...and any other matters that take our fancy
Strapline for BBC's Salford HQ:"Salford - where people lie and dream"(No reflection on the good honest folk of Salford.)
For those who like a good laugh...here's another Reality Check from Snowflake Central: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45419466Reminds me of Life of Brian - "He's not an illegal immigrant - he's just a very naughty boy." One of 447 "naughty boys" who caused the death of people in Germany last year. 447! That's a really horrifically high figure.
Newsnight Fifth Column Watch:Day 1 Rachel Sylvester - BHS (Boris Hater Supreme) Anti-democrat, anti-populist, pro Remain.Day 2 Peter Hitchens - CC (Comedy Conservative). Curiously ineffective. Seems to have given up a bit. Certainly not a populist.Day 3 Owen Jones - Far Left Multi Millionaire.Day 4 Fraser Nelson - Left Wing Conservative Anti-Populist Pro-Swedish Model but, oddly, Pro-Brexit (nominally I think).League Table so far:Liberal-Left 2Comedy Conservative 1Left Wing Conservative 1Populists 0Fascists 0Brexit V Remain analysis:2-2One oddity I've noticed so far, both Jones and Sylvester got to talk about their OWN columns first. That privilege was denied Hitchens and Nelson. Not sure of the significance of that.
Missed Newsnight tonight, but looking a their Twitter account, it seems it Rachel Johnson tonight. So that's:Liberal-Left 3Comedy Conservative 1Left Wing Conservative 1Populists 0Fascists 0And: Remain 3 Brexit 2
Is Rob Burley in charge of Newsnight? If he is, someone should have a word.
The BBC has such arcane divisions of responsibility. As far as I recall he has some sort of oversight but no responsibility for content! But others like Head of Values, Head of Equality, Head of BBC 2 will no doubt have some role to play. I think I read somewhere that the BBC treats its organisation chart like a state secret. Probably because it would look like a bowl of spaghetti covered in squid ink.
You're right and arcane naming of its myriad divisions and remits. It has a language all its own. I wasn't clear whether it comes under live political programmes which I think he's responsible for. The former Newsnight editor Ian Katz has left and gone to Channel 4 - now there's a surprise. He was the one I suspect of responsibility for Paxman leaving, thereby losing much of its audience.
BBC Salford has become a huge disappointment. Any idea that there might be free-thinking independent output let loose from the vice-like grip of Broadcasting House has been extinguished. In reality it's nothing more than a satellite relay station to HQ in all aspects: Editorially, in production and with transfer of staff to and fro. For the average Beeboid, it must be a real inconvenience, if not a penance or rite of passage to career prospects.I used to listen to Radio 5Live, but lately, with lukewarm news coverage with the inevitable BBC London editorial hold, and promotion of PC ideology from the likes of Chiles, it is of very little interest nowadays.
The BBC use the headline today:Brexit: Carney warns no-deal could see house prices plunge.What follows is some typical project fear stuff with dire warnings of a no-deal Brexit.However later on in Kamal Ahmed’s analysis he states. ‘It was not a forecast. It was an apocalyptic test.’Fake news and a fake headline in an article from two of the masters of negativity on Brexit.Comments could be going better! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45516678
Have you ever heard Hammond or Carney say "I want the UK to succeed brilliantly after Brexit and I believe we can." ? I can't recall that. If they did, they didn't give it their all I suspect. People in government prepare for all sorts of disasters without announcing it. They don't announce to Parliament "we are preparing for war with Russia" or "we have produced a plan for how we will respond if war breaks out between China and the USA in the South China Sea". Why don't they? Because they don't want to panic people. But you can see both Hammond and Carney love to discuss the disaster scenarios. Also, it's worth pointing out - not that the BBC ever would - that house prices have slumped FOUR times while we have been members of the EU: mid 70s, early 80s, early to mid 90s and 2007-12. The "Major" slump lasted for 6 years and was probably what did for him really. Here's a graph that shows it:https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=graph+of+house+prices+last+50+years&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=KpSF-7WWVpRNbM%253A%252C2DwtBXoIIJGuoM%252C_&usg=AFrqEzfJ8VxfF9He65UptHDQA10X99Vwjg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiKtsmrwrrdAhVDTcAKHREoBY8Q9QEwAHoECAUQBA#imgrc=KpSF-7WWVpRNbM:Three points arise from that:1. Life goes on and hardly anyone remembers the slumps after 10 years have passed. 2. When house prices slump it's easier for young people to get on the housing ladder. So not everyone is going to be p'd off. 3. Membership of the EU is no guarantee against house price slumps.
There can be no reform of the BBC. The BBC have travelled too far down the road of bias, political correctness, privilege, mendacity and disinformation. The BBC will definitely have to be abolished and we will have to start again...whether we have a licence fee, or an alternative or absolutely no publicly supported broadcasting I don't know. I just feel the BBC has signed its own death warrant 10,000 times and enough is enough.
You are right but I can't see it happening because the BBC is a mouthpiece for the establishment. What the BBC says and does is only a reflection of how our ruling elite think. That's why our politicians and institutions are happy with the propaganda it spouts. There may be skirmishes about party political bias but they all agree with the BBC values and general direction of travel for the type of society they desire to build. I believe the best bet is that commercial forces (Amazon, Netflix, Apple etc.) win the war for media consumption making the BBC and the licence fee inconsequential.
There are various strategies to deal with the BBC...reduce the licence fee, bring in an elected management board (elected by all licence fee payers), sell off parts of it, break it up...I'd support any and all of those. I think you are right that the BBC will be seriously weakened by the rise of Netflix and the rest, not least because they can turn out high quality product. But then Netflix have hired the Obamas as production adivsors! lol So we will probably see increasingly PC output from such companies. I guess I was thinking it might just be simpler to axe the BBC and start again. I am not opposed to publicly funded broadcasting per se (although the licence fee is a stupid and hypocritical sort of way of going about it). There was a time when the BBC contributed to our culture rather than undermining it. One model might be to have a Public TV and Radio Commissioning Agency that commissioned bids from management companies to manage the various (slimmed down) strands of the BBC. A bit like the old ITV franchise thing. There would be an opt out subscription service for the TV element, so every household was automatically added to the subscription service unless they opted out. There could be a government grant (say £1 billion per annum) to reliance (and competition) on commercial advertising.
Are you thinking what I'm thinking?Laura Keunssberg resurrects a Conservative slogan from 2005 to headline an article about when to replace Theresa May. So guess what image the BBC they use mid article, a controversial immigration slogan from the same campaign that has nothing to do with the article.Why? Kuenssberg’s idea?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45517389
Readers of this site will know the ways in which pics are used to convey messages which fall beyond the bounds of the story itself. For example:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45537784.... London mayor Sadiq Khan calls for second Brexit vote ....Credited to Press Agency, the photo carries no clue whatsoever as to the context in which the photo was taken - when, where etc. If this had been a propaganda image for the Soviet Union, it would not have looked so different - heroic realism - taken from well below eye-line, with a protruding chin, Kahn looks every bit like a trainee dictator in waiting.
Indeed. The BBC image editors are excellent propagandists
BBC London News states as "objective fact" that there is a "growing clamour" for a "People's Vote" (using the anti-democrats' own turn for the Fake Referendum). Well I don't agree that is an objective fact. Had he said "there is an organised campaign, being funded by George Soros, and orchestrated by people around Tony Blair to overturn the democratic vote at the EU Referendum in 2016" that would have been an objective fact.
turn = term
Reminds me of that other phrase mentioned recently: mounting fears. Perhaps the same author is responsible for both.
The hypocrisy of the modern British left...https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/16/katie-hopkins-applies-for-insolvency-to-avoid-bankruptcy-after-jack-monroe-twitter-costly-libel-caseThere's a very nasty streak to all this. Money flows to the left as a result of the globalist-left alliance. It allows them to do lots of things. Challenging Brexit through the courts...persecuting populists. One thing I feel sure of is that Katie Hopkins will rise above the bankruptcy. Meanwhile the Guardian is free to libel people like Farage and Trump as fascists with not a single scintilla of evidence. They know our lefty PC judges would never in a million years find against them.
Here's another example of PC ideology from the BBC News website:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45497454... 'Labour calls for ban on early foetus gender test' ...With the headline is a photo of a white baby and mother, with the baby dressed in yellow - a gender neutral colour for babies.The story is concerned with parents' preference for male offspring only. In a typical PC overlay, this story makes no mention of the cultural pressures which might lead parents to make this decision. Half hinted at is that this issue is on the increase in recent months and years. Can we guess the reason why?
Would you believe it? The photo of the white mother and baby, with the baby in yellow has been substituted within minutes of appearing. Now we have a brown skinned baby showing a gender neutral face and shoulders.
Craig and Sue - You might like to think about a Plan B. I see google are trying to prevent anonymous posting on sites like this...thin end of a big wedge.
You know how the EU are going after Orban for being "undemocratic" - on largely spurious grounds...well did you know (I couldn't believe it!) in Sweden you have to pick up the card for the party list you wish to vote for in public, in full view of officials and other voters! It's not a secret ballot!! And there have been allegations that some of the cards went missing at various polling stations. I was myself surprised by how low the Sweden Democrats vote was, coming in under 18%, when polls showed them on a higher percentage (and normally polls tend to underestimate the populist vote). Perhaps there was some fraud. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSaVouQfBtM
The Times - a paper of record as they used to say - reports that:"The European Union is secretly preparing to accept a frictionless Irish border after Brexit..." The Irish government is apparently prepared to accept hi tech solutions for the border. So, in other words, just as I and most Brexiters have been saying, the "intractable Irish border issue" was all bluff on the part of the EU, designed to wring concessions out of a weak UK PM (and it worked a treat of course). It's noticeable that, as far as I can tell, the Times report isn't reflected anywhere on the BBC News website (apart from in the papers section). LK has a load of wishy washy flannel which any of us could write in order that we can later claim we predicted x, y or z.
Look at what the BBC serves up for Sunday afternoon listening on Radio 4: 'Claudia Rankine: On WhitenessAmerican poet, essayist and playwright Claudia Rankine explores the nature and meaning of whiteness, considering the ubiquity of dyed blonde hair.Walking around New York, she talks to people about why they dye their hair and asks whether our elevation of blonde hair has any connection to the power and, ultimately, the supremacy of whiteness.'This is followed by two programmes about the American Supreme Court, one about its politics and one a profile of President Trump's nomineeI should add I didn't listen to any of them.https://www.bbc.co.uk/schedules/p00fzl7j/2018/09/16
Wonder if she noticed the ubiquity of tanning salons? And the cruel jokes directed at pale and freckled gingers?
The BBC are repeating the lie again tonight about Mark Carney's 35% house crash quote on prime time BBC1 TV. Nick Robinson repeatedly asked Theresa May about it. No surprise that she was unable to give a coherent answer and stumbled over her words. It was a poor programme too, more project fear with soundbites from the usual suspects. The May interview was a damp squib.
As noted earlier, the BBC has been playing down the reports that the EU and Ireland are now ready to accept a hi tech monitoring solution to the N Ireland border. It's amazing that May tries to pretend it is unviable to have checks away from the border. Of course it isn't. That shows she is committed to Chequers for ideological reasons.
Amazingly, the world class news organisation, the BBC, has nothing about this on its US-Canada page:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/17/trump-orders-feds-to-declassify-key-fisa-documents-text-messages-in-fbi-russia-probe.htmlTrump has ordered declassification of a huge range of documents - FISA applications, and all the texts and docs relating to the Democrat plotting within FBI, DoJ and CIA.
Outright, shameful lie at the beginning of last night's Newsnight, clearly laying the blame for JLR's 3 day week at the door of Brexit.This is nothing more than the fake news they bleat about from elsewhere.These are the facts:- JLR's UK output is 90% diesel, the market for which has collapsed.- 80% of JLR UK's output goes overseas.No matter what JLR warned about a 'No Deal Brexit' last week, this has nothing to do with current demand and thus their required production over the next few months, which entirely accounts for the 3 day week they are now implementing.To reiterate, nearly all of their output is increasingly unsaleable diesel engines, and nearly all of that output goes overseas.The BBC is lying, they must know they're lying, they simply don't care, and they are allowed to get away with it.
Is it just me or have the BBC have gone into overdrive on Brexit? Multiple articles each day on the website. Stories about Brexit dominate the news bulletins and each evening John Pienaar is doing a special report on a different (negative) aspect.The people’s vote and second referendum are being promoted. The common thread being to highlight the downsides and talk up the views of ‘experts’ who are all remainers.The BBC obsession on Brexit (and Trump) is way OTT but I suppose it’s because their values are under threat like never before.
They never mention that Soros (foreign billionaire, domiciled in and citizen of USA) is interfering in our democratic processes and funding this vote. They now give May an easy ride - interviewed softly on Panorama by fellow left wing Conservative Nick Robinson. The BBC would like a fresh election with useless May still as PM but with Labour several points ahead and ready to scupper Brexit if they win. They'd like it even more if hard left Corbyn could be replaced by one of their soggy left favourites, but they know that is unlikely now. Failing that, they'll go with a rigged second referendum. Failing that May and her Chequers deal, keeping us closely bound to the EU are their backstop before they start the "Rejoin" campaign with their allies.
It's my impression too from the political programmes on the TV such as Marr and the Politics Live daily programme. They seem to be overdosing on anti-leave fanatics like Khan, Cable, Creasy, Adonis and today we had Clegg. I'm sure I've caught a clip somewhere of Campbell too. I've probably forgotten others. It is made worse this week by the Lib Dem conference. Davey was interviewed from the conference yesterday, Tom Brake was on - over the weekend I think, Jo Swinson has been about on the news and was on Woman's Hour today and Cable's conference speech is today - and to be shown on BBC2. To cap it all Gina Miller has been in the news and at the Lib Dem conference. At least they had Gisela Stuart on today with Clegg. Despite all the impatience and insistent hand gestures, he got a good going over and not just from her either.
Campbell was on Channel 4 News yesterday. I couldn't wait to hear what he said, so I didn't - preferring the standby button instead.
I can fill it in for you Loondon:"Look angry, look righteous and spout putrid nonsense."
This really is news suppression - no let's call it censorship. Trump has ordered the declassification of a huge range of documents relating to FISA applications in the Russia "collusion" investigation. It's top news in the USA, leading at CNN and Fox News - so in the US liberal media as well. More than that, Zurcher waa straight on it on his twitter account. So it's not as though he's claiming it's non-newsworthy. But where is it on the BBC US-Canada page? Nowhere!!This is absolutely outrageous censorship, to prevent UK citizens finding out about what is going on. Trust me this is the biggest story ever and it's being suppressed by the BBC. There is "panic in DC", the narrative involves British spies...why is the BBC squashing this story.
It’s outrageous but typical BBC, they will try to suppress anything that damages their version of the Trump narrative
Yep. Bias first. Narrative second. News last.
You know the form by now. Say nothing for several days until the bonfire burns itself out, and then publish some skewed story about the history of oppression in the trump supporting Southern States and how its effects are still being felt in the cut and thrust political world blah blah blah.
.... Trump supporting ... Not the hot air kind.
By the same token, the BBC (as is the Dutch media) is also suppressing the news emerging in Holland that the Dutch government has been funding Jihadi groups in Syria since 2013 to the tune of millions.This will be the start of a slowly rolling ball involving the UK and France. The partisanship of the BBC (et al) is complicated, not progressive.
MB "to prevent UK citizens finding out about what is going on" does not just apply to US News! Pretty much the whole of the BBC's output these days is to just that. I kept to my rule of switching to Fox whenever the BBC started propagandising about the USA and switched so often that now I use Fox as my starting station each day. The UK Government will never abolish the BBC , but I can.
Yes I knew it didn't apply just to US News but I think it's easier for the BBC to attempt that re US News since (despite the BBC's obsession with all things American) most Brits don't follow US news that closely. Fox News is definitely a good news source that should be used by all Beebeesceptics. Otherwise you just have to use your own common sense and forage across the Internet. ITV and Sky are certainly not much than and frequently worse than the BBC.
Article in yesterday's Evening Standard: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/the-londoner-bbc-discouraged-maternity-leave-a3937656.htmlAllegra Stratton spills the beans on her BBC editors when she was the political editor on Newsnight. They made it clear she would have to fight for her position when she came back from maternity leave and when she did return, was asked, ‘But the question is, Allegra, are you hungry?’ Oh dear, couldn't they at least have asked if the baby was hungry? Welcome back banners and cards optional.This was the time when Ian Katz was the editor. He's married to the founder of 'mummy-warrior website Musnet.' Robbie Gibb also comes in for flak. '...female employees say the wider culture in political reporting at the BBC meant maternity leave was seen as “taking the piss” and that many feared how their bosses would react, particularly if they had more than one child. One journalist says 'the culture at the BBC at the time was that women had to be more male.’ So much for the Sex Discrimination Act which outlawed this sort of thing in 1975! That's the kind of culture associated with ruthless macho private firms in the City or male-dominated heavy industries. It's not the image of a modern enlightened progressive employer in the form of the beloved publicly funded national treasure.
I did wonder why she left the BBC...now we know. Along with being racist, opposed to equal pay, tax dodging and Savile-facilitating...it discriminates against mums...glad I don't work for them... :)
'A poll by Comres for the BBC' is a phrase I keep hearing. So I went to the Comres website to see how many the BBC have commissioned in the last 12 months. There are fifteen listed, they won't be cheap to conduct.Is this reasonable for an organisation the size of the BBC? Are the topics they are polling the sort of things they should be investigating and spending our money on?BBC RADIO 5 LIVE – BREXIT POLL SEPT 2018Survey of 1,002 British adults, polled via telephone, on their views of BrexitBBC ASIAN NETWORK – LIFESTYLE SURVEY JULY 2018A survey of British Asians for BBC Asian NetworkBBC RADIO 5 LIVE – PLASTIC SURGERY AND COSMETIC PROCEDURES July 1018A survey of GB adults on their views on plastic surgery/cosmetic procedure(s).BBC WOMAN’S HOUR – WOMEN IN POLITICS SURVEY June 2018BBC RADIO 5 LIVE – FEMALE SUFFRAGE ANNIVERSARY POLLING Feb 2018BBC RADIO 4 – METOO MOVEMENT Feb 2018BBC MENOPAUSE SURVEY Jan 2018Survey on the impact of the Menopause on UK Women 50 – 60 Years BBC - HIDDEN HOMELESSNESS Dec 2017A survey of 16-25 year residents in the UK about 'hidden homelessness' and sofa surfing.BBC – SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORK PLACE Dec 2017A survey of UK adults, on behalf of the BBC, around attitudes towards sexual harassment in the workplaceGE2017 QUESTION TIME SPECIAL RESEARCH Dec 2017A recontact poll for the University of Leeds about those who watched the Question Time special during the General Election campaign of 2017.BBC SPORT PRICE OF FOOTBALL SURVEY Nov 2017Survey of 18-24 year old football fans about the price of football games and how they engage with the sport more widelyBBC RADIO 5LIVE- SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE SURVEY October 2017A survey of British adults about their experiences of sexual harassment in the workplaceBBC RELIGION NEIGHBOURLINESS October 2017A survey of 1,001 GB adults aged 18+ on the qualities which they look for in a good neighbourBBC 5LIVE JOB SATISFACTION SURVEY September 2017Survey of British adults on behalf of BBC Radio 5Live on job satisfaction.BC 5LIVE - SEX LIVES OF THE OVER-60S August 2018One in five people in their 60s have sex several times a month (22%), according to a ComRes poll for BBC 5Live.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-europe-45546012What do we think to this? I’m tempted to believe both options. A) he has connections to the far right or b) he’s just stating the facts but that doesn’t fit with the PC agenda Tbf both could be true.
As I never cease saying the BBC is run by and employs in senior positions v. intelligent people. Those sorts of people know all about meaning and paragraphing...So why did they split these two paragraphs? And why did they sequence the information in that way? In order to increase the impact of their message is the answer. "Anti-migrant "hunts" were reported there on 26 August after a German man was killed in a brawl with migrants.Mr Maassen doubted that foreign-looking people had been hounded. Chancellor Angela Merkel was urged to sack him."
He may have been telling the truth and I suspect the majority of protestors were regular German citizens but his comments were easily siezed upon and twisted by the left wing so that a senior government official deemed to support Nazism and fascism was not acceptable in Germany given their 20th Century history.
Inflation has risen to 2.7%, well above the forecast of 2.4% reports the BBC. Well above - really? Everything is relative. Ask Venezuela or Zimbabwe.Over dramatic reporting I would have thought. Irresponsible even.
Yes, Sir TH, it's definitely irresponsible as always - but we haven't seen the catchy explanation yet. How about: Ice cream and charcoal sales were down due to seasonal fluctuation, but poor mango and avocado yields in poorer parts of the world led to higher prices in early trading on London futures markets. As mangos and avocados are traded in $s, whereas ice cream and charcoal are from sustainable UK sources (I know charcoal isn't by the way), inflation is set to remain 'well above' forecasts.
Drought! Caused by God being angry with the people who voted for Brexit.
EU migration: How has it changed the UK?By Dominic Casciani, Home affairs correspondentAnother crazy BBC report which seems to have the purpose of justifying EU migration. Some of the findings defy common sense.For example, it states that between 2004 and 2017, the share of the population who were from an EEA country rose from 1.5% to just over 5%. My sums say that is around 2.25 million extra people.It then goes on to say that there is no evidence that these extra EU migrants are draining public services because they are young and so pay in more than they take out.But this report fails to address that the rapid growth and the combination of extra EU migrants + the extra Non-EU migrants that are putting huge pressure on public services. We can all see it.Once again the BBC are cherry picking facts and omitting others to create fake news and false impressions.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45565124
Kamal Ahmed said on yesterday's 6pm tv news that increased immigration has contributed to the housing shortage - I'm tipping him as the Beeb's next Siberia correspondent.
I've just read that house prices are falling in London and "A separate one-off ONS analysis of the London property market concluded that its slowdown over the past two years may have been because the capital was “particularly affected by a fall in net EU migration and wider uncertainty following the Brexit referendum result”.https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-house-prices-falling-at-fastest-rate-for-nine-years-a3940096.htmlBut but but...I thought EU immigration had no effect at all on infrastructure and only ever brought in loads of dosh for the Treasury and saved the NHS and indeed the country from destitution. And never took anything out of the Treasury and never required any money for schooling or policing or local council services.
The usual fake analysis from the BBC. Young people eventually become old - the fact they've all arrived within a few years, means you will have a sudden retirement bulge at some point. But before that most of these young people will stop sharing cramped accommodation, start families and want all the things that every other family wants. Do you notice how they split EU workers into different groups so they can show one EU group earning higher than average wages. But it looks like the overall average is much lower than the UK born population. So on average they will be paying less in tax than the rest of the working population. Why do these "analyses" always avoid looking at what happens when migrants start families, at which point they need state subsidised housing, hospitals, GPs, income support and so on. The MAC is clearly a pro-migration group. They laud Canada's "open, welcoming approach to migration". Yeah, well Canada is about 50 times larger than the UK in area but has less than half the population and has a food surplus in the billions last time I looked, together with huge natural resources. How about this loaded statement in the MAC report: "The UK may find itself in the position of ending free movement just as public concern falls about the migration flows that result from it". So what? The damage has been done to our public services, our environment (everyone's "green" until it comes to migration), our ability to meet infrastructure needs and the ability of young couples to find family homes. Also, this rubbish analysis can't possibly have examined how much it costs to provide the infrastructure for the nearly 2 million people net living in the EU would cost something like £300 billion and probably something like half would have to come from the public purse (through rail subsidies, road building, state subsidised social housing or housing benefit, GP infrastructure, social services, hospital building, libraries, park and leisure provision, street lighting etc etc).
Newsnight story tonight on vaccination. Usual bias. Wakefield treated to the "criminal surname" technique by "Maitlis". It is clearly stated that Wakefield has been completely discredited. So what do you make of the following: "A team from the Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North Carolina shows that there could be a link between the controversial MMR triple vaccine and autism and bowel disease in children, findings which confirm the findings of Andrew Wakefield, who caused a storm in 1998 by suggesting a possible link. In the samples they examined so far, over 90% of the children who have been diagnosed with regressive autism had vaccine strain measles in the bowles.Dr Stephen Walker, head researcher: 'What it means is that the study done earlier by Dr Wakefield and published in 1998 is correct. That study didn’t draw any conclusions about specifically what it means to find measles virus in the gut, but the implication is it may be coming from the MMR vaccine. If that’s the case, and this live virus is residing in the gastrointestinal tract of some children, and then they have GI inflammation and other problems, it may be related to the MMR.' Here's a link to a Telegraph news item on the subject: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/3340027/US-scientists-back-autism-link-to-MMR.htmlWhy doesn't the BBC address the evidence rather than engage in vaccine propaganda? I am not anti-vaccination BTW but it is clear the authorities lie to us about the risks.
This story goes back to at least 2011. I expect most of the children with autism have been exposed to TV, electro-magnetic radiation etc. too, just like every other child. How do non-autistic children compare to the study group?
I think the thesis is that all or perhaps a large proportion of children who receive MMR ended up with the vaccine strain in their gut but it is the children with genetic vulnerability who go on to develop autism. I've no idea whether it's true. But we have seen epidemic levels of autism since vaccination became widespread in the 1950s. California has seen a sixfold rise in autism diagnosis in their student population in the last 16 years. https://www.kidsdata.org/blog/?p=7568Of course that might be wholly or in part due to different, possibly improved, diagnostic procedures. But equally it might be wholly or in part due to some other factor or factors. But surely no one is going to take on trust a programme like Newsnight that doesn't even reference this evidence! The whole tenor of the item was simply "How do we get the public to accept what experts tell them to do?" Maitlis explicitly stated they weren't going to discuss the evidence.
This is a very sensitive and dangerous subject because any story about vaccinations puts way more people off vaccinating children than those at risk from reactions.That can't be good.
Newsnight: Guido shares with us an internal BBC Memo announcing that, "...after four incredible years of presenting Newsnight, Evan is off to present PM on radio 4." Four "incredible years" - couldn't have put it better myself!
Only four? Feels like he's been there forever, grinning and gurning, spinning and spurning... bias on a stick.
I remember a feeling of relief when the annoying giggler left the Today programme. Have rarely watched Newsnight since he's been on it.
Paul Whitehouse is a far better Evans Davis than Evan Davis himself
MB: Never mind, Newsnight's gain is PM's loss - no, I didn't get that the wrong way round!
Well this is a complex subject but I would make the following points:1. It's never good for governments to lie directly to the public. I have heard government officials state that x vaccine is "safe" even when it is known and accepted by the medical profession that there can be severe adverse reactions. 2. A cost benefit analysis of simply adding one vaccine after another needs to be addressed. Many doctors think that vaccination has contributed to the huge increase in life-threatening asthma in children (because their immune systems are no longer fully activated as they no longer have to battle a series of childhood disease). Asthma is a very serious diseases, just as serious as measles. 3. Big pharma have a huge financial investment in pushing vaccines but also fund a lot of the research. One doesn't have to be a red-capped socialist to see the dangers inherent in the system. Even with the best will in the world, there is bound to be a risk of confirmation bias in their approach to this medical issue. 4. Contrary to the propaganda there are plenty of incidences where the link between the vaccine and ill health have been established. Here's one (a swine flu vaccine causing deibiltating narcolepsy in humans): https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcolepsy-flu.html5. The people who die from childhood diseases are often children whose immune systems are already compromised e.g. from leukemia and therapy to treat such diseases. However, the authorities try to hide that fact. 6. Compared with 50 years ago, medical science is much better able to ensure children's survival and recovery from childhood diseases. From all the above, I think we need a proper public inquiry into the facts and we need to adopt a more precautionary approach to adding to the vaccination programme.
I couldn't agree more. There are dangers in not telling the public the truth and it is irresponsible to hide things on the ground that we know better what is good for them. A better informed public may lead to the abandonment of current practice and spark a search for a new approach and safer and better vaccines. The truth must out.
The problem isn't limited to vaccines - I think that, one day, it will be realised that dishing out statins like Smarties has been a terrible mistake. Of my small group of half a dozen good friends, no fewer than four who were prescribed Simvastatin have gone on to develop type 2 diabetes - only anecdotal, of course, but I understand that GPs are beginning to recognise there's a problem. It's high time, too, that the GMC looked at the morality of drugs companies (and government) offering financial incentives to prescribe certain drugs.
Some doctors have come out against statins...I think another issue is the association with falls, since they can certainly cause balance problems. Falls in my mind are one of the key dangers of old age...it's often the case someone declines rapidly after a bad fall.
I’m not a Laura Kuenssberg fan but I thought she reported the Theresa May EU rebuff in an serious, honest and straight forward way on BBC early evening news. Katya Adler was a different kettle of fish, reporting her entire analysis with a knowing smile and apparent smug satisfaction at the UK predicament. I think it’s what you call BBC style patriotism - distain for the UK and worship of the EU.
Ah, the BBC standard gloat - infuriating, isn't it?
At lunchtime on Radio 4, Adler was suggesting everything was moving to a compromise solution...leading us to believe that the EU is a deeply pragmatic organisation, whereas we now know, if we didn't before, that it is a deeply ideological organisation. I think something more than regular fishy is going on. I was surprised at how belligerent Macron was...it sounded to me like a deliberate strategy that has probably emerged from discussion with Blair and Soros. I think Macron is trying to cause a Tory meltdown by deliberately targeting the Brexiters. If they can split the Conservatives, causing general chaos (or maybe pushing May into an early General Election), then perhaps the second referendum they are desperate to see take place will eventuate.
Agree with you, MB re: fishiness. Until today I was convinced the whole thing was a stitch-up by May, brokered via Merkel. Today's farce clearly showed that May was badly shaken & I get the impression the Beeb was taken aback too. Being really Machiavellian about it all, I wonder if, having seen how May has deceived her own party, the EU has decided she is not to be trusted & wishes to see her replaced by a PM who is,at least, consistent...or maybe they just want to break us. It'll be interesting to see how the BBC decides to spin it all.
The UK is balanced on a knife-edge. According to Guido, roughly 3/5ths of Conservative MPS back the Chequers deal and 2/5ths oppose it. Having seen today's rejection by the EU of Theresa May's best shot, how many of the 3/5ths will accept that the UK is being stymied by Tusk, Barnier and their pals, and switch their allegiance to the Boris DD camp? It will only take some 25 or more MP to withdraw their backing for May and her time will be up. Of course the BBC will label any such MPs as trouble-makers, Brexiteers, rebels ,right-wing etc.I agree with comments above suggesting that the BBC is deeply worried. They have been giving Theresa May an easy time lately. Expect an onslaught aimed aimed at Boris as the conference season approaches..
Maybe nothing has really changed and the stitch-up is still being acted out.As Katya Adler wrote tonight “ It rather suits both the EU and the UK in the long term to have the public perception of Brexit negotiations now as fraught. So that if a Brexit deal does finally emerge later this autumn, the perception will be that it was hard fought and hard won.”
Yes, I thought that, but now I'm not so sure. Theresa May's body language didn't suggest that all of this was choreographed - if it is, then she's a mighty fine actor.
Sir Topham - Yes that was my suspicion...that it was all choreography - and that was indeed the line Adler was peddling earlier today. But Macron's attack was vicious, designed to maximise trouble for May, not keep her in power, and if they wanted a Chequers-based compromise, then they need to keep May in power. And May seemed visibly shaken by the the way her Chequers gambit was rudely dismissed by the EU.
I fear there's another possibility here.Most of the evidence, and plenty of prior Tory hearsay, points to May not being the sharpest tool in the box, and the only explanation for the complete shift of emphasis between Lancaster House and Chequers is that she's been 'got at' by Olly Robbins and his remainiac chums.They must have known as well as the rest of us that Chequers was never going to run with the EU, but managed to dupe May into believing that it was 'credible'.Hence yesterday's car crash, and an increased chance, however slim, that we get shoved down the route of a second referundum or some other means of not actually leaving the EU.Robbins is a federalist, having been president of the Oxford Reform Club while studying at Oxford: https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20180711/281840054431451 I smell a rat - and what a smug looking rat he is too!https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Olly_Robbins.jpg
Dimbleby doing his very best on Question Time to stymie Boris Johnson's chances of ever becoming PM, while promoting Sharia. I'd love to ask David Dimbleby which part of Sharia law, ie Islamic practice, he would like to see introduced in the UK.
Where do they get these useless wet toilet tissue Conservative MPs from?
Re: QT/Boris. Yes, Dimbleby's behaviour was hardly impartial - he only just managed to keep the smirk off his face as he stuck his knife into Boris. Notice how the sound was faded out as the Tory MP tried to point out Labour's problems with antisemitism & how quickly Dimbleby moved things on?The group booing at the mention of Rees-Mogg's name suggests a heavy Momentum presence, presumably schooled to be on their best behaviour, until they blew it at the last moment.
Yes, I noticed the booing at the end...bit of a give away. The BBC can't be bothered, for obvious reasons, to invest any of its billions of pounds in ensuring balanced QT audiences. It prefers to carry on with its anarchic system as it knows it delivers pro-left, pro-Sharia, pro-diversity, pro-migration, pro-public spending and (perhaps most important of all) pro-BBC audiences by default.
Re: Macron's savaging of May's Chequers proposals, Andre Neil (This Week) has just pointed out that the President's personal popularity rating is now as low as Hollande's was, so his tough guy stance may be for home consumption. Another explanation suggests itself to me: Macron is hoping to snatch the Imperial EU crown from Merkel - so, if he can establish himself as the strong man of Europe while scuppering the UK, the hereditary enemy, so much the better.
Hmm...I don't run with either of those. I think since the days of Pompidou, France has understood that Germany is the key power but France can be its conduit and co-ruler. They know they can't supplant Germany. As for being unpopular at home, it's a double ballot in France, so it's all about who the last two are. A French President doesn't have to be that popular to win. But what do we know about Macron? He's an ex banker, a globalist and he favours further EU integration. I do believe he's in regular contact with Blair - and Blair must be in regular contact with Soros who has been funnelling huge amounts of money into the Fake (Rerun)Referendum campaign. So, I think this is co-ordinated with the Soros-funded Rerun Referendum campaign that has been getting such good PR from the Pro-EU BBC.
This whole Brexit thing is a bit like the Great War...either side could potentially win...no one really knows how it's going to go. Where should you concentrate your forces? No one knows for sure...Which alliances appear to make you stronger but actually make you weaker. Who are the revolutionaries siding with? Who can be trusted? Can anyone be trusted? From that point of view, I take comfort that the BBC seems to have no better analysis of how things are going to go than anyone here. Hence their nervousness...do they want a General Election? They don't know...what if Labour lost...Do they want a Parliamentary showdown? ...they don't know...what if the Tory Remainer rebels melted away? Do they want a second referendum? Well, the result is not a foregone conclusion...a second win could give populism wings! Whilst the BBC likes to have a policy on everything (whether it's horse riding, jewelry or hang gliding), I am not sure they have yet alighted on their policy in the current confused situation. Personally, as a Brexiter, I think Boris needs to strike now with a clear commitment to accept a Canada Plus agreement with the EU and a high tech solution to the NI border. If necessary go to the country on that basis.
Agreed re: Boris - there's a lot hanging on his performance at, or on the fringes of, the party conference. Trouble is the BBC is going to leave his best soundbites on the cutting-room floor & will use camera angles & close-ups to his disadvantage.Going back to QT Dimbleby was quick to proclaim that, by a show of hands, about a third of the (balanced?) studio audience favoured a second referendum - I was not convinced: it seemed to me that the camera only showed us one section of the hall &, presumably the BBC had a good idea of where Remainers were seated.
The BBC and retainers need to be careful what they wish for when calling for a second referendum. Even though the questions may be loaded to split the vote, I still suspect the vote will go the same way by a bigger margin. There is a silent majority in this country appalled by the shameful way the EU are treating us and fed up with the state of British politics and its' leaders.
!! remainers - bl**dy predictive spelling.
This BBC article about knife crime in London is basically a party political broadcast on behalf of the Labour Party whilst it experiences some local difficulties in London. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45575361The article is a pathetic assembly of the obvious, the tendentious and the misleading. Also it makes it sound like the violence is a meaningless random mutation rather than being intimately connected to the lucrative business of drug dealing, to dsyfunctional family life, to cultural approval (e.g. BBC Radio 6's glorification of ultraviolent "drill" music) and to poor anti-crime response by the authorities.
Thank you for highlighting this article. What a load of rubbish - Violence is a disease and employing 'violence interrupters'. Lefty claptrap and 'do-gooders' championed by The BBC. They write it as if it is fact rather than a social experiment.Correlation does not imply causation. They fell for the biggest mistake in statistics.
“Pressure is mounting on Theresa May because of growing fears of a no deal Brexit.”So says every bulletin I’ve heard from the BBC today. No patriotism, no supporting our country when our backs against the wall. No words of encouragement or support.That’s the BBC we have. They say their mission is to bring the country together but for a large portion of the population they despise our citizens, sneer at our fears and concerns, are intolerant to politics other than their own and are out to subvert our democracy through propaganda and bias.
A few days ago we had 'growing clamour' and before that, 'mounting fears'. Mix and match for a new ringing phrase: growing fears or pressure mounting. Can a growing clamour be far behind? They do love to dramatise. And I see Laura Kuennsberg was back to her familiar sneering self today on Politics Live, interrupting Dominic Raab before he could answer the question she'd just asked him. Yesterday Andrew Neil was back and they had Campbell on. He persistently interrupted almost every other speaker, including the presenter, throughout. At one point, when asked what Labour's policy was, he said he wished he knew. Oh well, never mind. The BBC will continue to have him on anyway.
Nobody can doubt the direction of travel - the path of the EU is towards a massive European State. How can Messrs Tusk and Barnier speak for some 540 million people (excluding the UK) without ANY dissenting voices? Democracy within the EU is the real foe.
.... some 540 million people (excluding the UK) .... That should be 440 million. but it is still a huge amount of people to have just the one opinion.
The BBC never seems to stop talking about truth and fake news these days. I wonder why. Radio 4 had a series of talks this week on the theme of truth. Now they have a programme on 'Archive on 4' called 'Disinformation: A User's Guide' 'What if there was never a 'Truth' era before 'Post-Truth'? Actually it looks promising from the detailed programme notes about the historical perspective, with examples from 20th century revolutions and events but I particularly like this bit: 'Anxiety about truth and its enemies seems to flare up at times when orthodoxies are falling apart - political uncertainty is rife and people become unusually open to the comforting certainty of extreme ideas.'Like the BBC's increasing obsessions and going to extremes on pet agendas and subjects? I guess that's not what they had in mind.https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09vx0db What if there was never a 'Truth' era before 'Post-Truth'?
Since the Brexit vote we have seen a lot of BBC programming on subjects like truth, anxiety, expert knowledge, subjectivity and mind manipulation...Somewhat unlikely this is a complete coincidence. Whether by design or sub conscious wish, this programming seems to be intended to chip away at the public's confidence in their ability to make choices at the ballot box. The subliminal message is: "trust the experts not your own judgement: you are too weak and insignificant to be able to judge your own interests". The irony is that when post-modernism - which asserted the hegemonic reality of subjective truth - arrived on the scene, the BBC were all over it, and couldn't get enough of it, since at the time it seemed to put rocket fuel in their "progressive agenda".
Newsnight tonight, considering where we are on Brexit, was veyr odd!Odd because it was probably one of the least biased programmes I have seen on the subject. I think it has to do with the fact that the BBC is as confused as the rest of us, as Labour, and as the Conservatives on quite how to play it. For the moment they seem to be thinking that they need to hang on to May for fear of Boris. But that meant they had to give May a fair hearing, rather than a mocking disembowelling as would normally be the case. This led on to other things like questioning the sincerity of the EU, examining how fairly friction free borders might work, and asking (finally) what the EU would do on the N Ireland border if we exited without a deal (the question wasn't answered, but of course the many viewers will at last have been led to the obvious supplementary - is the Republic of Ireland really going to start erecting hard border posts in contravention of the Good Friday Agreement, while the UK does nothing on its side?). Even the Brexiter MP was treated with something approaching respect and given the chance to actually answer questions. There were no of those intro pieces with doom-laden synth tracks in the background either! There seemed to be some dim recognition as well that a second referendum might not necessarily go Remain's way. All very odd!! I don't say there wasn't bias, but compared with the average Newsnight programme of recent years, this was almost like a proper news programme.
That's interesting, I didn't see the programme but the entire BBC news network seems subdued and muted after Salzburg. It may be because their beloved EU have shown their true colours. They have insulted the UK government and the BBC as an institution is part of the establishment. Hence a bit of solidarity. I suspect they will have a few days like this whilst they regroup and tweak their political agenda for Brexit.
I think you're right, Sir Topham...probably a lot of green room chats, editorial conferences and Guardian reading before the agreed line emerges from the murky waters of the BBC!
Tom Watson has thrown the BBC an EU lifeline by saying Labour should back a new Brexit referendum.The BBC have jumped on it enthusiastically and made it top story. I think we will see a big supportive push over the coming days during Labour conference reporting. They may well have calculated that if it succeeds in being adopted as policy, there is a potential route to stop Brexit. If they now put their full weight behind Labour and mischief make with May and her party they might help force an election. Best chance of overturning Brexit with Labour in power with a policy of a new referendum.
They are right on as I write Sir TH! "Calls for a 2nd referendum and a GE" being happily promoted.
The BBC, never knowingly siding with Trump. An odd story has appeared in the BBC's beloved New York Times suggesting Rod Rosenstein, FBI, plotted to personally wire-tap President Trump and get him removed under the 25th Amendment. Difficult to think of a more serious allegation against such a high government official. But the BBC doesn't report the allegation, oh no. The BBC story is headlined as a denial, and throughout the emphasis is on the denial. So, I think the NYT story was pre-arranged with Rosenstein and was designed to spike something coming down the line. The BBC - which has completely ignored the declassification of docs by Trump (which might relate to this specific story) - is doing it's bit to bolster Rosenstein and push his "lawyerly denial" (ie not a real denial). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45606746
I keep thinking that Zurcher is going to succumb to the tertiary stage of Trump Derangement Syndrome but somehow he staggers on...https://twitter.com/awzurcher?lang=en-gbPerhaps there is a quaternary stage?
Hey everybody! Whoopee!! The BBC have discovered a new formerly unidentified ethnic group who number a mere 2 billion or thereabouts...up till now they have gone completely unnoticed by the BBC but now here they are:EAST ASIANS! :) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/stories-45590163/crazy-rich-asians-what-it-s-really-like-being-british-east-asianOh to be a BEA!:) (Sidenote: It may come as a surprise to Japanese and Chinese people that the BBC is still unable to differentiate between them, but on the other hand they may take some comfort in that they will no longer be blamed for Rotherham.)
A very telling main picture on BBC website today. A proper propaganda image, full of waving red flags and EU flags to support the BBC second referendum campaign. Hats off to the picture editor. ‘Loondon calling’ - what’s your take on this?
Yes Sir TH: We had been looking forward to some slick choreography from Theresa May as she salsas her way to a last minute agreement with the EU. Meanwhile, behind our backs, a smooch of a waltz was taking between the BBC and the Labour Party choreographed by Messrs Blair, Campbell etc to halt Brexit either by calling for a second referendum (cosily named the People's Vote), or by forcing an Autumn General Election (Marr spoke of this on his show this morning).As for imagery, the BBC's supply of EU flags is never far away. The flag-wavers can be mustered at a moment's notice, whether behind the much missed Delores on the One Show or at the Last Night of the Proms.
ps I hadn't seen the red rose at the centre of the EU flag before today - that's a new one.
The pic has been replaced by a Union flag showing the EU circle of stars! Very striking, very BBC, no bias of course.
... I hadn't seen the red rose at the centre of the EU flag before today - that's a new one... What do you know, that image accompanying the story 'Brexit: Labour 'would back members' on new vote, says Corbyn' has disappeared after a short time as in its place appears a vague crowd scene with a photoshopped union flag overlaid with the EU ring of yellow stars. Go to the story itself, and there's the familiar image of a head only shot of a pensive Jeremy Corbyn with the return of the Labour red background. Yes. there's a plan.
The Brexit vote is top BBC headline again this morning along with appropriate EU friendly pic.
I noticed some back-pedaling by the BBC today regarding JC and the "peoples vote". This morning it seemed that JC had backed a second referendum to remain in the EU, with just the date and result a formality, negotiations could be called off and the Department for exiting the EU generously pensioned off.But by this afternoon it was all very much less clear in the BBC world.Ironic really that Brexit may yet be facilitated or indeed delivered by the far left.
Hmm- BBC 1 main news tonight led with waving EU flags and David Lammy but then used a clip of Len McCluskey to dampen things down. Laura Kuennssberg then did some analysis where she hedged her bets.I think McCluskey is right here, the country has already answered the question and it will cause some Labour voters who voted Leave to vote Conservative.
Yes, LK's hedge-betting is now legendary...if only she covered the weather: "This winter may be one of the coldest on record, with freezing temperatures, snow-bound roads and a complete white-out in some parts of the country...or maybe, just maybe, it could surprise everyone apart from me of course and be one of the warmest winters in the last 100 years old...but wait, there is an alternative: it might just turn out that it is a common-or-garden average sort of winter. No one can say with certainty yet, but don't be surprised if Jeremy Corbyn is found purchasing long johns in his local Co-op store." What is the point of reporting like that apart from allowing a reporter to feel good about herself?
It's been an eventful weekend in tennis, with Naomi Osaka losing in the final in Tokyo and feeling stressed out to the point of taking a break from tennis; and the Europe team defeating the World team in the Laver Cup in Chicago - a new kind of event that makes for a thoroughly enjoyable three days of tennis involving six top players on each team.What does the BBC's tennis page lead with? Neither of those but Serena Williams. Why? She 'responds to coach's claims'. She does not understand why he said he was sending her signals. She 'says she wants to move on from her controversial US Open final.' I do hope Osaka is able to move on from it and that the effects she appears to be suffering are temporary. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis
Oh well, if you're bored with the Serena Williams sob story, try the next one along...what have we got?...oh yeah, Tiger Woods (one of the five beloveds of the BBC along with Serena, Lewis and the two Mos). Tiger has won a golf tournament!...not a Major title but it'll do for the BBC. Reminds me, today on Radio 4 I heard Nick Robinson racialising the sport. He was thankful that Tiger had done a little bit (though much remained to do) to show that golf wasn't entirely a sport for white middle aged men. How sickening is that? Racialising sport in that way. Does Nick lie awake at night worrying about how basketball and sprint events are associated with young black men or long distance running is identified with Kenyans and Ethiopians? Will he be looking for ways to encourage more Indians and Inuits into the ring to take on Ukrainians, Mexicans and African- Americans? In fact will he not rest until every sport including American football has 1 in 5 Chinese people taking part, to reflect the true ethnic make-up of the world? The BBC are playing a very stupid, very dangerous game.
Has the BBC lifted those quotes from an interview she gave to some Australian news channel? I think we should be told. It's interesting to read that the interview was heavily controlled by a PR person and that there could be no mention of that cartoon that the BBC made so much of and Emily Maitlis made a fool of herself over. As an article with no given context, it's nothing more than the BBC doing PR on behalf of Williams.https://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/the-project-lisa-wilkinsons-tense-interview-with-serena-williams/news-story/ad7d8473603424662a87d8796b064ba1
That's funny about Tiger Woods because his mother is Thai. But for the BBC, as with Osaka, he'll do for the Black tick box. For five years the BBC has not been able to enthuse and worship as desired but now he's back and their chief sports writer has composed a long piece which concedes 'He's been a very naughty boy' but glories in his return as 'terrific for a sport that has struggled to find a defining narrative over the past five years.' Really? Perhaps he's confusing the BBC with the actual sport. The worst things was how the BBC report relegated Justin Rose: 'Tiger Woods wins Tour Championship as Justin Rose secures FedEx Cup'. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/golf/45622052 As with Osaka at the US Open, the significance of Rose's win is overshadowed and lost; it should have been centre stage and had the top report because it's not just a tournament, as the confusingly named Tour Championship is, as far as I can make out: it's winning the PGA tour and thus the FedEx Cup, Rose being the first Englishman to do so and earning with it a hefty bonus payment of 10 million dollars. He's the champion of the tour, yet the report turns the whole thing on its head to make his achievement appear secondary to the winner of a single tournament.
Away from politics, or maybe not, the Turner Prize 2018 finalists exhibition opens this week..BBC arts editor Will Gompertz says the shortlist is right on the money.No paintings, sculptures, unmade beds or piles of bricks this time round. No sharks or cows in formaldehyde either.The nominees are all videos - and no wonder the BBC love them.Charlotte Prodger - identity politics video, particularly from a queer perspective.Naeem Mohaiemen - political video deeply rooted in the sphere of international relations, left-wing ideologies, the impacts and after effects of colonialism.Luke Willis Thompson - video inspired by stop-and-search policies and killings of black people.Forensic Architecture - video on human rights violations with investigations surrounding the Bedouin population in the Naqab/Negev region of southern Israel – specifically, the events of 18 January 2017, when an attempt by police to clear an unrecognised village resulted in the deaths of two people.J.M.W. Turner will be spinning in his grave!
This shortlist was mentioned in the guest post Perfect Harmony - Turnerised, making the valid point: Where's the painting? Incidentally, Guido revealed a few weeks ago that Margaret Thatcher was not a supporter of Apartheid - from no less an authority than Nelson Mandela himself . The 2017 winner Lubaina Himid, who's work represented Thatcher in a very bad light: … The star of the piece for Hogarth is, of course, the Countess, who has recently had a baby, so lounges casually at her dressing table, having spent the previous afternoon at the auction rooms, while her husband, the earl, is away. She is having her hair done. She is Margaret Thatcher, the first and therefore the last woman prime minister of Britain, leader of the Conservative party, champion of business, destroyer of the unions, the welfare state and staunch supporter of apartheid….Not so, Will Gompertz and the BBC. Where's the apology? I won't hold my breath.
... The 2017 winner was Lubaina Himid....
Here's the order-order.com Guido link:https://order-order.com/2018/08/29/mandela-margaret-thatcher-enemy-apartheid/
Apologies - LC. I didn’t see your excellent article first time around. The Turner Prize is a good example of how lefty liberal types hijack something useful and meaningful and turn in into a PC, virtue signalling travesty of its former self. Now useless and meaningless, it has limited its audience and appeal to metropolitan elites who nod approvingly at the preview whilst quaffing their fizz and scoffing their canapés.The BBC itself is another example.
The BBC continues to spread its theme of Truth over the network. Last night it was the Laurie Taylor programme Thinking Allowed: ---Post-Truth – Laurie Taylor explores a very modern phenomenon, or is it? He’s joined by Steve Fuller, Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick, Helen Pluckrose, Editor of Areo, a digital magazine focused on Enlightenment liberalism and Andrew Chadwick, Professor of Political Communication at Loughborough University.--- That's another programme I used to listen to but have stopped.
Truth, anxiety, doubt, insanity, subjectivity versus objectivity, expertise...BBC obsessions since 24th June 2016 for some reason...
Just seen Evan Davis's "interview" (pleasant chat) with Angela Rayner. It's amazing just how cozy such an interaction between a BBC presenter and a soggy leftist in the Labour Party can be...
Mention of how cosy between BBC presenters and the Labour Party reminds me of something, although it's a bit old news and maybe it's been mentioned here previously. Always on the ball Sir Hall is reported to be tryiug to get a knighthood for Dimbleby, overlooking the effect on impartiality of journalists getting honours. It was during the Leveson Inquiry that arch Blairite Gus O’Donnell said: “There needs to be a formal relationship between politicians and the press, it is best for all sides to maintain an appropriate distance. The public will question motives on both sides of a relationship that is perceived to be ‘too close’.” Even ol' Jon Snow agrees 'those in the trade should not take honours from those they report on.'https://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/the-londoner-give-david-dimbleby-his-spurs-urges-hall-a3922516.html#comments
There should be "some distance" between ex heads of the civil service and the contemporary political bear pit after they leave office. But GO'D prefers to get down and dirty, being a committed Remainiac.
Yes, a total globalist and open borders believer. That's the Treasury view of the world, as carried on by Osborne & Co in his wake. GOD as he was known in Whitehall, became Sir GOD and now with a little light tweaking, Lord GOD.
I am picking up the BBC's subliminal and not so subliminal messaging re Labour:A Corbynite government won't be frighteningly or irresponsibly radical. John McDonnell ( you know - the guy who wished the IRA had got Thatcher) is someone you can trust. Why is it the BBC are content to take everything on trust from Labour? The charges of anti-semitism have been sent down the memory hole. It appears that Corbyn never expressed support for the IRA and Hamas, never worked for the Iranian government's propaganda mouthpiece and never went on jolly jaunts around the GDR with Diane Abbott. Also he was never a trenchant critic of the EU. Never advocated us leaving the EU. And neither Corbyn or McDonnell ever expressed support for Venezualan style economics. Also Corbyn's record of disoyalty to the Labour leadership, is now expunged as the Corynites demand 100% support for his leadership. Thanks to the amnesia, the BBC is able to sell us Corbyn-O'Donnell as the new moderates, backed by Prescott.
"Why is it the BBC are content to take everything on trust from Labour?" is a good question. What springs to mind first is that whenever BBC has gently attempted to probe Corbyn, there is a coordinated twitter storm. And the BBC backs down, they are generally cowards.Secondly there will be many Corbyn or momentum supporters in the BBC. It's an obvious target for infiltration. And if they can take over a nominally democratic organization like the Labour party, an obscurely managed secretive organization like the BBC is child's play.Thirdly, well there's been inherent organisational bias in the BBC since the 1960s
I agree they are cowards. But they are soggy left Labour-sympa cowards...They also follow the Guardian and Polly Toynbee, Queen of the G, has come out as a fresh convert to Corbynism after having initially rejected Corbyn as an electoral no-hoper. You're right as well that the BBC will be a prime target for the Corbyn gang if, God forbid, they get their hands on the levers of power. There are many ways for a government to work on the BBC even in the absence of Charter renewal. They could set a new Equalities Commission on them with some bogus inquiry into diversity and inclusion for instance. They could deny honours to the upper echelons. They could get their people in Ofcom and start harrassing the BBC (as opposed to what happens now, where Ofcom nearly always back the BBC except where it falls slightly short of PC practice). Imagine what damage a Corbynite Ofcom could do to the BBC. The Corbynites could back that up in Parliament with endless inquiries by Parliamentary Select Committees into allegations of anti-left and anti-trade union bias against the BBC, no doubt presided over by Paul Mason MP for Shoulderchip. Before you know it we'll have the News at Ten being read by Hijabed ex-Respect Leftists and wall-to-wall pro-Corbyn propaganda and every Bodyguard-type drama will have an evil Mossad or CIA agent at its heart (yes, I know plenty do now but it will be every single one in future). As you say there are plenty of infilitrators within the BBC and even more placemen and women who will switch from soggy to hard left when they see which way the wind is blowing. Moreover, the BBC, already in thrall to PC ideology, is quite used to the idea of media as propaganda. It would just now be "PC plus" - PC plus hard left Marxism. Let it never happen, but if it does, we can at least say "we told you so!".
God only knows what Labour’s policy is on Brexit other than deliberate ambiguity. The only clear statement from Keir Starmer and McDonnell is that they would vote against any deal that Teresa May presents to Parliament. In other words use the situation to force an election and gain power at any cost to the country. I have long since given up the notion that there is any morality at the heart of the extreme left, but this is an utterly amoral position. The BBC should be tearing them to shreds over this. The best Jo Coburn could do at the Labour Party Conference today was a kind of amused indulgence.
If an election was forced, just as 2017, the BBC would say: 'Of course this election isn't about Brexit, it's about austerity, the NHS and the Public Services'. Jeremy Corbyn is sticking to his agreed position - It'll be alright on the night: 'Let's elect a Labour Government, and we'll soon sort out the issues with the EU about a Brexit deal - Trust me, I'm a cult figure you know'.
Sir David Attenborough tells the BBC what's what: not enough arts and culture and lots of gaps in coverage; all sorts of people should be catered for. 'I don’t think the BBC does enough. It’s not enough simply to say, "Well, it doesn’t get a big enough audience." ...'If you’re a public service broadcaster, what you should be saying is, "We will show the broad spectrum of human interest." ...https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-6203931/Sir-David-Attenborough-hits-BBC-failing-produce-arts-cultural-programmes.htmlNote well, BBC. There's a man who knows of what he speaks. He used to run BBC 2, I think. Could we have him back please?
Be careful what you wish for. ‘Lots of gaps’ and ‘all sorts of people should be catered for’ could be used as code by the BBC for crazy projects at the fringes of lefty liberal thinking. I don’t think it will be used for old school arts and culture. Just like Monty Python, traditional and classical art is now consigned to the BBC dustbin.
Yup! - look what they've done to the Proms.
An absurd but interesting Reality Check on "What is Labour's Brexit policy?" :https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45640548Absurd because of course it's not really a "Reality Check". It's really just a comment piece of the kind you can find in a hundred newspapers, or on the radio. It's interesting because it sounds a bit cross with Labour. It even goes as far as to point out that Labour own policy on the single market and customs union fails its own test! I think that's the first time I've seen this obvious point made on any BBC platform. It reads to me somewhat like the stamping of little feet - a real toddlers' tantrum - because they get what they want: a full blooded commitment to a rigged second referendum guaranteed to deliver a Remain answer.
There be dangers but at present the BBC is locked into a straitjacket in its thinking about what constitute 'sorts of people' and it is a very narrow and even prohibitive view of the world; it's black and white essentially and that thinking rules out on narrow ideological grounds even the idea of the 'sort of people' who might do Monty Python, they being the wrong sort, or the idea of something classical in the arts as being possibly too posh or too elitist or again, by or for another wrong sort of people. So I am rather going on the assumption that the gaps would be something that the BBC isn't doing or thinking at present and that some of us 'other sorts' would welcome. The BBC is very skewed and unbalanced at present by its narrow agenda-driven obsessions and special groups. To achieve any change at the BBC you'd have to shake up the monitoring bodies, that Trust or whatever it is these days, with wider and frequently changing membership rather than the usual suspects. Maybe Attenborough could be on it as part of a looser organisation to bring in wider interests and fresh perspectives. 'No, I can't see that at all' from Nanny doesn't cut it.
Agreed MB, I nearly posted about this as well. This one was just another personal opinion piece. My blood was well and truly boiling when I read it. I just lose the will when I see Reality Check and Chris Morris together. I really must stop reading them.
Yeah, some time ago I classed Morris as a liar. I refuse to read or listn to anything by him.
I forgot to mention while it was fresh in my mind that they had Ruth Davidson on Woman's Hour yesterday. Nothing struck me as notable until after several minutes I heard Jane Garvey asking her a couple of questions that made me sit up. One was about leaving the EU and she put it to Davidson, sounding almost scolding, that as she had voted to remain, people thought 'you stood for something', the implication here being that she had caved in or betrayed something. Davidson patiently explained that she accepted a democratic vote. I mean how hard is that to figure out? The second one was even more naked and went along the lines of You're popular; people like you very much...how can you support Conservative policies such as things like the rape question to qualify for extra benefits? The implication of this question seemed to me to scream You're nice; how can you be a Conservative? Bias or what?I haven't got the iPlayer to check my recollection or fleeting impression. If anyone wants to listen to it, it was the first item on the programme and those two questions were close to ten minutes in, I reckon.
Mark Easton had an incredulous look and a disapproving tone when reporting from Corby tonight on BBC 1 main news. He said how the town needs eastern European labour and will have to re-invent itself because of EU migration slowdown. He had an "expert" on, estimating that 80% of current Corby EU migrants would fail to get a visa once we leave. Another opinion led pro-EU piece which wasn't main News material at all.It was followed by that other beauty, Jon Sopel sneering again whilst mocking president Trump for his UN speech. He has stopped reporting news of events completely and now just gives his personal opinions on the negative aspects of Trumps engagements and he always finds plenty of negatives.
The BBC keep reporting that the UN reps were laughing at Trump...I got the strong impression he rather charmed them and they were laughing along with him, actually applauding his off the cuff quip. Sorry to have missed Easton, ideological chief of the BBC News politburo...always worth keeping tabs on what he's up to. We don't need cheap East European labour. There are already robo pizza deliverers. We'll soon have self-driving cars and self-driving lorries. In my experience coffee from a Costa coffee machine tastes just as good as coffee made by Costa staff. Robot crop pickers can substitute for East European labour if necessary (but there's no reason we shouldn't use seasonal labour if we want). Easton's scaremongering is ludicrous. If we really need labour we can always authorise it.
In the BBC, the "need" for workers and immigration are always conflated. They are not the same. There are plenty of ways to, and plenty of countries which, give temporary work permits in the event of labour or skills shortages. And, of course, the shortages should eventually disappear as wages rise or people get trained and adapt. No, the "immigration" fix benefits most the owners of capital and businesses who can get lower paid immigrants, pay none of their social costs, and provide no training to locals. That's who Easton is batting for.
MB, re: Trump - Yes, I agree, the audience appeared to be laughing WITH Trump rather than at him. This was surely confirmed when Trump said it was not quite the reaction he had expected & was rewarded with another ripple of gently indulgent laughter. Let's face it, if Trump had thought he was being laughed at, the floor would have been knee-deep in teddy bears - in fact he'd probably have thrown the pram too!
Ozfan - You are completely correct of course. The BBC conflates workers and immigration. They also conflate naturalisation and immigration. Then finally they conflate naturalisation with "becoming British". As in pre-EU times if we really need (human) crop pickers (doubtful, as for nearly every crop there is a robot to pick it) they can come in on 9 month seasonal work permits (non renewable until 3 months after expiry) and the employer can provide decent sanitary temporary accommodation on site. Longer work permits can be provided for other workers as necessary e.g. doctors if we really can't train them up (given how many of new immigrant communities are desperate for their cildren to become doctors!). However, there should be no automatic link to naturalisation except in cases of clear national benefit (Nobel Prize winning scientists and the like). Where naturalisation is granted there should be a candidate period during which it would be revokable. Employers should - through an infrastructure levy - fully remimburse the state for the social and infrastructure costs of immigration. Moreover, we should do far more to ensure that naturalisation does indeed involve a aincere wish to "become British" (forget the ludicrous trivia tests - I'm talking about language and values).
That Mark Easton report was absolutely typical of him. Never without an agenda.
Ozfan, Agreed and moving for work may be a temporary condition; hence the use of the tern 'migrant workers'. Yet the word 'migrant' is being used as a catch-all for anyone migrating, immigrating or emigrating, most often substituted for 'immigrant' which means immigrating for settlement, which is the goal of many / most? arriving here.Before we were members of the EEC, we had, in addition to the work permit scheme, a separate seasonal agricultural workers scheme. They came for the summer to pick and process the fruit and vegetables in East Anglia. The farm / factory provided accommodation in wooden chalet buildings and they went home at the end of the season.
Sisyphus - Well you saw and heard what I saw and heard. But, oddly, all the reporters from the BBC, Sky and ITV were reporting the same. that his audience the UN Assembly (not even "some") were laughing AT Trump, who was thus humiliated. This is almost the definition of Fake News. The UK reporters must all either just watch CNN to check how they should report or they are all hugger-mugging after the event, texting each other. This sort of thing doesn't happen by accident.
There is much about the Labour movement that was good in the past and still is. The Labour movement has played a progressive role in our lives over the last 150 years, from the early days of Robert Owen and the Chartists. They have been on the right side about many things: factory safety, child labour, food standards, reducing the working day, adult suffrage, introducing a minimum wage, ensuring health care for all, education for all, breaking down class privilege, equality for women and so on. But take a look at the Labour Party today...It is an altogether frightening vista. What do they stand for now? Abolition of Free Speech. Overturning a democratic vote of the people. Support for Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists. Support for the IRA. Eradication of UN Member state Israel. Venezualan style economics. Political correctness. Racialising politics. Fantasy policies that will never see the light of day in reality. All delivered by spokespeople who in large part are clearly not intelligent, thoughtful, practical, knowledgeable, or educated, in any meaningful sense of the term. Most of them seem very unlikeable and unpleasant people to me. With a few exceptions, these are people I wouldn't want to share any time with at all in any setting. If they get elected, it can only mean one thing: that the BBC in co-operation with the schools system have managed to brainwash 25% of the adult population (=38% of the electorate) in previous years so successfully to the extent they are actually persuaded by this insane iteration of the Labour Party.
Yup, BBC will bang on about the Far right at every possible moment without ever mentioning that the Far Left is now seriously preparing for Government.
Baby names: Is Muhammad the most popular?Yes it is, BBC. You stated Oliver but that was wrong and with this article you are trying to justify why you misled. All done in the interests of social cohesion, no doubt. Also why use a picture of Muhammad Ali? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-45638806
I am sure that Mohammed, however you spell it, is by far the most numerous in terms of any name specifically and knowingly chosen to reference an historical figure. When parents choose Paul very few are thinking of St Paul, but when parents choose Mohammed or its variants they are most definitely thinking of the historical personage, "the perfect man" according to their religion. I'm only surprised that there are so few Mohammeds. I think most male Muslim children may have the name somewhere in their naming. I know that in India the name order goes the other way (at least that was what an Indian colleague told me, when I noted his initials when the "wrong" way), so your surname comes first (logical enough)...are we sure there aren't thousands of "Mohammeds" being hidden because the parents use the traditional name ordering, so a seond or third name appears first and Mohammed appears to be the last name, but it is in fact the first?
The Attenborough comments stirred a vague memory about an organisation which he used to be associated with, possibly as its President. It's Voice of the Listener and Viewer (VLV). It was sharply critical of OFCOM terms of reference for a review of the BBC's Purpose 4 - guess what that is - and the lack of any mechanism for consultation with stakeholders, i.e. licence fee payers.The website has info about its conferences and speeches by the great and the good of BBC (Purnell, Clementi) and culture ministers or select committee MPs.Bloggers or commenters here may snort at both the candidate lists and the winners of recent VLV awards for broadcasting. Dare I mention programmes about fake news on BBC and Channel 4?http://www.vlv.org.uk/