration whether it is strictly speaking a religious garment, or more of a cultural practice or an instance of female subjugation and separation.
Anyway from that point on, he wound himself up into a state of high indignation and prophetic doom almost enough to launch him skyward from his newfound pulpit.
I’ve found it very interesting the way BBC have reported the Turkish lira crisis. Thy are completely at odds with every other news organisation including The Guardian.
ReplyDeleteThe BBC have Trump in the dock for this crisis. Both headlines and articles have this bias.
Elsewhere it is about Turkish internal issues and their monetary response.
I shouldn’t be suprised by this but the lack of objectivity and omissions are startling.
What is going on?
Was in Waterstones today and took a brief look at Evan Davis's highly political anti-populist tome "Peak Bullshit"...
ReplyDeleteIt's amazing how arrogant BBC folk are in their assumptions. He was quoting some website in the USA visited by 2 million people that had fake news stories on it...but I wondered, were they satirical fake news stories...because the BBC loves to blur the boundaries between news and comedy. On HIGNFY, News Quiz, the Mash Report, Mock the News and so on...programmes specifically connected to the news, their paid minions make up stories about people the BBC perceives as enemies - Trump, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Katy Hopkins and so on...although these are news-related shows they are also branded as comedy, which allows the "talent" to fabricate stories, make assertions about the people that are clearly false or otherwise traduce them. Of course, for Evan Davis none of that is "bullshit", anymore than him asking Nigel Farage about the Paddington movie (citing it as an example of how we should address migration issues0was "bullshit", though it certainly was, and very targetted BS at that.
It was clear from the Davis book, that he is only concerned about Fake News as it affects the ability of the elite to maintain control over politics and society.
BBC News Website - headline was "Westminster Car Crash - Pedestrians Injured"...headlines like that can kill. The BBC has a duty as a public broadcaster to put people on the alert. For all we know this could be the first of several co-ordinated attempts. But the BBC's first instinct is to play it down despite the numerous statements from witnesses saying it was a deliberate attack.
ReplyDeleteThe amended headline is still playing it down - an almost disappointed "Westminster car crash treated as terror attack"...Why not a more direct "Westminster - driver terror attack"?
The BBC must be very pleased with themselves tonight because they have kept this very low key and said that the suspect is a British National. On the website, they also now say it’s an ‘attack’. (in quotations!)
DeleteI've already heard the phrase "mental health issues" from a BBC journo...can't be long now before it's confirmed that this was not a terrorist incident but a personal mental health crisis which should remain confidential. And yes he is a British national for the BBC, although other less enlightened news outfits mention he was not born in the UK.
DeleteSo Kamal Ahmad is now something called "Editorial Director"...
ReplyDeletehttps://tradingaswdr.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-thinker.html
The BBC has so many more Chiefs than Indians it's ridiculous...no longer a PC phrase of course...
But they'll have Director of News, Director of TV, Director of Policy, Director of Diversity, Director of BBC1 (and on ad infinitum) and Director of Education, Director of This and Director of That...all potentially covering the same areas as Kamal Ahmad...who clearly is now thinking in terms of completely closing down any semblance of democratic debate on BBC channels.
It's a shame, there was a time a few months ago (maybe when he was pitching for the job?) when I thought he was adopting a much more responsible approach than his colleagues to Brexit and its likely outcomes.
But it seems that after all he is just as mad as the other frogs in the box.
Don't expect to see this anytime soon on the BBC website but Mail Online let us know the suspect is a migrant from Sudan...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6060821/Sudanese-immigrant-terror-attacker-drove-London-hours-smashing-car-cyclists.html
Interesting that the Mail can give us all this info about him allegedly driving a vehicle into people without any possibility of "collapsing a trial" but poor old Tommy Robinson still faces lengthy imprisonment by a so-called "independent judiciary" for a far less blatant, or even non-existent, example of pre-trial bias.
Notice that BBC journalist hasn't put his career on the line by saying that Trump used the N word...
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/awzurcher/status/1029450338359754752
He just said that the White House press secretary hadn't said she knew definitively that he had never, ever used the N word, even though she is not joined at the hip to him so could not possiby ever, wever, never (sorry Anthony Zurcher but I am getting down to your childish level) know whether or not he had ever used the N word... It would be surprising if he had never, ever used it given he is quite old and there are songs from Rolling Stones albums which use the word and which he might have sung along to...
I missed this! Kamal Ahmed has been made Editorial Director of News.
ReplyDeleteIt just goes to show that finding the negative aspect of every bit of economic good news has its rewards.
Ahmed is also the master of blaming Brexit.
Towing the BBC line and playing the long game in the interests of your career at the BBC clearly pays off.
Zurcher, Lineker and Maitlis are examples of how employees constantly virtue signal their liberal credentials to keep their stars in the ascendency.
It’s s good game to play when the salary rewards are so high. I’m sure they are all still in one of the only remaining final salary pension schemes too.
Isn't it amazing that the BBC notes how immigration can reduce housing affordability...in New Zealand.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-45199034
Say that here, about the UK, and the BBC would call you Far Right and be lobbying for you to serve a long prison sentence in solitary confinement.
MB & Sir Topham - I'd missed the elevation of Kamal Ahmed & its significance. It seems that Mr Ahmad shares John Simpson's view that the BBC should be careful about giving 'false equivalence' to 'marginal views'. According to Hugo Dixon, a founding member of the People's Vote Campaign, 'marginal' would include Leave supporters and AGW deniers. So that's it: The Ministry of Truth will prevent us proles from falling into error by only presenting us with their view of the 'truth'. Lord help us! (Source: The Times, Thunderer)
ReplyDeleteBlink and you will have missed this:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45183421
... 'Sir Cliff Richard privacy case: BBC will not go to Court of Appeal' ....
... 'In the letter, the BBC's director-general Tony Hall writes: "The BBC has decided not to seek permission from the Court of Appeal to appeal against that judgment - even though we are advised and believe that the judge erred in law' ...
.... 'Analysis by BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman
Many will ask why the BBC has decided not to seek permission to appeal against a judgment its director of news and current affairs felt represented a dramatic shift against press freedom and reduced scrutiny of the police.
And why, if it was the right thing to do to run the original story, to vigorously contest Sir Cliff's legal action in court and to remain bullish about the possible justification for an appeal following the judgment, is it now the right thing not to try to appeal through the courts?
The BBC's answer is that it has been told that it would not win an appeal.' ....
So, no proper heartfelt apology to Cliff Richard apart from mumblings into the pavement, no remorse, no sackings or suspensions - in fact promotions since then for Fran Unsworth and Dan Johnson. It's business as usual at the BBC. Damages and legal costs are estimated at £1.9m with more costs to follow. - all part of the money-go-round at the licence payers' expense.
Did anyone catch the article, concerning Noel Edmonds in the Sunday Times this week? Noel, until now not my favourite TV personality, had been invited, with a number of other celebrities including, of course a rapper no-one has heard of, to take part in an amateur rally rally in south-east Asia for a programme to be aired on Sunday. He decided to go as he was told that as well as the rally they would be immersed in local culture as well as having an opportunity to drive some classic cars in challenging circumstances. Noel has a nice line in sarcasm. He said driving to Tesco was more challenging,the local hotels they were staying in were 5 star hotels from international chains. The rally was effectively over when one participant rolled his car on the 1st corner and another, not use to a manual gearbox, wrecked the driveline in pretty short time.From then on they were forbidden to race each other and any overtaking scenes were staged. It is well worth a read but Noel's most telling comment " I fear that today's BBC management operates to the same low standards as our bankers. - protecting your own agenda to the detriment of national interests. "
ReplyDeleteYes, I saw a short article about it somewhere, not The Sunday Times. It was all over the tabloid press. There was a riposte from the BBC as well - possibly in some specialist magazine about motor racing or whatever in that line.
DeletePeter Hitchens has posted on his blog about Israel and Jews and what he has termed Judophobia - partly, he says, to annoy people who deploy phobia coinages: "But I’m all in favour of reasoned criticism, and some humour, and I’m weary of foolish people calling this ‘Islamophobia’ as if it was some sort of disease." And he draws a distinction between being critical of Islam and Judophobia or disliking Jews for what they are.
ReplyDeletehttp://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2018/08/forget-burkas-christianitys-the-faith-that-is-really-under-siege.html
Complementing the blog post he reposted a long essay he wrote in 2006 on the arguments about Israel Palestine and attitudes to Jews http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2018/08/reflections-on-judophobia-in-the-west-and-the-middle-east-.html
A short section of it about prejudice and how opinions are formed, mentions the BBC:
"But of course most people don't form their opinions in this way. They pick them up, as they pick up other fashions, from what they hear around them, from the prejudices of the media, which become their prejudices by a subtle process. These, by the way, don't take the form of the BBC correspondent saying "Israel wickedly bombed civilian targets last night". You only catch it on the edge of a remark. The reporters themselves often don't know they are doing it. It is their unconscious choice of verbs and nouns, their tone of voice, the selection of pictures and the attitudes to spokesmen that you have to watch."
I think that is true in a sense; they do think they are being right and right-thinking (righteous rather than right-wing thinking) in a lot of what they do and say. But they also have deliberations, policies, directions, agendas and manipulations. It is by no means all sub conscious or inadvertent.
I have always found Hitchens unsound on Sharia ideology. Sadly, this only confirms my doubts. In his columns he does it the honour of calling it "a great religion" and a "faith". He says he has "quite a lot of sympathy" with bits of it. He claims that he has never found any of its followers upset by "serious argument" - go tell that to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, says I. Then, to cap it all, he misses the point completely: "One of the supreme achievements of a free civilisation is the ability to disagree without hating your opponent. We need to relearn it." Well (a) that's not actually true - you were perfectly at liberty to hate Mrs Thatcher, just not allowed to remove her without resort to the ballot box and (b) it's not generally "we" who have the problem - it is totalitarians, whether of the political or so-called "religious" variety.
DeleteI did find that statement about great religion jarring and wondered if it was put in to conform to some editorial line. Maybe it's the fact that he is always defending Christianity and feels obliged to include others as part of a larger defence of religion.
DeleteI think that's pretty much it Anonymous. And I think that also goes back to the sibling rivalry thing...his brother having been such a prominent atheist. Also, I think if he can't quite understand how a monotheistic religion might not offer wise moral guidance. I think he feels that to concede that would impact on the other monotheistic religions he is close to - Christianity and Judaism. I've never heard him speak kindly of Hinduism, Taoism or Buddhism, despite those religions having much to offer the world.
DeleteThey're a striking pair of brothers. Peter defends Christopher, saying that he was a very reasoned atheist or something along those lines. But then too Peter does like to confound expectations. There's a contrarian streak in him. He posted a podcast of James Delingpole interviewing him which Delingpole found very hard going because of this. He couldn't get a grip on him. He'd just disagree and contend all the time.
DeleteOn the other hand, when he goes on the BBC, his combativeness comes into its own. He knows their game so well he's always prepared and quick to pounce when they try to cut him off so he's effective.
It’s already been alluded to, but Peter Hitchens spent most of his life overshadowed by his much more brilliant older brother. I can't help feeling that a great deal of what he says is a reaction to that. I didn’t always agree with Christopher Hitchens, but I always enjoyed disagreeing with him. Listening to him was always a stimulating experience. I’m afraid I can’t say that about Peter Hitchens.
Deletewith him = to him
DeleteBBC1 6pm News. Either I was hallucinating or the BBC has done some proper investigative journalism and revealed that the Manchester bomber was, in all probability, radicalised by the imam of his local mosque, who is given to urging worshippers to wage jihad. Better catch it quickly because I don't see it surviving 'til 10pm edition
ReplyDeleteBy then they'll probably have Lord Dodgy and the Muslim Council of Britain on, demanding a retraction, an apology and an official investigation - into the impropriety and phobic nature of the allegation, of course.
DeleteSisyphus - I commented on this on another thread. Superficially it was a heartening and welcome restoration of some semblance of balance...but there is a sinister side to this. You will have seen from the story that the BBC cannot trust its reporters or its translators to assess whether a Mosque sermon was given in support of violent Jihad...nope,the BBC had to go to "Islamic scholars" to make that assessment, as though they had the final word. What if the "Islamic scholars" had said "nothing to see here, move along please" - would the BBC have dropped the story? It seems to be this is Sharia compliance. The BBC are giving Islamic scholars the right to decide what is incitement to violence and what isn't. As a licence fee payer I am not at all happy with that. It's a bit like going to a Marxist Professor and asking them to adjudicate whether a particular Communist's speech was an incitement to violence, rather than going to a non-Marxist barrister or other expert.
DeleteAnd the very last sentence in that report was:
DeleteWe have passed the tape to the Manchester police who said they will listen to it to see if a crime has been committed.
Will this guy be locked up? I doubt it.
What happened to the first duty of a state to protect its citizens?
MB: Good point. It would have made more sense to consult a leading criminal lawyer.
DeleteAnthony Zurcher confesses a liking for gold braid, simplistic sentiment, braggadocio, military discipline for university graduates and all the rest...just so long as the guy in question is a fully paid-up Trump-basher.
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/awzurcher/status/1030202252173238277
Yep, that's why they call it Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Newsnight turns its attention to Q Anon...in line with US liberal media which also ignored it until recently...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ac9wj2ZVRM
Presented by "Mad John" Sweeney.
"Very fake news!" as someone might say.
Here are some of the fake elements:
1. It was implied Q Anon had made some specific claims that I have never seen, and I keep up with him/her pretty regularly.
2. There was no reference to the Q Proofs - Trump signing Q, Trump mentioning "17" several times with great emphasis in a speech (Q is the 17th letter) or Trump following up Q Anon drops with his own similarly themed tweets a minute or two later.
3. It was implied Q Anon was making a lot of money from this...as far as I know you can't make money off 4 Chan or 8 Chan where he/she posts...I might be wrong, but the big money would be in the You Tube channels commenting on the Q posts, none of which claim direct access to Q.
4. In general terms Q Anon seems fairly accurate about what is/has been happening. Or do you believe that there hasn't been a Deep State war going on (basically the leadership of the FBI/CIA/DOJ versus Military Intelligence)? - seems to me difficult to maintain that, although the MSM seem to alternate between mocking Deep State analysis as a conspiracy theory and using it themselves to explain events. Q Anon has been describing that war in progress and also the attempts to nail the Clintons and others for their corrupt actions in government. Q Anon suggests that there is a "Plan" both domestic and foreign which Trump is working his way through...it certainly feels like that. In terms of the Plan on foreign policy we seem to be in the Iran phase now.
5. I've no idea whether Q Anon is "genuine" (what does that mean in this context?) or not, but so far I have found him/her a much better guide to the future than the BBC News and other MSM pundits...according to them he should be out by now, disgraced and impeached...according to them the USA should be on the brink of economic collapse, not enjoying 4% growth and record low unemployment...They were wrong about him getting the Republican nomination, about him keeping the nomination, they were wrong about the polls and the election result, they were wrong about prospects for impeachment...as far as I can see they were wrong about the Russia-Trump collusion claim.
Lots of comment around about the three days of national mourning ordered by the BBC Panjandrums for American Aretha Franklin...
ReplyDeleteThe coverage of her death has been absurdly excessive compared to the mini-obits for many other great singers and performers like the Four Tops' Levi Stubbs - who sold way more records than Aretha Franklin...or Mick Ronson, David Bowie's collaborator or Nina Simone who wrote great songs as well as singing them. How long are they going to give Bob Dylan if they give Aretha 10 mins lead on national news?
It's a sign I think of Colourism Derangement Syndrome. The BBC - along with much of the MSM - suffers from some weird sort of impulse to over-represent people of colour in their programmes. It's only people of colour ie black or brown people. Other minorities such as Chinese, East Europeans, South Americans, Filipinos and Japanese can go whistle as far as the BBC are concerned.
There's no doubt Aretha was a great singer but the BBC are hugely exaggerating her social significance, possibly influenced by her closeness to the Obamas. I particularly liked her emergency rendering of Nessun Dorma in absence of Pavarotti - very good I thought, even if not all the notes were Puccini's. You can find it on You Tube.
Aretha Franklin was undoubtedly a huge, huge star in the USA but this is the UK. She didn't really have a massive impact here compared with people like Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson or Chuck Berry.
I was surprised at the death of Aretha Franklin, I thought she'd died years ago.
DeleteMB, the BBC's eulogies to Aretha Franklin were way over the top. She wasn't particularly popular in UK, or in my memory in the USA either. But she was a black woman which is pretty much top of the victim tree in BBCland.
DeleteOn the R4 news I had to listen to a full 10 minutes of eulogy before the item I was waiting for, which was on the Didsbury Iman preaching jihad. Far more newsworthy to a UK audience than the death of a US singer from natural causes. But that's the BBC's values on display.
On the Didsbury Iman item, anyone heard why the recording is released now? Where has it been for last year or so? Who taped it? Seems a story that we are not being told.
She did sell 70 million records, so there's no arguing with that...but I think that was mostly in the USA. Her best known work was with mainly Jewish composers. She had a soul voice, but a lot of her songs were pure pop.
DeleteThe BBC is happy to mention "Black" in relation to music but the truth is that in terms of popular music, Jewish performers and composers have had as big a role as people of African or Euro-African descent. The BBC just doesn't like to admit it.
Regarding Didsbury...well, yes...there's a story we aren't being told... Also, remember the BBC with its vast resources could do undercover recordings at Mosques (not just sermons but religious teaching, lectures, general chit-chat) any time it wanted...but I sure that's the last thing they would want to do!
FUNNY PHOTO COMP...TOP ENTRY>>>
ReplyDeleteGuest Who references this:
https://twitter.com/EvanHD/status/1030133185668112384?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1030388599710273536&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fbiasedbbc.org%2Fblog%2F2018%2F08%2F15%2Fmidweek-open-thread-15-august-2018%2Fcomment-page-4%2F%23comments
Hilarious! Karma!! Evan Davis has besmirched Farage and UKIP as "Far Right"...now made Corbynistas are having a go at him for being a "Far Right" groupie! lol
Evan Davis's byline on Twitter contains one of the biggest fibs ever...Evan states: "the BBC has no views". Yeah, of course Evan...no views at all.
Ah yes. Memories of interviews past:
DeleteEVAN DAVIS: Did you see the Paddington Bear movie last year?
NIGEL FARAGE: No.
EVAN DAVIS: Terrific movie with a kind of rather sort of moving, in a sense, proclamation of the virtues of multiculturalism, which I know you hate, because he's a bear, and he's different and he feels very at home and is made to feel welcome here. Now would that be a 'metropolitan elite' movie that is kind of a tragedy...a travesty of British patriotism, of British values?
If multiculturism amounted to welcoming the occasional lost Peruvian, then there would be little issue. Evan is a bear of little brain!
DeleteI'm thinking of bringing out a children's book "Evan the Bear Goes to Peru"...in which hitherto undiverse Peruvians are enriched by the little bear's lessons in economics, transgenderism and urban powerhouse politics. They are so impressed by this "magic-talk" (charla mágica) that they decide to invite all the bears in the world to visit Peru. Things go well until, unfortunately, they invite a 1000 pound Grizzly Bear who develops toothache on the flight over. After that the sensible Peruvians ban all bears from entering the country. I am sure it will be a big seller - just need to find a publisher.
DeleteFront page of the BBC website today.
ReplyDeleteExtreme right is infiltrating politics says ex Met terror chief Mark Rowley.
A typical politically charged headline to capture your attention. He said white supremacist groups displaying aggressive intolerance and advocating violence are on the rise. It may well the case, but the irony is that he can’t see that the cause may be another group displaying aggressive intolerance.
But you only ever get one side of the story from the BBC and they just love soundbites from ’experts’ supporting their worldview.
He's a dimwit. I thought he'd retired. Have they just put him in a back room somewhere out of sight? He was an embarrassment as a senior police officer. Of course having old duffers in those top jobs isn't anything new.
DeleteKing Crimson over at Biased BBC points us in the direction of this document emanating from the EU:
ReplyDeletehttp://ectr.eu/revised-model-law-2015-final
As they used to say on Crimewatch until Jill Dando was murdered, "Don't have nightmares."
Increasingly it's like we're living in some Alice in Wonderland version of the Soviet Union...certain facts are ruled unhelpful and ignored by the BBC, like this one about a bit of nepotism at the UN during Kofi Annan's tenure...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3615987/Dont-be-surprised-by-the-UNs-corruption.html
I'm really sorry. You all need to shut up. You're clearly displaying a thin-centric discourse.
ReplyDeletehttps://issueafterissue.wordpress.com/2018/08/03/the-science-behind-anti-fat-bias-issue-after-issue-the-keith-network/
Have you noticed how many of our major cities in the UK are dominated by statues which, by today's standards, are definitely thin, or at least borderline thin...?
DeleteI would like to propose in a spirit of diversity, equality and tolerance that any statue with a BMI of less than 25 be pulled down and broken up, to be sold as scrap.
I am sure this will give our obese brothers and sisters - or indeed our gender-neutral siblings - much solace and help usher in the wonderful world of equality and happiness promised by the BBC (even though none of their TV presenters are anywhere near obese...).
The BBC is really on board the People's Vote campaign.
ReplyDeleteThis can only be described as a puff piece for the campaign...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45235655
It's obviously based on a campaign press release.
The BBC - despite its billions of pounds - can't be bothered to solicit comments from opponents. It is also misleading to describe it simply as the government "ruling out" a second referendum...Parliament "ruled in" the first referendum as the one that counted.
The People's Vote Campaign is supported by the European Movement UK, a propaganda outfit that receives money from the EU. The BBC don't want you to know that.
Since when have "hundreds" of people attending a demo been anything other than a sign of failure and lack of public interest? Many thousands attended Free Tommy Robinson demos but the BBC ignored those demos.
I'm puzzled by the line, "The People's Vote, a cross-party group including some Labour and Lib Dem MPs, want a vote on the final Brexit deal", and I've just heard Radio 4 saying it includes Lib Dems and Labour MPs.
DeleteI could have sworn Conservative Anna Soubry was a founder and is still a leading figure in it. As the Independent put it in April, " Conservative’s Anna Soubry, Labour’s Chuka Umunna, Liberal Democrat’s Layla Moran and the Green Party’s Caroline Lucas gathered at the launch of the campaign in Camden in north London on Sunday".
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/peoples-vote-brexit-patrick-stewart-camden-event-chuka-umunna-anna-soubry-a8305981.html
Is the BBC article wrong about that too?
Was the BBC wrong about that (a typically stupid error by their staff) or was it "wrong" about that (deliberately didn't want you to know some Conservative MPs were on board)? Hmmm...can't really think of a Machiavellian reason why the latter might hold, but perhaps I am just not as Machiavellian as the BBC. One issue might be that Conservative MPs, now governing, all individually stood on a manifesto ruling out such a referendum.
DeleteAnyone see on BBC News tonight the lengthy informercial for the People's Vote Campaign (BBC hanging their bias on the hook of a million pound donation from a greedy businessman - although they have given nothing like similar coverage to Aaron Banks' massive donation to stop the Chequers Deal)?
ReplyDeleteThe BBC don't tell us that Mr Dunkerton is not just the "concerned businessman" they present but describes himself as "a bit of a leftie" and once stood for election as a Labour councillor:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3443028/Superdry-founder-sell-53million-shares-fashion-chain-pay-divorce-worth-300m.html
Mr Dunkerton is being presented as the very model of the modern British (Euro-Region 7) businessperson. But how does that square with the facts?
Ethical Consumer reviewed Superdry's environmental policies and awarded the WORST rating in this category. They showed no proper understanding of the environmental impact of their product cycle.
Superdry lost a mark for having a totally inadequate toxics policy.
Ethical Consumer awarded the company its worst rating for Supply Chain Management.
Not going well so far!...Ethical Consumer also gave Superdry its worst rating for likely use of tax avoidance strategies.
Ethical Consumer noted that Superdry's CEO received £3,611,750 - well above its advisory limit of £1 million.
Superdry has been implicated in exploiting impoverished Indian workers labouring in sweatshops for 28p an hour under appalling conditions:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/119764/superbad/
Don't expect the BBC to feature any of the above despite their regular promotion of ethical consumption.
‘There is a mutual sense of victimhood from Donald Trump and white evangelicals’
ReplyDelete- says Nick Bryant tonight on BBC news.
He referred to Donald Trump as the former property tycoon during his report which focused on white Christians from middle America. There was a mocking tone throughout because being white, Christian and a Trump supporter is just about the worst of the worst in the BBCs eyes.
Free, fair and impartial!
I wouldn't want to have to decide between Sopel, Zurcher and Bryant if I was on the committee awarding the Most Biased Reporting Against Trump award at the annual PC Media Awards. That would be a tricky one. Maybe Zurcher would win in terms of output, if not quality.
DeleteIt is my sad duty to inform this site that Anthony Zurcher, the brilliant and insightful Senior North America Reporter for the BBC (part of the 200 strong BBC reporting team covering the USA), who has for many years been tragically suffering from an extreme form of Trump Derangement Syndrome, appears to be entering upon the final phase of the disease, where the patient loses all contact with reality and their utterances are completely devoid of meaning:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/awzurcher/status/1031285482762772480
Sad...
Do the "teenagers" at Newsnight realise they are leaving the comments on when they post their videos on You Tube?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ac9wj2ZVRM
I'm sure at some point they'll work out how to switch off the comments...
Just to add to that...isn't it strange how the BBC doesn't mind some conspiracist theorists but hates others! :)
DeleteOne of the talking head experts that the BBC had on the "Mad John" Sweeney Q Anon report was one Paris Martineau...here's what she says in one of her tweets:
"uber, lyft, and countless other silicon valley startups have coopted the language of activists and the oppressed to further their scummy goals"
https://twitter.com/parismartineau/status/1029806549701718016
So she believes there is a conspiracy by Silicon Valley entrepreneurs to co-opt honourable goals of activists...who's controlling this conspiracy Paris? Tell us!
There's a clue later we she tweets in favour of someone who claims: "The language of colonialism is infecting outer space, thanks to dominance by rich white businessmen and politicians."
Another conspiracy!!
Then a little looniness - apparently according to one of her tweets "God vapes".
Then there's the issue of consistency, given her Newsnight contribution. Another tweet from Paris:
"when covering a conspiracy theory as toxic as QAnon you need to weigh the pros and cons of amplifying the beliefs contained within it, because no matter what you try and tell yourself, that's what you're doing when you publish that article or send that tweet"
She also posts fake tweets as though they are genuine:
https://twitter.com/parismartineau?lang=en
Well that's enough of her! :)
Newsnight does seem to have started enabling comments on more of their YouTube videos. They didn't used to.
DeleteThey posted one a couple of weeks ago called 'Welcome to BBC Newsnight'. It's a promotional video. Comments Could Be Going Better....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGfl7ib5ix0
...and quite a few are commenting on Newsnight's habit of disabling comments.
DeleteThe video has more dislikes than likes!
Mr Hitchens introduces Professor Webb:
ReplyDelete"Funniest moment of the week was BBC Radio 4 Today programme presenter Justin Webb trying to lecture astronaut Tim Peake about science and religion. Major Peake, though he does not believe in God, had told a group of schoolchildren that his time in space had made him wonder if the universe might be designed...."
"Professor Webb (who as far as I know has never been in orbit) knew better. After saying that this sort of idea was associated with hillbillies who ‘don’t think much of science’ he compared Tim Peake’s view with the long-discredited opinion that the Sun goes round the Earth. Then he chided the spaceman for opening up something that was ‘settled’ and ‘pretty closed'."
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2018/08/a-policeman-on-patrol-youre-more-likely-to-see-a-wildebeest.html#comments
The Evening Standard last Thursday: "...the Londoner spies a large number of actors, comedians and presenters with links to the BBC" [prominent in the anti-Brexit campaign]. "People's Vote stars cause BBC headache"
ReplyDeleteOf Gary Lineker's prior involvement:
'Senior figures at the BBC “didn’t like it”, we understand, but the corporation issued a statement saying: “Gary is not involved in any news or political output for the BBC… His personal political views do not affect the BBC’s impartiality.” '
“There is nobody in news and current affairs that has come out,” says one insider. “In its broader remit the BBC employs people with different views.” Another source said it was “not great”, that so many supporters had links to the corporation... ...“The BBC is the most powerful media platform in the UK and they are famous because of it. In that sense people might be annoyed.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/the-londoner-bbc-stars-flock-to-the-peoples-vote-a3913156.html
BBC website today.
ReplyDeleteA man wielding a knife and shouting in Arabic was shot dead as he entered a police station south of Barcelona, Spanish authorities said on Monday.
Oh really, are you trying to hide some pertinant facts BBC?
Just what was that he was shouting in Arabic?
And why was he entering, to make an enquiry at the front desk?
Yes, they are. According to the French press eg 'Ouest France', the man was shouting 'Allahu akbar'. He was shot dead by the female police woman whom he was trying to stab. Interesting difference between UK & Spain: a senior Spanish police officer simply declared that the woman acted in self defence - here we prefer to submit our police to the additional trauma of an investigation by the Police Complaints Commission.
ReplyDeleteBBC site is now reporting what the man was shouting.
DeleteOrla Guerin has involved herself in a matter of political controversy against BBC guidelines I would say.
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/OrlaGuerin/status/1030781568799977472
She might be right in her viewpoint - that the reported atrocity was genuine and that arm sales to KSA by the UK and USA are linked to it. That's not the issue.
Whether we like it or not (I don't) KSA is a big strategic ally of the UK so she is deliberately straying into highly sensitive political territory on her Twitter account, making her sympathies known.
We've previously had big allies of dubious character: the Soviet Union during WW2, but you'll never hear a BBC type question that particular alliance.
The point is, being allied with rather unsavoury nations is not exactly exceptional.
And I see she's getting praise from Corbyn supporters ("Orla, good to see there are still some objective journalists working at the BBC", one tweeted).
DeleteHere are four of her latest tweets:
* Bloodied schoolbags belonging to children who never came home after an airstrike by the Saudi-led coalition #Yemen. At least 33 children were killed. Where does Saudi Arabia get most of its arms? From Britain and the US.
*Hard to look at but important to see - survivors of airstrike by the Saudi-led coalition on school bus in #Yemen. The UK has sold about 5 billion pounds worth of arms to Saudi Arabia since the conflict began. So far no response from the UK gov - apart from a single tweet.
* Rushed to hospital with this school bag still on his back - a survivor of airstrike by #Saudi led coalition on school bus in #Yemen. The coalition defended the strike as a legitimate military action. Says it will investigate - which amounts to investigating itself.
* Many thanks to all those who have responded to our Yemen report. Thanks again to @NicolaCareem
@antjclifford. We will continue highlighting this under-reported story every chance we get: Boys dig friends’ graves after air strike.
Either the BBC has a policy on news presenters' involvement in political controversy or it doesn't. It does have one, as we know. So, then the question is, do they ensure it is followed? Answer: no they don't. They let their news presenters punch holes in it. The BBC is failing in its public duty. If Guerin (who stood for the Irish Labour Party as a candidate before joining the BBC) can't understand why this is an important issue then she shouldn't be working for our public broadcaster.
DeleteNice bit of co-ordination going on...we get on the BBC Health Page a story about a huge rise in measles cases in Europe (hang on...couldn't be anything to do with letting in millions of people from poverty stricken and war torn countries, with young unvaccinated babies, could it? - er no, I thought not, never is anything to do with mass immigration)...which nicely supports the top story which is NHS Lunatic Managers warning the NHS boss that Brexit will lead to a mass outbreak of bubonic plague in the UK...
ReplyDeleteProject Fear is fearlessly inventing stuff. Also, if we are going to be completely cut off from the EU after Brexit as the BBC suggests, surely we are less like to be getting measles from people elsewhere in Europe.
In contrast, ITV News is leading with the measles story but doesn't feature the NHS one at all (yet). The BBC nicked that NHS story from The Times, but isn't crediting the paper. (Sky, also reporting it, has acknowledged The Times).
DeleteBiggest July surplus in the government finances for 18 years, and April to July borrowing down to its lowest level since 2002.
ReplyDeleteHell, there's a lot I'd take this government to task over, but they're certainly (finally) getting a grip on the haemorrhaging the public purse has suffered over the last decade.
An important story...you'd think.
Top story on the BBC News page? Well again...you'd think.
Second story...no. Third story...no. Fourth story...no - ah come on, you're having a giraffe!
Fifth, sixth, seventh, eight or ninth? Still no!
Tenth...no, eleventh...BINGO!
Here's the glorious 10 stories considered of greater importance to your BBC hack:
- Police chief Hillsborough charges dropped
- Microsoft 'halts Russian political hack'
- Businessman 'leaves £41m' to Oxfam
- House of Fraser's main London store saved
- Love Island 'puts off female firefighter' - (What the actual? Can't be bothered reading it)
- Madonna's 'self-indulgent' Aretha tribute
- Emotional email details cricket fan's last hours
- CCTV shows Genoa bridge collapse
- Hunt wants 'malign' Russia to face action
- Big prostate steam treatment NHS approved
And here it is pictorially: http://oi64.tinypic.com/v7t9nm.jpg
Sheesh.
Yep, following the general political strategy. At the moment they want to weaken this Conservative government, in order to facilitate the Stop Brexit movement. In the past, when it's suited them, eg in the early flush of the Cameronian government, they were far more supportive of the Conservatives as they heartily approved of the "detoxification" programme (promotion of people like Warsi). Now it's important to bury good news. They've also been burying the huge rise in our exports "despite Brexit".
DeleteAye. Good news for this government shall not stand in a prominent place for the Beeboids.
DeleteNor will it stand the test of time even in the lowly positions granted.
As I look again at the main BBC News page at 5pm before I leave work...
...POOF! There it was gone.
At least we still get to read about Adrian Chiles' drink problem though, which now has more prominence than the deficit story ever did. Clearly far more important as I'm sure we can all agree.
/sarcasm
There seems to be a pattern with BBC news order. Any trivia about a certain sort of popular singer e.g. Madonna or Elton John moved house, will be given precedence over important economic news such as the quarterly employment figures; these will be put away in Business News - unless of course there's a political angle to be worked or a party row to be hyped. In this case the Treasury's figures were lucky to escape the Business News demotion but still managed only front page lower order. The lowest order among the 'also rans' is 'Buried in Berkshire' which means it will take a lot of looking and a lot of time to find. That is not reserved to economic news but applies to anything that doesn't suit the BBC.
DeleteAdrian Chiles has always been a very useful asset to the BBC. He has been chipping away at male working class culture for years...now he's moved on to alcohol.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45258081
There has always been a strong connection in male working class culture between various sports - football, rugby, darts, snooker - but also political debate and drink.
I suspect the BBC really despise pubs and are enjoying seeing them close down. The BBC seems they as centres of unregulated, subversive non-PC discussion. They would much prefer working class males to be at home playing computer games or watching videos on networks supervised by companies like Google, Microsoft, You Tube and the rest, getting their opinions from BBC News alerts to their smartphones.
So once again Chiles is doing useful work for the project in helping to undermine the drink culture and close down pubs.
The supposedly intelligent leftie Chiles said he was astounded when he realised he was damaging his health from his daily drinking which included four pints of Guinness, four bottles of beer, a glass of champagne and five glasses of wine.
DeleteFear not for the future of the English pub. According to Sadiq Kahn, he has the issue solved - he's on it.
Deletehttps://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/number-of-pubs-in-london-fell-by-25-since-2001
... 'Mayor pledges to do everything in his power to make it harder for pubs to shut, as new figures show that London has lost 1,220 pubs since 2001' ...
And further down the article he reiterates his commitment:
... '“From the outset of my Mayoralty, I’ve made safeguarding and growing the night-time economy a key priority and this simply isn’t possible without a thriving pub scene. Together with my Night Czar, Amy Lamé, we will do all we can to protect pubs across London.”....
So who is the Night Czar?
https://www.london.gov.uk/people/mayoral/amy-lame
..... 'Amy Lamé, originally from New Jersey, arrived in London in 1992. Her first job was in a late night café-bar on the edge of Soho. She is now London’s first Night Czar.
Amy has a long and successful track record as a leader and collaborator in the cultural and creative industries. She is co-founder of the Olivier Award winning arts company and club night Duckie, and has hosted the club every Saturday at the Royal Vauxhall Tavern for 21 years. She also DJs at various club nights across the capital.
Amy co-founded and chairs RVT Future, a voluntary LGBT+ community group campaigning to preserve the iconic Royal Vauxhall Tavern. She is at the very heart of the conversation about venues under threat of closure in London.' .... 'Her debut book, From Prejudice to Pride: A History of the LGBT+ Movement – the first LGBT+ history book for children – is to be published by Hachette in June 2017.' ...
So, the future of the humble pub is safe for the future in London, and we know that with the likes of Mark Easton and the BBC around, London policies are applicable throughout the land.
Oh yes, Mark Easton with his expensive survey of Englishness which was launched with a fanfare but quickly buried without trace after it showed the rest of England cared about its heritage and culture but not in the way the London bubble expected or wanted.
DeleteThe Great Amy Lame...
DeleteHer Twitter account shows a good dealing of Mayor Lurv and Trump Hate - what a surprised. She quite explicitly accuses Trump of a "racist rant"...
https://twitter.com/amylame?lang=en
Couldn't see any reference to that recent survey showing London now has the most homophobic population in the UK...how did that happen Amy?
Predictably Amy also has a nice earner working as a BBC Radio 6 DJ...So you can add her to the list of BBC presenters who take overtly political positions.
I did smile when I saw this...I thought the Mayor had gone the whole hog with this statue...till I saw there was a cover that had to be removed...
https://twitter.com/amylame/status/988823936174522368
The BBC's Great British Menu 2018 is well under way - we're into the second week. The premise of the programme is the build-up to a banquet to be held in celebration of the NHS's 70th anniversary. Every episode has reference to Aneurin Bevan. Every chef gives a corny name to their dish. One in today's programme was Windrush 'in celebration to the Windrush Generation many of whom worked for the NHS and helped build it'.
ReplyDeleteThe problem I have with the programme is the hypocrisy of paying tribute to Bevan who was an advocate of democratic socialism and social justice by wheeling in a procession plates bearing beef fillet, scollops, lobster, caviar etc. At one stage this evening, James overcooked his lobster and had no alternative other than to cook another from scratch. I shudder to think what Bevan would think of this wasteful travesty.
I was going to write something about this. The NHS theme is right up BBC street. Plenty of scope for piety and posturing about the sacred institution and the sacred nurses and doctors. I laughed last week when one of the chefs named his dish after Florence Nightingale and had the plates of food carried into the judging room accompanied by lanterns, signifying The Lady of the Lamp.
DeleteThis is funny because the BBC has an obsessive habit of promoting a black woman called Mary Seacole in place of Florence Nightingale as the pioneer of nursing. Even with my irregular tunings in, I've heard them banging on about her on Woman's Hour at least three times. Nobody had told the chef! How remiss of the BBC.
And it's not confined to those two programmes. A couple of weeks ago I was half-listening to University Challenge when I heard the tail end of a question about someone who had worked in, I think Panama, followed by the Crimea. Quick as a flash, one of the students jumped in with Florence Nightingale only to find out that he was wrong and the answer was Mary Seacole. I've found with this programme, usually the answer that comes to you first from the pool of common knowledge is the right one but no, not this time. Lady of the Lamp has been ushered out.
The BBC are very supportive of the rewriting of history to fit with their PC ideals. Mary Seacole was an early example. The now discredited immigration video aimed at children was a recent one.
DeleteShe ran a little shop where amongst other things she sold some remedies for various ailments. The soldiers liked her. That was about it. A charming story was overinflated to serve a political purpose.
DeleteThis is an interesting and it seems fair summary:
https://www.socialsciencespace.com/2016/10/black-history-myth-mary-seacole/
The BBC invariably refer to NHS workers as heroes. There are 1.5 million of them - that's a heck of a lot of heroism.
DeleteNewsnight: always good to see Sebastian Gorka knocking Evan around the ring...poor Evan was reduced to claiming at the conclusion,,rather unconvincingly I have to say, that he would have liked the interview to go on longer so he could take Gorka to task over a number of additional points.
ReplyDeleteSOME STRAY THOUGHTS PROMPTED BY BBC PROGRAMMING:
ReplyDelete1. Two out of the top 5 GDP growth countries in the world at the moment are run by populists. One is Donald Trump, a right wing populist. The other is Evo Morales of Bolivia, a left wing populist. Populism can be good for you.
2. These days the BBC sounds like some Victorian Gradgrind... they want "fact-checked facts cos when we's factchecked the facts, then we's arrived at the truth." Only one version of the truth allowed and that only on the basis of BBC-selected facts, some of them very dubious in their status as facts, at that. But I am old enough to remember 25 years or so ago when the BBC were head over heels in love with post-modernism. Back then they would have laughed in your face if you'd mentioned the importance of verifiable facts. Back then they loved Foucault who thought truth was a moveable feast and tried to sell the Iranian revolution as a triumph of progressivism. So all this attempt to lay the charge of truth-relativism at the door of the populist right is just another example of Fake News, I'm afraid. They and their academic pals got there first.
3. The BBC is now more race-obsessed than any Afrikaaner bureaucrat inspecting registration documents in the Transvaal back in 1960, or any Klansman from the South in the USA, or even possibly old Heinrich himself. The fawning over Spike Lee's barely coherent musings on politics is beyond ridiculous.
4. Has there ever been a time in our history when modern culture is more repressive, often absurdly so, or more afraid of free speech? There are parallels of course...the Puritans' banning of Christmas and hot cruss buns, has its equivalences in the modern age, banning of films, fun, and fantasy...Fear of truthful discussion about race mirrors fear of truthful discussion of s-e-x in the Victorian era. The Vikings weren't invited in, but it can hardly be said they added much to our culture, bringing terror and mayhem. I think you'd have to go back to the time of the Combination Acts or perhaps even Bloody Mary to find a period when the free speech of ordinary people was more constrained and circumscribed. I wish there was just one MP, just one, who had some understanding of what free speech is and why it is so important. I genuinely don't believe there is a single one in Parliament who seriously does, or if they do, they don't tell us.
There was a time when, if your neighbour set fire to a pile of leaves on a summer's evening, you chose between going round and punching him on the nose or 'tolerating' him by closing the windows and complaining to the wife.
DeleteNow the former action is only acceptable if the neighbour voted Conservative, UKIP or 'Leave', making him a 'nazi' and fair game, while 'tolerance' now requires you to open all windows wide and to wear a T-shirt decaring "This Is What A Leaf-Burner Looks Like!".
According to a discussion I came across online https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/2293867/bbc1-announcer-who-introduces-himself-as-anthony/p1 there's a continuity announcer on BBC who introduces himself as Anthony. Chummy. Is this a new thing? And there's one who can't or won't pronounce th but substitutes an f sound, as in Thursday becoming Fursday. He's Russell Evans.
ReplyDeleteI hadn't come across these novel practices as I've mostly been avoiding BBC apart from a few selected programmes. On scrolling past stations, I do notice that continuity and programme advertising voices now on the main channels are more often than not black males of a London rather surprisingly naff sound and quality. The one who won't pronounce th was the subject of complaints to Points of View some months ago but the BBC was dismissive of these - as was the announcer himself who wrote a piece in The Guardian justifying his BBC place and speech. I missed all that at the time.
This is the BBC's attempt to shoehorn their perceived diversity into the Cockney dialect - in their world of make believe, probably hoping for a response from the listeners such as 'Blimey, he's a true Londoner'. It just doesn't work, the effected dialect sounds slovenly.
DeleteI think the technical term now is "London Jamaican".
DeleteI, a Londoner, often find myself perplexed by radio presenters speaking in that accent...(did he just say we have "three books under review" or "free books under review"?) - can't image what's it's like for someone from the Outer Hebrides or Ulster of Newcastle...must be completely incomprehensible.
Have you heard Trevor Nelson when he stands in for Ken Bruce? He takes pronouncing f’s instead of ‘th’ to a new level. There was a time when you wouldn’t even get on the radio but now it’s embraced and encouraged. It’s so infuriating I can’t listen to it anymore and I hate missing popmaster ; )
DeleteIt’s further evidence that the BBC hates tradition and small c conservative Britain and is trying to reshape our culture to its own left liberal values.
Indeed, I don't think one wants a return to the dull conformity of the 1930s. You can still have a regional accent - Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Geordie, West Country (John Arlott's old fashioned Hampshire accent was a joy to behold), whatever, without having a particularised accent that makes you pretty incomprehensible to your fellow citizens elsewhere in the country. The equivalents of the extreme London accent, from places like Liverpool (I mean extreme Scouser with its very hard, guttural, k sound and soft squelchy s sound) don't ever get a look in on BBC Radio for the very good reason that BBC producers probably find it, unlike London Jamaican to which they are often exposed, completely incomprehensible.
Delete"This is the BBC and here is the Six O'Clock Lies:
ReplyDeleteWE GOT TRUMP!!! "
The BBC are guilty of wishful thinking. It not illegal to pay hush money to women you had sex with or direct your lawyer to pay them off. Its also not illegal to lie about it. Not nice perhaps, but against the law? No.
DeleteI doubt whether it will damage him with the US electorate either.
The BBC continue to make Trump their main story but this is the UK not the US.
Has anyone else noticed nativism creeping into the BBC vocabulary as a derogatory term?
ReplyDeleteI looked up the definition: the political policy of promoting the interests of native inhabitants against those of immigrants.
But the BBC has hijacked the term and uses it as a substitute for xenophobic nationalism for anyone who opposes mass immigration.
Not particularly - well not in relation to UK politics. I recall spotting an "identarian"...think Evan was flying a kite. Bit of a difficult one for the BBC...I think they prefer the Easton approach of suggesting that English people don't exist, and British people certainly don't exist, so "nativism" is simply impossible. Personally I prefer populism and perhaps the BBC realise that populism isn't that unpopular any more, so are casting around for something a bit more negative and demeaning. It's a dangerous gambit for the BBC since they would have to acknowledge that native populations are protected under UN Treaties.
DeleteMmm...thinking about it, I suppose the BBC do need to start addressing the issue of what happens when the people who have always thought of themselves as culturally British, English, Scottish, Welsh, or Irish, have to be told they are now a collective minority in their own country. It will be a great day for the BBC, a day of celebration, but it will have to be managed. The sooner they start preparing the populace, the better.
DeleteBit of a rum one this...what's their game?...the BBC doesn't normally run stories on links between crime and migration, unless they are studies from left wing think tanks disproving any such links...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45269764
Maybe it's just a case of democratitis - an allergic reaction to forthcoming democratic elections that can unseat or discomfort globalist PC liberal powers.
After all, they do refer to the issue as "potentially inflammatory" - as if the interests of the people of Sweden are of no account, as if people should be required to vote without access to accurate information about crime in their country.
Hmmm, interesting and a good spot MB. Maybe it’s thrown in for balance, hidden on the Europe page.
DeleteOr an enthusiastic reporter doing their job properly. They’ll soon be slapped down and put right by the old hands.
Nope, something's going on. CH4 news tonight ran video footage of the migrant break-through at the Morocco / Spain border.
DeleteThe editorial visual message was definitely skewed to threat. I think there's a populist push back on the cards. The media need to introduce reasons that will facilitate action to undermine the rise of 'the far right' in Europe. Everything else has failed.
Sweden item now on Newsnight. Gabriel Gatehouse report - he can be good, but sometimes bad. "We often go in search of a narrative..." he says. How true! Now, it's all gone a bit post-modernist (what is truth?)..."Rate of crime is going down in Malmo" says the Police officer...hmmm...Might be true...Police officer explains it's nothing to with migration because they are 2nd or 3rd generation within migrant communities!! QED eh?...
DeleteTalking to a Sweden Democrat voter...Gatehouse slips in it has "roots" in neoNarzi movement...hmmm...
"Public discourse is catching up with private thought..."
Comic moment at the end as Marty Feldman lookalike, a Syrian refugee, in a headscarf came up to praise Sweden, declaring that Allah loved the question.
"Political correctness failed that guy (murder victim)?" GG puts question in form of statement: "So political correctness is killing people..."
GG gets in the ritual anti-Trump and anti-Farage notes towards the end.
He ends with:
"Beware the simple narrative...don't believe everything you see on TV."
As usual with GG you get the impression he is thoughtful and not really a virtue signaller like most younger reporters. But (referring to an earlier post of mine) he seems to be coming from a previous BBC generation, the post-modernist period, when talk was of "narratives" rather than quotas and virtue. He'll probably be marked down in his annual report.
Correction: Allah loved the "country" not the question.
DeleteIt's on You Tube if you want to see how fair my "as it happened" coverage went...
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCKxyDTlfHs
From Pugnazious on BBBC: ... 'We did hear an astonishing comment this morning from a BBC presenter that ‘nobody cares that the government has reduced the deficit’ as news that the government has an extra £2bn in the kitty over and above its spending requirements.' ...
ReplyDeleteDo we know whose pearl of wisdom this was? It's deplorable. It shows a total disconnect between the BBC and the real world in which we the licence payers live.
Indeed...the BBC exist in a parallel world, a Guardian-Fabian-1968-lefty think tank world, where such basics have no resonance at all.
DeleteEvan Davis referring to "Russian collusion" as an established fact in his interview with Lanny Davis...makes him look devious, or sloppy...especially as Lanny Davis goes on to state that the allegation Cohen had been in Prague was completely false (contradicting the heavy hints from BBC's Paul Wood, who seems to be relying on UK intelligence).
ReplyDeleteNewsnight never told us Lanny Davis "served as special counsel to the President from 1996 to 1998, during which time he also was the spokesman for Clinton in issues regarding campaign finance investigations and other legal issues, including President Clinton's impeachment trial" or that he has represented the government of Pakistan. An all-round good guy, it seems. :)
DeleteA story involving Trump, Russian collusion, CIA, FBI, MI5, and an ex-British spy. Talk about mysterious "firewalls"...
ReplyDeleteWhat's not to like as far as the UK MSM are concerned? Hmmm..."something" because there is nothing at all about it on the BBC website...
Anyway, for those who are interested here's the background:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGRlnhVLJQ4
Evan Davis today on Radio 4 "Sweet Reason"...The programme today was focussed on "experts". Evan decided to start with three examples of "experts" getting it wrong. He chose three very BBC examples:
ReplyDelete1. Some US "terror expert" making the false claim that the whole of Birmingham UK was a "no go" zone.
2. Nigel Lawson making allegedly false claims about climate change (myh attention may have wandered there, not sure was supposed to be false about the claims).
3. Alan Greenspan of the US Fed failing to realise the importance of government oversight before the banking collapse of 2008.
As I say, how very BBC when he could have chosen say (a) the considered view of "experts" that only 13,000 migrants would come to the UK from Poland, or (b) the failure of polling experts to see the Brexit Referendum victory coming or (c) the completely wrong prediction by Mark Carney of what would happen to the UK economy immediately after a Brexit vote (that it would go into recession).
Instead he chose his three PC-BBC examples, two of which, oddly, relate expert predictions from the USA (the BBC Americocentred as always).
Also the part of the programme I heard managed to make left wing economist Danny Blanchflower sound like a great economic seer whereas I recall him year after year predicting a double dip recession that never came.
Also, just remembered there was a really annoying bit where Davis was extolling the value of seeing issues "from all sides", and exercising "humility". Is that really the BBC MO? I think what Davis means is giving them an airing before dismissing them - the old West formula of "We're going to give you a fair trial before we hang you."
DeleteAll in all I enjoyed the programme but, yes, you're completely right about it.
DeleteI was actually getting irritated at Evan Davis for misquoting Michael Gove on experts (i.e. only quoting the "I think people in this country have had enough of experts" bit and not completing the quote and pointing out that he was specifically talking about "experts with organisations from acronyms...saying they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong") but, thankfully, David Spiegelhalter stepped in, made that very point, and forced Evan to concede "Like we did".
That made me smile but the serious point is that Evan Davis knows what Michael Gove actually said - and actually meant - yet was still prepared to give the 'fake news' version of it here, even after playing the Channel 4 clip of the actual interview!
Maybe the moral for Evan here is: If you're a prominent BBC journalist and you know something is a famous misquote don't keep misquoting it or people might think you're deliberately smearing the person you're misquoting (unless you ARE deliberately smearing the person you're misquoting and are prepared to take that risk).
I remember Danny Blanchflower's endless partisan predictions of massively rising unemployment under the Tories that never came to pass. I even tracked them myself for fun once (off-blog). They so so way off that I can't believe anyone still takes him seriously. There's a flavour of them here:
https://order-order.com/2012/10/18/david-blanchflowers-terrible-tips