Readers will know that Turner Prize winners are a fascination. This year's winner is no different to the recent trend:
Charlotte Prodger: … ‘Glasgow-based Prodger is nominated for two videos. One was shot on iPhones and named Bridgit after the Neolithic deity. The other traces a history of recent video formats and the artist's personal history. The jury praised her for "the nuanced way in which she deals with identity politics, particularly from a queer perspective”….
... 'Turner Prize 2018: iPhone artist Charlotte Prodger wins' ...
Will writes:
... 'Political concerns loom large' ... ... 'Bridgit is named after the Neolithic deity, while the other video in Prodger's winning exhibition is titled Stoneymollan Trail and traces a history of recent video formats and the artist's personal history.
For the first time in the prize's history, all four artists were nominated for films, and the shortlist was also regarded as the most political ever'...
All publicity seems to be about the person and their politics - not about the artistic endeavour. There is little to put in an exhibition that couldn't be matched by anyone.
Whatever happened to the Turner Prize? It has been absorbed by PC ideology aided by the BBC's fascination for identifiable artists - and not for the quality of their work.
Will Gompertz is essentially an ignoramus with no kind of academic qualifications or credentials as an expert on art. He was basically a marketing man at the Tate. He is the BBC Arts Editor. Could his friendships with Mark Thompson and Alan Yentob have anything to do with it? Surely not. He also writes for The Guardian. What a surprise.
Steve Hilton (speaking on Newsnight) is as always worth listening to. Blames Conservative Party for the problem not just May. Get rid of May...put in an effective Leaver. Postpone the date of departure.
Shame that he wasn't allowed to speak to camera but had to be interrupted by Virtue Signaller Maitlis.
Zurcher has clearly had his memory wiped in some sinister experiment conducted by an agent of SMERSH's successor - SOROS Secret Order of Revolutionary Old Socialists.
I picking up litting hints and dog whistles (to use a BBC phrase) that the Beebocracy is getting ready to dump May and start campaigning for Sajid Javid. He of course pushes all the right buttons for the PC Beebies: ethnic minority, non-Islamic Muslim (? well that's how he seems to put it), a Remainer, an ex banker and a globalist.
The hints are things like whingeing about how she doesn't listen, is not a communicator, doesn't work the crowd...anything but "has the most God-awful deal in history to sell".
Why is May hanging on? Difficult to say. Psychological issues probably. Plus she knows if she goes, the EU will definitely offer a different type of deal, and that will expose yet another of her lies - that her deal was absolutely the final deal on offer.
Bill Cash has a very good point about the legal advice - it is only the addendum on NI. Where is the rest of the advice? Why are our MPs generally so thick as not to realise this immediately, given they are supposed to be living and breathing Brexit? If Parliament needs the advice, then it needs the WHOLE of the advice - No. 10 are definitely hiding something.
Heard BBC's Europe correspondent Katya Adler again this morning on Radio 5 Live this morning - sounding quite hysterical as she pumped out the EU propaganda (unchallenged of course, this being the BBC).
Why is she sounding so hysterical? I suspect because she is about to be found out. Yesterday she had been categorical in stating that the EU would offer no changes on the deal. Now she is saying that they would only offer minor changes...which would be largely cosmetic...some such weasel words. So she's already moving on this, which shows I was right to denounce her reporting on this from yesterday as a bare-faced lie.
Adler didn't used to be so bad, but the closer we get to the crunch it seems the more partisan and pro-EU she appears, and in an unprofessional manner as well, with a far from neutral tone of voice (at least Sopel maintains a professional veneer while throwing poisoned darts at Trump). She has skin in the game for sure.
On all things, but especially Brexit, ex-Newsnight thugs Paul Mason and James O'Brien seem as one. So it is rather a hoot when the latter runs up against someone not prepared to back down, especially when it is Kay 'You can't say that' Burley.
The BBC constantly lectures us on the dangers of extremism and the radicalisation process (often achieved through the use of provocative video images) and the need to ensure a non-divisive, constrained discourse...
On that basis, how can they justify showing historic images on the premier news programme, News at Ten of Unionists in Northern Ireland, dating back some 40 years burning the Irish Tricolour...plus Ian Paisley booming "Never, never, never, never!". These images were not necessary to convey the news about the DUP's response to May's deal.
They were completely unnecessary and decontextualised.
They were, I believe intended to be incendiary - an attempt to get republicans out on the streets.
Or are we supposed to believe that a responsible public broadcaster doesn't realise the effect such images could have in the current crisis?
Does anyone think Craig and Sue are being held at the same secure re-education centre where the Mail and Express journalists were sent before they executed a 180 degree turn in their reporting? :) If we start seeing website posts here praising PC ideology and Palestinian resistance, we'll know what happened. :)
"He gazed up at the enormous face of John Simpson. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the white hair and the burqa. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two Aldi wine-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Auntie."
The BBC getting on their high horse about "hijinks" at Ted Baker...
But the BBC never did anything about the alleged arm-biting hijinks of one of their senior managers who then went off to be CEO at the New York Times company.
10 pm News- Vox pops from Mansfield: the vast majority of interviewees voted Leave & feel betrayed by May's Government. Strangely, they are, for the most part, intelligent and articulate. How can that be - it's against the natural order of things isn't it? No, not if you're watching Sky News instead of the BBC! The sets are less lavish & they don't have the Divine Sophie, but I'm watching Sky news increasingly often of late - better for my health!
Yes, Sky News is "resolutely Remainer" (think Adam Boulton and John Craig to name but two)...but they also seem to have some old fashioned idea that a news organisation should be tethered to reality rather than a wish-list.
Given the season of the year, let me introduce the HoHoHo scale. This stands for Helpful Or Harmful Observations Harmoniously Organised scale. It refers to the way a media organisation will create a co-ordinated mood effect through insertion of subjective comments into the narrative that can be either helpful or harmful to the target. The scale runs from plus 5 for extremely helpful to minus 5 for extremely harmful.
Currently as far as BBC is concerned May is at 3 to 4 on the HoHoHo scale.
What sort of language is the BBC using re May's "Abject Surrender Deal"
"Tory Rebels Reject Brexit Vote Compromise".
Compromise? Compromise suggests meeting someone half way or at least travelling a little closer, not chipping off a tiny sliver of stone from a piece of monumental masonry which otherwise is staying put. But the HoHoHo scale shows the BBC is trying to be helpful: a definite +5 there.
On Today, they intone that May is facing an "uphill struggle"...ah yes, uphill struggles are one of those kindly phrases. If it was Boris Johnson in a similar scenario it would be "a seemingly doomed attempt" or "plummets towards the final vote". So although the "uphill struggle" implies potential defeat, in a situation where defeat is as certain as anything can be in politics, it scores a +4 on the Ho3 scale.
Or how about this from Laura Kuennesbery: "Clearly, to try to get some angry Brexiteers to change their minds, the PM is trying to give a sense that they might have more of a say." Oh, those nasty "angry" (suggesting unpleasantly irrational) Brexiteers (itself a phrase used to imply cavalier disregard for reality)refuse to be sensible despite the PM kindly offering them a say. Yep a definite +5 on the Ho3 scale for May that is. Later the internal opposition to May are described as "grumpy MPs"...ah yes, children and irascible old men can be "grumpy"...so that's a +3 for May on the Ho3 scale. Then there's Chris "Mr Reality" Morris opining on the backstop (which, incidentally, the BBC is helpfully trying to get us to think of as a "safey net" - May missed a trcik there): "It is a carefully crafted fudge, in other words, with which no-one is entirely happy." Where is the evidence the EU are not happy with the backstop. I see no evidence. They can hardly stop smirking about it, since it is the equivalent of an ace in the supposedly forthcoming trade negotiations. But it's helpful to May to make out that the EU are equally unhappy with this "compromise" on the backstop...so +3 on the Ho3 scale.
By using this highly scientific measure (by BBC standards) we can reverse engineer the BBC's whole set of policy positions on all subjects. I hope my fellow Beebologists find it a useful addition to our growing store of knowledge, one that will further illuminate the structure of the Bias Taxonomy.
Another good post MB. ..."Tory Rebels Reject Brexit Vote Compromise". ... This is a typical example of the BBC's distortion of the truth. Bill Cash is a most unlikely 'Rebel'. I would describe him as a serious-minded pragmatist with a long-standing distrust of the EU. The questions he asks in Parliament are concise and searching - hardly the mindset of a 'Rebel'.
Yes, I've been rather impressed by Bill Cash's interventions. Another telling one was his question this week about where the hell is all the other legal advice on the Withdrawal Agreement. If MPs need the advice on the Backstop they need the advice on all other aspects of the agreement, especially since the Backstop links into those.
The fact that MPs have not assisted on all the advice shows that they are simply not serious about taking on executive responsibility for the implementation of Brexit.
Last night's Question Time isn't on iPlayer yet but Guido has a splendid video clip in which Charles Moore points out that the only Leave supporter is outnumbered 4:1 & that this is a regular occurrence. Applause from a large section of audience & Dimbleby most indignant - flushed even!
Moore at least is learning from Lilley and Mogg as they have learned from Trump: "Don't hold the thread for them while they stitch you up."
Jill Rutter is beneath contempt, trying to make out she's neutral (ex BP, ex Treasury) and her Remainer views are irrelevant to her "Institute of Government" work - the board is headed up by arch Remainer Salisbury and packed full of pro-EU Blairite types.
Traditionally, together with the Labour Party, the BBC have always atacked privilege, wealth, education etc of Conservatives under the banner of the 'Nasty Tory'.
I detect a change recently whereby the BBC have switched this anti Tory vitriol towards the 'Rebel' MPs - they are the Brexiteers within the Conservative Party.
In the BBC world, it might be supposed that the pent-up hostility towards privilege etc can be utilised to isolate the Brexiteers, and help carry the day for Theres May.
Yes, expect the BBC Comedy Batallion to go over the top in a frontal assault on the "Tory Brexiteers" (Brexiteer must be said with a sneer, remember). Hislop is probably practising his "Ain't I funny" screwed-up face as we speak, while he reads through the script written by 26 politically correct anti-humourists,
The pro May Withdrawal Agreement Conservatives such as Hammond, Ledsom, Hunt, Gove etc can now be redefined as not really Tories in the 'Nasty Tories' style. They are portrayed in the same way as Blair's New Labour. With the implosion of UKIP despite the firm qualities of Batten, now is the time for Boris to step up.
Arthur - "privilege, wealth etc." - Yes, they are, however, unconcerned about their own considerable wealth, extorted from a reluctant public!
MB - Like the idea of little Mr Hislop fixing sneer prior to going over the top! Remember the episode of the first Blackadder series in which Peter Cook plays the Richard III/Larry Olivier character? He looks down the banqueting table to where Blackadder is gurning/ clowning around and, with utter contempt, spits out the words, "What a little Turd!" I don't know what made me think of that...
Very important wide ranging interview with Boris about Brexit and the Conservative leadership...surely newsworthy. Guido has it...but nothing I can see on the BBC's Politics page. But they have got a puff piece for Sam Gyimah on his views - uncritical, big smiling photo. Will Boris get the same treatment? :)
Peter - Suspect I may have said this before, possibly elsewhere, but never mind: it's going to be fun in the run-up to the next election when the temporary truce with the Tories is ended & the Government which has allowed the Beeb a free hand tries to get both genie & cork back into the bottle! Apologies if I'm rambling!
To return to QT, it was funny to see the anger/righteous indignation on Dimbleby's face - I think that, like John Simpson, he genuinely believes he, and the Beeb, are impartial. We must disabuse them more often!
The whole ethos of QT is wrong. An affront to democracy ... in my view. Elected representatives are belittled by being put on the same level as hacks, rap artists and "comedians".
The symbolism and structure is to show that the "real truth" and the power lies with the BBC, embodied by the form of Dimbelby.
How dare Moore challenge this, like an insolent schoolboy to the headmaster!
I don’t think anyone comes out of QT well, including the politicians. There is no real debate, just soundbites and political mud slinging. The whole exercise is little more than a vanity project for the BBC.
Talking of the Dimblebots...Just heard a bit (that's all anyone with any common can take). The Other Dimbleby is even more interventionist a chairman than Dimbleby the Elder. James Cleverly (who certainly sounds like he could do it if he wished) should fix him with a level stare and say "Excuse me, I was speaking and you have rudely interrupted me. I thought you were here to chair the discussion not to commandeer it for your own purposes. "
The Younder and More Idiotic Dimbleby also try to big up Bronwen Maddox from the BBC's fave think tank, the so called "Institute of Government" (actually a mad pro-EU Remainiac Blairite front organisation funded by Lord Sainsbury). He claimed she could give us an objective view on Brexit! Laughable. Educated at two private schools, an Oxford graduate, ex City investment analyst, ex Financial Times and Times...and now working for Lord Sainsbury. Really - can there be any doubt she views the issues as an instinctive Remainer. I checked and found, of course, she was a full on Remainer, one who typically gave no weight to the Leave arguments at all:
Newsnight- (Debate at end of programme) Campbell & the woman from the Times - didn't catch her name - bickering about what should be on the ballot paper in the event of a 2nd referendum. She firmly believes that 'No Deal' should not be on the paper because -err people might vote for it & that would be a disaster!
Emily, trotting ineffectually up & down the touch line & forgetting to ask,'Who are YOU to decide what should or should not be on the ballot paper?' The breathtaking arrogance of our so-called 'élite'!
Well, I have never had any real fear of a genuine second referendum. But that's the problem - we all know it woould never be a genuine second referendum if it happens...
The question on the ballot paper itself would inevitably be skewed towards Remain by the corrupt pro-Remain Electoral Commission. They will do whatever Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell tell them to.
It would be a referendum on May's Bogus Brexit Deal (aka "Abject Surrender Document")or Remain/May's Deal v. No Deal and with a fraudulent electoral roll including 16 year olds and yet more millions of non UK citizens to add to the millions allowed to vote in our (not their) referendum back in 2016.
Moreover the campaign will be conducted in a media environment where even the Mail and Express have deserted the Brexit cause (obviously as a result of financial machinations by pro-Remain elements) and the BBC feels free of all restraint on its pro-EU bias. So it will be a 90% anti-Brexit media environment.
Despite all that, I still reckon we would vote to Leave if there was a clear, simple "Leave" option. While it's true that - as the Remainiacs keep reminding us - many hundreds of thousands of 2016 Brexit voters are now dead, I think many hundreds of thousands of Remain voters have had their eyes opened over the last couple of years about the nature of the EU - their dishonesty and refusal to negotiate in a friendly and open way. BTW - don't believe the polls on Leave sentiment - we know from previous experience they are nearly all corrupt.
Also, let me share this...Someone visiting the Soviet Union in the early 70s was told - "look at all these old people in the Churches...this shows religion is dying out under Communism"...The reporter (clearly not a BBC type) then thought about that claim...these "old" people in the Churches had all been educated under Stalinism...under a strictly atheistic culture...and here they were still going to Church - despite all the state-sanctioned penalties that church-going involved.
At that moment the said reporter realised Communism was doomed.
I think of that when I hear the Remainiacs describe with glee how Brexiters are dying off. A 75 year old who dies now would have been 32 in 1975. A 65 year old would have been 22. Even an 85 year old would have been a mere 42 year old.
There were 8 million people who voted to leave back in 1975. Surely most of those must have been coming from the older population of that era who looked back on Empire and Commonwealth ties with countries like Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.
So when you think about it, most - probably a very large majority - of the "dying Brexiters" were in fact pro-EU back in 1975. They were clearly sympathetic to the vision of European unity and the EU should have been able to win them over to the cause on a permanent basis (even thought in 1975 there was no plan to create a superstate).
The reality is that the EU propagandists failed to convince them.
So the parallel with the Soviet Union is that these "dying Brexiters" are people who have lived through decades of pro-EU indoctrination and who, whatever they thought in their youth, have became strong supporters of Leave.
I believe there's a lot of "churn" in the voting. Ordinary people have a lot of common sense and are far less susceptible to indoctrination than the Guardian and the BBC would like. They may be swayed by received wisdom in their youth but by early middle age they will be making their own judgments based on lived experience.
"there was no plan to create a superstate" I should have said "there was no DECLARED plan to create a superstate". (Whereas now only a Ken Clarke could deny there was an obvious and declared plan to create a superstate.)
I can't imagine it matches the Christian travel market. So Christians must on BBC logic take precedence. What are we doing to make holidays more Jesus-centred?
Sisyphus - your Newsnight exchange was noted across social media for Mr. Campbell's traditional winning ways, and the poor chairwoman's total inability to, well, chair. No wonder FiBu got QT.
Here's the BBC analysing their own belly button fluff:
I thought the bloke between them was the chair, although his part seemed to be looking helplessly from one to the other. I wasn't aware there was a fourth party! Of course this is thanks to the bizarre deployment of BBC cameras.
BBC seems to be perfecting the art of "bias by bogus question"...
"Why are we mad about Michelle Obama?"
"Michelle Obama: What's behind the former first lady's appeal?"
Er...we're not and there is none.
I would imagine that 98% of the population don't give Michelle Obama from one month to the next. They are either indifferent to her or if they think about her, the majority probably find her over the top, insincere and uninspiring. She is not the talk of Dumfries or Dorchester or Dundonald or Denbigh.
But of course that's in reality...the BBC live in PC Land.
I just wish she would stay in America and stop bothering us, fawning over the Royals, meddling in our schools, making money out of poor people for overpriced events and self-promoting book and using us for her social climbing.
Amber Rudd is scoring +5 on the Ho3 index (see above)...as she floats Plan B.
So the BBC no longer accepts collective Cabinet responsibility. The "Amber Liquid" Rudd previously married to serious alcoholic AA Gill is supposed to be a member of a Cabinet that has declared the May deal (aka Abject Surrender Document) to be the only deal on offer, with the PM making absolutely clear there is no Plan B. Now the despicable Rudd claims there is an alternative, but is not prepared to sign up to collective Cabinet responsibility. We've seen that other untrustworthy individual Javid try and slime his self away from collective Cabinet responsibility.
If you don't agree with a Cabinet policy, you are supposed to resign if you feel that strongly about it.
What's to become of our constitution if the BBC is determined to rip it to shreds?
Look at the sort of 'leading' people who are left, Rudd and Javid being but two examples, even if May goes, to realise what a shower our current politicians are, and that's without even contemplating what's on the opposition bench. No matter if we had another referendum, or yet another election (we'd be on a rate of one every two years), what else would be get but a similar shower of weak and shifty second raters? Lib Dems by another name, most of them anyway.
I like Mark Francois's guts but he isn't exactly the Field Marshal type.
Meanwhile, May, Rudd, Gove, Leadsom and all the rest of the treacherous clan spread their lying poison. We know now that the idea that there is no Plan B is preposterous. Rudd has effectively told us that May is lying. But our supine media will not move against May. This is the difference from only a year ago and shows how clever the Globalists were to neutralise the Mail and Express titles - it makes a real difference in a crisis like this that no tabloid will move against May.
The patriots in the Conservative Party need to act. All Conservatives now have nothing to lose but their seats.
It is May who is leading them to Armageddon 2019. May is either a complete nutjob or the most duplicitous individual ever to hold the office of PM bar none.
Rare bouquet for a BBC prog. Dead Ringers was actually fairly balanced I think...from what I heard. Yes they had fun at BoJo's expense but also at Corbyn's expense and even more so at May's expense. And they actually raised the possibility - not raised anywhere else on the BBC that May is possibly seriously deranged. It is possible for someone to be a PM and appear in command while being seriously deranged. There was a Canadian PM (Menzies???) who used to see things in his shaving foam and talk to them. He was a respected Commonwealth leader. :)
There is another possible outcome of Theresa May's Withdrawal Agreement in which the UK becomes tied to the hulk of a failing EU. After witnessing the reluctance of the EU to let the UK from their grasp, any other EU member country from now on seeking to follow their own exit will simply walk away. They won't hang around to be humiliated. Ultimately, the UK could find itself propping up the failing EU without any legal means of avoidance.
Peter be careful of 2+2=5 thinking There is no conspiracy, cos BBCFeedback just always follow someone who tweet them.
Of course I never listen to the ridiculously biased prog anymore. But if you search Twitter under feedbacks account name say on Friday morning, you can spot them contacting people as they try to build their narratives for that weeks show.
Always where the bottom of the barrel was for BBC 'news' scraping. Well, it is surely well and truly well above this: **** Newsbeat 36 mins · This Derby couple live with pet pigs and they're worrried a no-deal Brexit could mean they'd have to leave them behind when they emigrate. ****
What makes the news bulletin sometimes makes one wonder. Yesterday on Radio 4 one of the items in the news bulletin on the hour was that a tea plantation in India had acquired a female boss, the first ever, apparently. Gosh.
It no longer makes me wonder. It’s a simple tick list exercise. It has to fit the BBCs liberal worldview and PC agenda which they are trying to ram down our throats.
According to the BBC local London website there was no pro-Brexit demo on Sunday involving thousands of people. There is a passing reference under travel news to a "United Against Fascism" demo.
I think people need to understand Gerard Batten is a very impressive political leader:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KO1OZKLPXs
He seems to have a very firm grasp of what is required of a democratic leader. We need our leaders to understand the dangers that lie ahead and also the opportunities.
It seems to me that Batten has a firm take on the Sharia danger and also the EU danger. Farage is good on the latter and pathetic on the former.
Just heard on the 9 am R4 News a mention of the UN Migration Pact being set for signature and a comment that a "right wing" party in Belgium has resigned from the Belgium Government in protest.
My "BBC bias" antennae immediately glowed .... a quick Google search shows that whole countries as different as Chile, Australia and Bulgaria have refused!
Where is Gina Miller? I thought Gina Miller was a principled person whose only concern is that Parliament should make the decisions on matters of fundamental constitutional interest. It doesn't get more fundamental I would suggest than deciding who can become a citizen of our country. It seems that power is being taken out of the hands of Parliament by treaty. The silence on all this from the BBC and the rest of the UK MSM has been truly deafening.
I was away for the weekend & accidentally deprived myself of wi-fi, so thanks, Peter for the up-date on the social media response to the Alistair Campbell/Jenni Russell squabble on Newsnight.
What I did not miss, though, was what was going on opposite Worcester Cathedral at about 4.15 on Saturday: having eaten a well-lubricated lunch, my wife & I returned to our hotel for a quick snooze. We had barely zizzed our first zeds when a commotion began outside: a quick peek through the curtains revealed a large yellow bus, bearing the legend:"Bollocks to Brexit," and a group of 15-20 people standing alongside it chanting the slogan. If the BBC reported this, it probably said a crowd of 100,000, so I repeat: THERE WERE 15-20 PEOPLE.
Two questions come to mind: who is funding this? and at whom is it targeted? I just had a look on-line & the organisers claim to be 'crowd-funded.' So, which crowd? Is there an EU slush-fund or is it Soros or Bilderberg types? The BBC is very keen on investigating the funding of referendum campaigners so no doubt we can expect a special edition of Panorama soon!
The target age-group appeared to be about 15 or 16 - have they been tipped off that there is to be a second referendum & a lower age-limit of 16?
I came in at the end of the Campbell-Russell ding-dong...She signed off with "If there is a second referedum then the choice has to be between May's deal and Remain otherwise the people might make the wrong decision again." Not verbatim as I don't have a record of it but that was what she was "in terms" (as the lawyers say).
3 years ago, commentators simply wouldn't have thought they could get away with saying that sort of thing in a supposedly democratic country. They would have been nervous they might never get another invite back on. But now our political class seem quite brazen about declaring their hatred of the stupid British people.
It is very instructive the way the UK MSM, led by the BBC of course, are avoiding any challenging of "May's many lies".
The most recent whopper has been of course her claim that this is "the only deal" on offer from the EU...but now, just a few days later her lieutentants make there are other potential deals on offer, from EEA membership, to Norway Plus to further tinkering with her deal. So she was telling a complete lie. She didn't have to, she could have said "This is the best deal that anyone could negotiate because A, B and C") but, no, May resorted to the Lying Dodge.
Why don't the media challenge her directly on all lies, starting with her lie that she would not call a general election, then her lying that David Davis was conducting negotiations which he wasn't, then the falsehoods contained in the Lancaster House declaration, followed by the lies that the EU is just as unhappy as the UK with the backstop, when all the statements from EU leaders show this not to be true? Because they have made a collective decision to protect her, for the bigger cause.
As a thought experiment, imagine if Jon Sopel or Nick Bryant were reporting on all these lies and deceptions wearing their "Trump glasses". They would be excoriating and relentless in their condemnation of such deceit designed to bamboozle public, parliament and party colleagues. But when it comes to May? Virtual silence from the BBC - indeed a lot more sympathy and understanding than criticism and condemnation. Just confirms that for the BBC there are no universal standards, only universal policies and it is those policies that determine how political leaders are treated.
BBC Reality Check's slow descent into madness continues...
Not content with just asking fatuous questions and providing bogus "answers" to those fatuous questions, it now seems to want to ask another fatuous question at the end of the alleged "reality check" thus creating a daisy chain effect...presumably the next article will attempt to answer that fatuous question.
The next lie? She claims they are seeking only reassurances from the EU about the Backstop...but it is clearly a renegotiation. Managed expectations...the EU will buckle on this, and offer something substantive - probably not a huge concession but more than a "reassurance".
So this is May's latest lie as she conspires with the EU to come up with something to fool enough of her MPs and enough Labour MPs to get across the line.
It may work. The result of EU consultation will be 'concessions on the Irish border question' which, even though the question doesn't actually exist, will chivvy the back benchers into relinquishing their, 'moral objections'.
It really is quite clever what they've done. When this is all reverse engineered, people will gasp at the beauty of the inedible poo-pie they made.
Yet still nothing will be written about The City Of London and why Brexit could not happen.
Or that EU military unification has been continuing apace for the last two years, (see UK Column News) or that there's been no coverage at all of the fact that Theresa's off to Marrakesh soon.
It's also quite clever not concluding the trade deal yet - that will allow them to effectively reinstate free movement, without any possibility of blowback from MPs or the public.
Did you see the video of armoured cars with EU flag logos on them attacking people in Paris? Well...I didn't see it on the BBC of course.
Marakesh? is that where they are signing the UN MIgration Pact?
This article is from an uber lefty site - Off Guardian - which is frequented by people who were too genuinely left for the Guardian when Viner took over. The site is read by well informed and disaffected lefties.
The reason I'm posting this is that it's becoming clear that with some issues, the wafer between left and right is disolving to such an extent that certain topics no longer really have a wing.
The BBC is pretending to be a bit mystified as to what's happening in France. They haven't reported on the spread to Belgium and The Netherlands. They also haven't reported that the protests in France have been overwhelmingly peaceful and supported by local police.
Why does the BBC persist in propagating the myth tha post-Referendum Britain is a place of uniquely hateful politics? We have no fascist parties and no (avowed) communists represented in Parliament or even controlling a local council. The EU mainland is awash with fascist, racist, Far Right and Communist parties.
Why does the BBC persist in undermining democracy, whether it's the Brexit vote or Orban winning a fourth term with a huge majority that would be the envy of most democratic politicians? They just don't seem to get it. As with Free Speech, where you have to allow voices you disapprove of the right to be heard, so with democracy, you simply have to accept that democracy will turn up results you don't like.
The point about both democracy and free speech is that there are rules to the game. As long as participants accept those rules (free and fair elections, no incitement to violence, acceptance of electoral defeat etc etc) then we have to accept that not everyone who speaks or gets elected will be to our liking...so what?
And as I have said before, so called "moderates" like Theresa May, Stella Creasy, Chukka Umuna and David Lammy are actually dangerous extremists when it comes to free speech and democracy: they actually want to prevent free speech and turn democracy into licensed voting.
I think Ozfan's post below pretty much answers your (rhetorical) question. The BBC has a list of scenarios that reflect a perfect world, and employs people who approve of that list. From that point everything relates to the list and is either white hat or black hat.
Stark insight to Beeboid thinking from Evan lats night on PM. He was interviewing a Dutch supporter of the Yellow Vests. He was clearly struggling "to get a handle " on the interview.
So he hummed and haahed for a bit then sotto voce said oh it's hard for people in UK to understand where you are on the political spectrum. What he obviously meant it was hard for Beeboids to label you (are you far right was the implication). So continued Evan, I will ask you three questions .... they were: - Trump or Obama? - Same sex marriage , yes or no? - Abortion, yes or no?
So there we have the defining issues for Beeboids on whether you are with us or against us.
About Craig and Sue - MB was worried that 'Out of Office' might mean that they had been packed off to a re-education centre for a spot of brain-washing (6 December at 22.18). I just stumbled across Craig's reply, which many of us will have missed because it was posted 3 days later. It's worth reading, and reassuring...in a way!
Good to know Craig is at peace with Auntie and will not have to undergo whatever is the equivalent of the rat cage now (being forced to watch back-to-back BBC Breakfast and One Shows interspersed with interventions from the chair by David Dimbleby and silent shots of Evan Davis gurning?? - well that would be my breaking point!).
Laura was trying to tell me the mood had "darkened" with threatens to May's leadership, using her best scare-the-kiddies Halloween intonation...I'm thinking - "No, Laura, BRIGHTENED. Liberation beckons."
PAINTERLY QUALITIES
ReplyDeleteReaders will know that Turner Prize winners are a fascination. This year's winner is no different to the recent trend:
Charlotte Prodger: … ‘Glasgow-based Prodger is nominated for two videos. One was shot on iPhones and named Bridgit after the Neolithic deity. The other traces a history of recent video formats and the artist's personal history. The jury praised her for "the nuanced way in which she deals with identity politics, particularly from a queer perspective”….
See Will Gompertz's article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-46438680
... 'Turner Prize 2018: iPhone artist Charlotte Prodger wins' ...
Will writes:
... 'Political concerns loom large' ...
... 'Bridgit is named after the Neolithic deity, while the other video in Prodger's winning exhibition is titled Stoneymollan Trail and traces a history of recent video formats and the artist's personal history.
For the first time in the prize's history, all four artists were nominated for films, and the shortlist was also regarded as the most political ever'...
All publicity seems to be about the person and their politics - not about the artistic endeavour. There is little to put in an exhibition that couldn't be matched by anyone.
Whatever happened to the Turner Prize? It has been absorbed by PC ideology aided by the BBC's fascination for identifiable artists - and not for the quality of
their work.
Will Gompertz is essentially an ignoramus with no kind of academic qualifications or credentials as an expert on art. He was basically a marketing man at the Tate. He is the BBC Arts Editor. Could his friendships with Mark Thompson and Alan Yentob have anything to do with it? Surely not.
DeleteHe also writes for The Guardian. What a surprise.
Steve Hilton (speaking on Newsnight) is as always worth listening to. Blames Conservative Party for the problem not just May. Get rid of May...put in an effective Leaver. Postpone the date of departure.
ReplyDeleteShame that he wasn't allowed to speak to camera but had to be interrupted by Virtue Signaller Maitlis.
Did you think you were in the Open Thread? I sometimes make that mistake.
ReplyDeleteWhen is an Out of Office thread an Open Thread? Discuss.
DeleteI never knew that Anthony Zurcher loved the Bushes so much - till I saw his 500 tweets lauding the dynasty.
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/awzurcher?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
The BBC, Zurcher, indeed just about everyone seems to have forgotten that Bush Senior was a CIA Director.
Or that he was Reagan's Vice President when he played nuclear war chicken with the Soviet Union.
Or that he led the USA into the First Gulf War - the first major engagement in the Middle East, in wars that led to millions of deaths.
Or that he was in Dallas on the day Kennedy was assassinated.
Or that he couldn't remember where he was on the day Kennedy died (whoops!).
Or that his Daddy (a Senator - this dynasty is long-lived) was helping out Hitler in the run up to WW2.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
Zurcher has clearly had his memory wiped in some sinister experiment conducted by an agent of SMERSH's successor - SOROS Secret Order of Revolutionary Old Socialists.
I picking up litting hints and dog whistles (to use a BBC phrase) that the Beebocracy is getting ready to dump May and start campaigning for Sajid Javid. He of course pushes all the right buttons for the PC Beebies: ethnic minority, non-Islamic Muslim (? well that's how he seems to put it), a Remainer, an ex banker and a globalist.
ReplyDeleteThe hints are things like whingeing about how she doesn't listen, is not a communicator, doesn't work the crowd...anything but "has the most God-awful deal in history to sell".
Why is May hanging on? Difficult to say. Psychological issues probably. Plus she knows if she goes, the EU will definitely offer a different type of deal, and that will expose yet another of her lies - that her deal was absolutely the final deal on offer.
Bill Cash has a very good point about the legal advice - it is only the addendum on NI. Where is the rest of the advice? Why are our MPs generally so thick as not to realise this immediately, given they are supposed to be living and breathing Brexit? If Parliament needs the advice, then it needs the WHOLE of the advice - No. 10 are definitely hiding something.
Heard BBC's Europe correspondent Katya Adler again this morning on Radio 5 Live this morning - sounding quite hysterical as she pumped out the EU propaganda (unchallenged of course, this being the BBC).
ReplyDeleteWhy is she sounding so hysterical? I suspect because she is about to be found out. Yesterday she had been categorical in stating that the EU would offer no changes on the deal. Now she is saying that they would only offer minor changes...which would be largely cosmetic...some such weasel words. So she's already moving on this, which shows I was right to denounce her reporting on this from yesterday as a bare-faced lie.
Adler didn't used to be so bad, but the closer we get to the crunch it seems the more partisan and pro-EU she appears, and in an unprofessional manner as well, with a far from neutral tone of voice (at least Sopel maintains a professional veneer while throwing poisoned darts at Trump). She has skin in the game for sure.
On all things, but especially Brexit, ex-Newsnight thugs Paul Mason and James O'Brien seem as one. So it is rather a hoot when the latter runs up against someone not prepared to back down, especially when it is Kay 'You can't say that' Burley.
ReplyDeleteBlowback
Savour away.
I thought Remainers were concerned about polite discourse...it seems not.
DeleteThe BBC constantly lectures us on the dangers of extremism and the radicalisation process (often achieved through the use of provocative video images) and the need to ensure a non-divisive, constrained discourse...
ReplyDeleteOn that basis, how can they justify showing historic images on the premier news programme, News at Ten of Unionists in Northern Ireland, dating back some 40 years burning the Irish Tricolour...plus Ian Paisley booming "Never, never, never, never!". These images were not necessary to convey the news about the DUP's response to May's deal.
They were completely unnecessary and decontextualised.
They were, I believe intended to be incendiary - an attempt to get republicans out on the streets.
Or are we supposed to believe that a responsible public broadcaster doesn't realise the effect such images could have in the current crisis?
Does anyone think Craig and Sue are being held at the same secure re-education centre where the Mail and Express journalists were sent before they executed a 180 degree turn in their reporting? :) If we start seeing website posts here praising PC ideology and Palestinian resistance, we'll know what happened. :)
ReplyDelete"He gazed up at the enormous face of John Simpson. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the white hair and the burqa. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two Aldi wine-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Auntie."
DeleteThe BBC getting on their high horse about "hijinks" at Ted Baker...
ReplyDeleteBut the BBC never did anything about the alleged arm-biting hijinks of one of their senior managers who then went off to be CEO at the New York Times company.
Good letter from the impressive Gerard Batten.
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/GerardBattenMEP/status/1070711181457924096/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1070711181457924096&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fbiasedbbc.org%2Fblog%2F2018%2F12%2F02%2Fstart-the-week-open-thread-3-december-2018%2Fcomment-page-4%2F%23comments
10 pm News- Vox pops from Mansfield: the vast majority of interviewees voted Leave & feel betrayed by May's Government. Strangely, they are, for the most part, intelligent and articulate. How can that be - it's against the natural order of things isn't it? No, not if you're watching Sky News instead of the BBC! The sets are less lavish & they don't have the Divine Sophie, but I'm watching Sky news increasingly often of late - better for my health!
ReplyDeleteYes, Sky News is "resolutely Remainer" (think Adam Boulton and John Craig to name but two)...but they also seem to have some old fashioned idea that a news organisation should be tethered to reality rather than a wish-list.
DeleteMust be some of that journalistic integrity stuff - that the Been no longer has!
DeleteGiven the season of the year, let me introduce the HoHoHo scale. This stands for Helpful Or Harmful Observations Harmoniously Organised scale. It refers to the way a media organisation will create a co-ordinated mood effect through insertion of subjective comments into the narrative that can be either helpful or harmful to the target. The scale runs from plus 5 for extremely helpful to minus 5 for extremely harmful.
ReplyDeleteCurrently as far as BBC is concerned May is at 3 to 4 on the HoHoHo scale.
What sort of language is the BBC using re May's "Abject Surrender Deal"
"Tory Rebels Reject Brexit Vote Compromise".
Compromise? Compromise suggests meeting someone half way or at least travelling a little closer, not chipping off a tiny sliver of stone from a piece of monumental masonry which otherwise is staying put. But the HoHoHo scale shows the BBC is trying to be helpful: a definite +5 there.
On Today, they intone that May is facing an "uphill struggle"...ah yes, uphill struggles are one of those kindly phrases. If it was Boris Johnson in a similar scenario it would be "a seemingly doomed attempt" or "plummets towards the final vote". So although the "uphill struggle" implies potential defeat, in a situation where defeat is as certain as anything can be in politics, it scores a +4 on the Ho3 scale.
Or how about this from Laura Kuennesbery: "Clearly, to try to get some angry Brexiteers to change their minds, the PM is trying to give a sense that they might have more of a say." Oh, those nasty "angry" (suggesting unpleasantly irrational) Brexiteers (itself a phrase used to imply cavalier disregard for reality)refuse to be sensible despite the PM kindly offering them a say. Yep a definite +5 on the Ho3 scale for May that is. Later the internal opposition to May are described as "grumpy MPs"...ah yes, children and irascible old men can be "grumpy"...so that's a +3 for May on the Ho3 scale.
Then there's Chris "Mr Reality" Morris opining on the backstop (which, incidentally, the BBC is helpfully trying to get us to think of as a "safey net" - May missed a trcik there): "It is a carefully crafted fudge, in other words, with which no-one is entirely happy." Where is the evidence the EU are not happy with the backstop. I see no evidence. They can hardly stop smirking about it, since it is the equivalent of an ace in the supposedly forthcoming trade negotiations. But it's helpful to May to make out that the EU are equally unhappy with this "compromise" on the backstop...so +3 on the Ho3 scale.
By using this highly scientific measure (by BBC standards) we can reverse engineer the BBC's whole set of policy positions on all subjects. I hope my fellow Beebologists find it a useful addition to our growing store of knowledge, one that will further illuminate the structure of the Bias Taxonomy.
Another good post MB. ..."Tory Rebels Reject Brexit Vote Compromise". ... This is a typical example of the BBC's distortion of the truth. Bill Cash is a most unlikely 'Rebel'. I would describe him as a serious-minded pragmatist with a long-standing distrust of the EU. The questions he asks in Parliament are concise and searching - hardly the mindset of a 'Rebel'.
DeleteYes, I've been rather impressed by Bill Cash's interventions. Another telling one was his question this week about where the hell is all the other legal advice on the Withdrawal Agreement. If MPs need the advice on the Backstop they need the advice on all other aspects of the agreement, especially since the Backstop links into those.
DeleteThe fact that MPs have not assisted on all the advice shows that they are simply not serious about taking on executive responsibility for the implementation of Brexit.
Last night's Question Time isn't on iPlayer yet but Guido has a splendid video clip in which Charles Moore points out that the only Leave supporter is outnumbered 4:1 & that this is a regular occurrence. Applause from a large section of audience & Dimbleby most indignant - flushed even!
ReplyDeleteMore people should be challenging the bias!
DeleteMoore at least is learning from Lilley and Mogg as they have learned from Trump: "Don't hold the thread for them while they stitch you up."
DeleteJill Rutter is beneath contempt, trying to make out she's neutral (ex BP, ex Treasury) and her Remainer views are irrelevant to her "Institute of Government" work - the board is headed up by arch Remainer Salisbury and packed full of pro-EU Blairite types.
Traditionally, together with the Labour Party, the BBC have always atacked privilege, wealth, education etc of Conservatives under the banner of the 'Nasty Tory'.
ReplyDeleteI detect a change recently whereby the BBC have switched this anti Tory vitriol towards the 'Rebel' MPs - they are the Brexiteers within the Conservative Party.
In the BBC world, it might be supposed that the pent-up hostility towards privilege etc can be utilised to isolate the Brexiteers, and help carry the day for Theres May.
Yes, expect the BBC Comedy Batallion to go over the top in a frontal assault on the "Tory Brexiteers" (Brexiteer must be said with a sneer, remember). Hislop is probably practising his "Ain't I funny" screwed-up face as we speak, while he reads through the script written by 26 politically correct anti-humourists,
DeleteThe pro May Withdrawal Agreement Conservatives such as Hammond, Ledsom, Hunt, Gove etc can now be redefined as not really Tories in the 'Nasty Tories' style. They are portrayed in the same way as Blair's New Labour. With the implosion of UKIP despite the firm qualities of Batten, now is the time for Boris to step up.
DeleteArthur - "privilege, wealth etc." - Yes, they are, however, unconcerned about their own considerable wealth, extorted from a reluctant public!
DeleteMB - Like the idea of little Mr Hislop fixing sneer prior to going over the top! Remember the episode of the first Blackadder series in which Peter Cook plays the Richard III/Larry Olivier character? He looks down the banqueting table to where Blackadder is gurning/ clowning around and, with utter contempt, spits out the words, "What a little Turd!" I don't know what made me think of that...
Very important wide ranging interview with Boris about Brexit and the Conservative leadership...surely newsworthy. Guido has it...but nothing I can see on the BBC's Politics page. But they have got a puff piece for Sam Gyimah on his views - uncritical, big smiling photo. Will Boris get the same treatment? :)
ReplyDeletehttps://www.conservativehome.com/highlights/2018/12/as-defeat-looms-for-may-johnson-sketches-out-a-manifesto-people-want-to-see-a-bit-of-gumption-and-a-bit-of-leadership.html
Sisyphus - the BBC has clearly twigged the it can get away with it no matter what, as often as they wish.
ReplyDeleteHow dare she
Also love how the media and fellow parliamentarians are not going near just what the qualifications are to get in that fetid House.
Peter - Suspect I may have said this before, possibly elsewhere, but never mind: it's going to be fun in the run-up to the next election when the temporary truce with the Tories is ended & the Government which has allowed the Beeb a free hand tries to get both genie & cork back into the bottle! Apologies if I'm rambling!
DeleteTo return to QT, it was funny to see the anger/righteous indignation on Dimbleby's face - I think that, like John Simpson, he genuinely believes he, and the Beeb, are impartial. We must disabuse them more often!
The whole ethos of QT is wrong. An affront to democracy ... in my view. Elected representatives are belittled by being put on the same level as hacks, rap artists and "comedians".
DeleteThe symbolism and structure is to show that the "real truth" and the power lies with the BBC, embodied by the form of Dimbelby.
How dare Moore challenge this, like an insolent schoolboy to the headmaster!
It's a truly disgusting program.
I don’t think anyone comes out of QT well, including the politicians. There is no real debate, just soundbites and political mud slinging. The whole exercise is little more than a vanity project for the BBC.
DeleteTalking of the Dimblebots...Just heard a bit (that's all anyone with any common can take). The Other Dimbleby is even more interventionist a chairman than Dimbleby the Elder. James Cleverly (who certainly sounds like he could do it if he wished) should fix him with a level stare and say "Excuse me, I was speaking and you have rudely interrupted me. I thought you were here to chair the discussion not to commandeer it for your own purposes. "
ReplyDeleteThe Younder and More Idiotic Dimbleby also try to big up Bronwen Maddox from the BBC's fave think tank, the so called "Institute of Government" (actually a mad pro-EU Remainiac Blairite front organisation funded by Lord Sainsbury). He claimed she could give us an objective view on Brexit! Laughable. Educated at two private schools, an Oxford graduate, ex City investment analyst, ex Financial Times and Times...and now working for Lord Sainsbury. Really - can there be any doubt she views the issues as an instinctive Remainer. I checked and found, of course, she was a full on Remainer, one who typically gave no weight to the Leave arguments at all:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/in-the-case-for-europe-referendum-eu-brexit-immigration
Newsnight- (Debate at end of programme) Campbell & the woman from the Times - didn't catch her name - bickering about what should be on the ballot paper in the event of a 2nd referendum. She firmly believes that 'No Deal' should not be on the paper because -err people might vote for it & that would be a disaster!
ReplyDeleteEmily, trotting ineffectually up & down the touch line & forgetting to ask,'Who are YOU to decide what should or should not be on the ballot paper?' The breathtaking arrogance of our so-called 'élite'!
A second referendum?
DeleteWell, I have never had any real fear of a genuine second referendum. But that's the problem - we all know it woould never be a genuine second referendum if it happens...
The question on the ballot paper itself would inevitably be skewed towards Remain by the corrupt pro-Remain Electoral Commission. They will do whatever Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell tell them to.
It would be a referendum on May's Bogus Brexit Deal (aka "Abject Surrender Document")or Remain/May's Deal v. No Deal and with a fraudulent electoral roll including 16 year olds and yet more millions of non UK citizens to add to the millions allowed to vote in our (not their) referendum back in 2016.
Moreover the campaign will be conducted in a media environment where even the Mail and Express have deserted the Brexit cause (obviously as a result of financial machinations by pro-Remain elements) and the BBC feels free of all restraint on its pro-EU bias. So it will be a 90% anti-Brexit media environment.
Despite all that, I still reckon we would vote to Leave if there was a clear, simple "Leave" option. While it's true that - as the Remainiacs keep reminding us - many hundreds of thousands of 2016 Brexit voters are now dead, I think many hundreds of thousands of Remain voters have had their eyes opened over the last couple of years about the nature of the EU - their dishonesty and refusal to negotiate in a friendly and open way. BTW - don't believe the polls on Leave sentiment - we know from previous experience they are nearly all corrupt.
Also, let me share this...Someone visiting the Soviet Union in the early 70s was told - "look at all these old people in the Churches...this shows religion is dying out under Communism"...The reporter (clearly not a BBC type) then thought about that claim...these "old" people in the Churches had all been educated under Stalinism...under a strictly atheistic culture...and here they were still going to Church - despite all the state-sanctioned penalties that church-going involved.
At that moment the said reporter realised Communism was doomed.
I think of that when I hear the Remainiacs describe with glee how Brexiters are dying off. A 75 year old who dies now would have been 32 in 1975. A 65 year old would have been 22. Even an 85 year old would have been a mere 42 year old.
There were 8 million people who voted to leave back in 1975. Surely most of those must have been coming from the older population of that era who looked back on Empire and Commonwealth ties with countries like Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.
So when you think about it, most - probably a very large majority - of the "dying Brexiters" were in fact pro-EU back in 1975. They were clearly sympathetic to the vision of European unity and the EU should have been able to win them over to the cause on a permanent basis (even thought in 1975 there was no plan to create a superstate).
The reality is that the EU propagandists failed to convince them.
So the parallel with the Soviet Union is that these "dying Brexiters" are people who have lived through decades of pro-EU indoctrination and who, whatever they thought in their youth, have became strong supporters of Leave.
I believe there's a lot of "churn" in the voting. Ordinary people have a lot of common sense and are far less susceptible to indoctrination than the Guardian and the BBC would like. They may be swayed by received wisdom in their youth but by early middle age they will be making their own judgments based on lived experience.
"there was no plan to create a superstate" I should have said "there was no DECLARED plan to create a superstate". (Whereas now only a Ken Clarke could deny there was an obvious and declared plan to create a superstate.)
DeleteNo democratically accountable superstate.
DeleteLovely day. Just got back in time for some awesome BBC comedy.
ReplyDelete***
BBC Radio 4
1 hr ·
The Muslim travel market is expected to reach $300 billion by 2026 - so how do you make holidays halal?
(via @BBC World Service)
***
#CCBGB especially from actual muslims who know a BBC ladle when it is applied.
Me, I am wondering about the Jedi market. Maybe they just go to galaxies far, far away?
I can't imagine it matches the Christian travel market. So Christians must on BBC logic take precedence. What are we doing to make holidays more Jesus-centred?
DeleteSisyphus - your Newsnight exchange was noted across social media for Mr. Campbell's traditional winning ways, and the poor chairwoman's total inability to, well, chair. No wonder FiBu got QT.
ReplyDeleteHere's the BBC analysing their own belly button fluff:
Mouths of potties
Yes, she did say that. And was right. The hapless twerp in the middle knew it too.
There were some 'shes' who did not say much until it looked like Mad Ali was about to hand the Leave campaign a sound bite set to treasure.
I thought the bloke between them was the chair, although his part seemed to be looking helplessly from one to the other. I wasn't aware there was a fourth party! Of course this is thanks to the bizarre deployment of BBC cameras.
DeleteMost with functioning brains now fully appreciate the BBC likes quotes. And 'quotes'. Plus, of course, "quotes".
ReplyDeleteThe best way to get the ones the BBC likes is to invite on who the BBC wants to be heard, and then edit any that spoil the story out.
And they quote, and quote, and quote...
Nick Robinson will need to scuttle past George pretty quickly these days.
<a href="https://twitter.com/JunkkMale/status/1071332939198357504”>That’s a bannin'</a>
<a href="https://twitter.com/JunkkMale/status/1071332939198357504”>That’s a bannin'</a>
ReplyDeleteNo clue why the second link won't work. Sorry. maybe the https? Cut and paste if you are interested.
ReplyDeleteBBC seems to be perfecting the art of "bias by bogus question"...
ReplyDelete"Why are we mad about Michelle Obama?"
"Michelle Obama: What's behind the former first lady's appeal?"
Er...we're not and there is none.
I would imagine that 98% of the population don't give Michelle Obama from one month to the next. They are either indifferent to her or if they think about her, the majority probably find her over the top, insincere and uninspiring. She is not the talk of Dumfries or Dorchester or Dundonald or Denbigh.
But of course that's in reality...the BBC live in PC Land.
MB, two bbc faves combined... #questionasaheadline and #wefiles They speak for the nation you know.
DeleteI just wish she would stay in America and stop bothering us, fawning over the Royals, meddling in our schools, making money out of poor people for overpriced events and self-promoting book and using us for her social climbing.
DeleteAmber Rudd is scoring +5 on the Ho3 index (see above)...as she floats Plan B.
ReplyDeleteSo the BBC no longer accepts collective Cabinet responsibility. The "Amber Liquid" Rudd previously married to serious alcoholic AA Gill is supposed to be a member of a Cabinet that has declared the May deal (aka Abject Surrender Document) to be the only deal on offer, with the PM making absolutely clear there is no Plan B. Now the despicable Rudd claims there is an alternative, but is not prepared to sign up to collective Cabinet responsibility. We've seen that other untrustworthy individual Javid try and slime his self away from collective Cabinet responsibility.
If you don't agree with a Cabinet policy, you are supposed to resign if you feel that strongly about it.
What's to become of our constitution if the BBC is determined to rip it to shreds?
Look at the sort of 'leading' people who are left, Rudd and Javid being but two examples, even if May goes, to realise what a shower our current politicians are, and that's without even contemplating what's on the opposition bench. No matter if we had another referendum, or yet another election (we'd be on a rate of one every two years), what else would be get but a similar shower of weak and shifty second raters? Lib Dems by another name, most of them anyway.
DeleteI am deeply disappointed in our Parliamentarians.
ReplyDeleteBoris has been less than leaderly.
Mogg has miscalculated.
I like Mark Francois's guts but he isn't exactly the Field Marshal type.
Meanwhile, May, Rudd, Gove, Leadsom and all the rest of the treacherous clan spread their lying poison. We know now that the idea that there is no Plan B is preposterous. Rudd has effectively told us that May is lying. But our supine media will not move against May. This is the difference from only a year ago and shows how clever the Globalists were to neutralise the Mail and Express titles - it makes a real difference in a crisis like this that no tabloid will move against May.
The patriots in the Conservative Party need to act. All Conservatives now have nothing to lose but their seats.
It is May who is leading them to Armageddon 2019. May is either a complete nutjob or the most duplicitous individual ever to hold the office of PM bar none.
Rare bouquet for a BBC prog. Dead Ringers was actually fairly balanced I think...from what I heard. Yes they had fun at BoJo's expense but also at Corbyn's expense and even more so at May's expense. And they actually raised the possibility - not raised anywhere else on the BBC that May is possibly seriously deranged. It is possible for someone to be a PM and appear in command while being seriously deranged. There was a Canadian PM (Menzies???) who used to see things in his shaving foam and talk to them. He was a respected Commonwealth leader. :)
MB - Agree about Dead Ringers. I caught some of it on Friday and had to listen to all of it on Saturday to check. Surprising and refreshing.
ReplyDeleteSaw something this morning that even for the bbc impressed. Basically Emily shouldering aside all her Remain guests to dig in to her Leave one.
ReplyDeleteI did a screen grab, but no idea how to share it as an image, so with fingers crossed...
<a href="https://mobile.twitter.com/junkkmale/status/1071691258769403904?”>The BBC as opponent</a>
If it fails, can only suggest copy and paste into your browser.
I might pursue this one, as this seems a highly selective engagement.
There is another possible outcome of Theresa May's Withdrawal Agreement in which the UK becomes tied to the hulk of a failing EU. After witnessing the reluctance of the EU to let the UK from their grasp, any other EU member country from now on seeking to follow their own exit will simply walk away. They won't hang around to be humiliated. Ultimately, the UK could find itself propping up the failing EU without any legal means of avoidance.
ReplyDeleteOver on BBBC, Stewgreen cites this post on an LBC thread (along with a Labour MP honouring Jo’s memory).
ReplyDelete“Nigel Farage to die in a freak yachting accident is ranking pretty high for me.— Paul Bottomley (@Paul83Bottomley) December 9, 2018”
Paul is followed by BBC Feedback.
Given the BBC can kick off for a week based on associations... awks.
Peter be careful of 2+2=5 thinking
DeleteThere is no conspiracy, cos BBCFeedback just always follow someone who tweet them.
Of course I never listen to the ridiculously biased prog anymore.
But if you search Twitter under feedbacks account name say on Friday morning, you can spot them contacting people as they try to build their narratives for that weeks show.
Always where the bottom of the barrel was for BBC 'news' scraping. Well, it is surely well and truly well above this:
ReplyDelete****
Newsbeat
36 mins ·
This Derby couple live with pet pigs and they're worrried a no-deal Brexit could mean they'd have to leave them behind when they emigrate.
****
What makes the news bulletin sometimes makes one wonder. Yesterday on Radio 4 one of the items in the news bulletin on the hour was that a tea plantation in India had acquired a female boss, the first ever, apparently. Gosh.
ReplyDeleteIt no longer makes me wonder. It’s a simple tick list exercise. It has to fit the BBCs liberal worldview and PC agenda which they are trying to ram down our throats.
DeleteAccording to the BBC local London website there was no pro-Brexit demo on Sunday involving thousands of people. There is a passing reference under travel news to a "United Against Fascism" demo.
ReplyDeleteWell done Fake News BBC! :)
I think people need to understand Gerard Batten is a very impressive political leader:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KO1OZKLPXs
He seems to have a very firm grasp of what is required of a democratic leader. We need our leaders to understand the dangers that lie ahead and also the opportunities.
It seems to me that Batten has a firm take on the Sharia danger and also the EU danger. Farage is good on the latter and pathetic on the former.
Just heard on the 9 am R4 News a mention of the UN Migration Pact being set for signature and a comment that a "right wing" party in Belgium has resigned from the Belgium Government in protest.
ReplyDeleteMy "BBC bias" antennae immediately glowed .... a quick Google search shows that whole countries as different as Chile, Australia and Bulgaria have refused!
Where is Gina Miller? I thought Gina Miller was a principled person whose only concern is that Parliament should make the decisions on matters of fundamental constitutional interest. It doesn't get more fundamental I would suggest than deciding who can become a citizen of our country. It seems that power is being taken out of the hands of Parliament by treaty. The silence on all this from the BBC and the rest of the UK MSM has been truly deafening.
DeleteThanks Oz. - this is something we're entitled to know!
DeleteI was away for the weekend & accidentally deprived myself of wi-fi, so thanks, Peter for the up-date on the social media response to the Alistair Campbell/Jenni Russell squabble on Newsnight.
ReplyDeleteWhat I did not miss, though, was what was going on opposite Worcester Cathedral at about 4.15 on Saturday: having eaten a well-lubricated lunch, my wife & I returned to our hotel for a quick snooze. We had barely zizzed our first zeds when a commotion began outside: a quick peek through the curtains revealed a large yellow bus, bearing the legend:"Bollocks to Brexit," and a group of 15-20 people standing alongside it chanting the slogan. If the BBC reported this, it probably said a crowd of 100,000, so I repeat: THERE WERE 15-20 PEOPLE.
Two questions come to mind: who is funding this? and at whom is it targeted? I just had a look on-line & the organisers claim to be 'crowd-funded.' So, which crowd? Is there an EU slush-fund or is it Soros or Bilderberg types? The BBC is very keen on investigating the funding of referendum campaigners so no doubt we can expect a special edition of Panorama soon!
The target age-group appeared to be about 15 or 16 - have they been tipped off that there is to be a second referendum & a lower age-limit of 16?
I came in at the end of the Campbell-Russell ding-dong...She signed off with "If there is a second referedum then the choice has to be between May's deal and Remain otherwise the people might make the wrong decision again." Not verbatim as I don't have a record of it but that was what she was "in terms" (as the lawyers say).
Delete3 years ago, commentators simply wouldn't have thought they could get away with saying that sort of thing in a supposedly democratic country. They would have been nervous they might never get another invite back on. But now our political class seem quite brazen about declaring their hatred of the stupid British people.
MB Yes, you're right - she specifically precluded 'no deal' as an option on ballot paper.(my post of 7.12.18 at 23:27hrs)
DeleteIt is very instructive the way the UK MSM, led by the BBC of course, are avoiding any challenging of "May's many lies".
ReplyDeleteThe most recent whopper has been of course her claim that this is "the only deal" on offer from the EU...but now, just a few days later her lieutentants make there are other potential deals on offer, from EEA membership, to Norway Plus to further tinkering with her deal. So she was telling a complete lie. She didn't have to, she could have said "This is the best deal that anyone could negotiate because A, B and C") but, no, May resorted to the Lying Dodge.
Why don't the media challenge her directly on all lies, starting with her lie that she would not call a general election, then her lying that David Davis was conducting negotiations which he wasn't, then the falsehoods contained in the Lancaster House declaration, followed by the lies that the EU is just as unhappy as the UK with the backstop, when all the statements from EU leaders show this not to be true? Because they have made a collective decision to protect her, for the bigger cause.
As a thought experiment, imagine if Jon Sopel or Nick Bryant were reporting on all these lies and deceptions wearing their "Trump glasses". They would be excoriating and relentless in their condemnation of such deceit designed to bamboozle public, parliament and party colleagues. But when it comes to May? Virtual silence from the BBC - indeed a lot more sympathy and understanding than criticism and condemnation. Just confirms that for the BBC there are no universal standards, only universal policies and it is those policies that determine how political leaders are treated.
DeleteWe can now add another lie: "I am going to put this deal to a vote in Parliament on Tuesday."
ReplyDeleteBBC Reality Check's slow descent into madness continues...
ReplyDeleteNot content with just asking fatuous questions and providing bogus "answers" to those fatuous questions, it now seems to want to ask another fatuous question at the end of the alleged "reality check" thus creating a daisy chain effect...presumably the next article will attempt to answer that fatuous question.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46488619
The next lie? She claims they are seeking only reassurances from the EU about the Backstop...but it is clearly a renegotiation. Managed expectations...the EU will buckle on this, and offer something substantive - probably not a huge concession but more than a "reassurance".
ReplyDeleteSo this is May's latest lie as she conspires with the EU to come up with something to fool enough of her MPs and enough Labour MPs to get across the line.
Won't work but that's the latest deception.
It may work. The result of EU consultation will be 'concessions on the Irish border question' which, even though the question doesn't actually exist, will chivvy the back benchers into relinquishing their, 'moral objections'.
DeleteIt really is quite clever what they've done. When this is all reverse engineered, people will gasp at the beauty of the inedible poo-pie they made.
Yet still nothing will be written about The City Of London and why Brexit could not happen.
Or that EU military unification has been continuing apace for the last two years, (see UK Column News) or that there's been no coverage at all of the fact that Theresa's off to Marrakesh soon.
It's also quite clever not concluding the trade deal yet - that will allow them to effectively reinstate free movement, without any possibility of blowback from MPs or the public.
DeleteDid you see the video of armoured cars with EU flag logos on them attacking people in Paris? Well...I didn't see it on the BBC of course.
Marakesh? is that where they are signing the UN MIgration Pact?
Yes, The UNMP.
DeleteDon't know if you've seen this, well worth a watch :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WRszRZBfYw
I think Stefan's at his best when he does his fact based stuff.
There's a documentary on ITV tonight about Cliff Richard's life. I expect there will be some choice words said about the BBC.
ReplyDeleteThis article is from an uber lefty site - Off Guardian - which is frequented by people who were too genuinely left for the Guardian when Viner took over. The site is read by well informed and disaffected lefties.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I'm posting this is that it's becoming clear that with some issues, the wafer between left and right is disolving to such an extent that certain topics no longer really have a wing.
The BBC is pretending to be a bit mystified as to what's happening in France. They haven't reported on the spread to Belgium and The Netherlands.
They also haven't reported that the protests in France have been overwhelmingly peaceful and supported by local police.
https://off-guardian.org/2018/12/10/the-eu-and-the-warning-signs-of-fascism/
Interesting.
DeleteWhy does the BBC persist in propagating the myth tha post-Referendum Britain is a place of uniquely hateful politics? We have no fascist parties and no (avowed) communists represented in Parliament or even controlling a local council. The EU mainland is awash with fascist, racist, Far Right and Communist parties.
Why does the BBC persist in undermining democracy, whether it's the Brexit vote or Orban winning a fourth term with a huge majority that would be the envy of most democratic politicians? They just don't seem to get it. As with Free Speech, where you have to allow voices you disapprove of the right to be heard, so with democracy, you simply have to accept that democracy will turn up results you don't like.
The point about both democracy and free speech is that there are rules to the game. As long as participants accept those rules (free and fair elections, no incitement to violence, acceptance of electoral defeat etc etc) then we have to accept that not everyone who speaks or gets elected will be to our liking...so what?
And as I have said before, so called "moderates" like Theresa May, Stella Creasy, Chukka Umuna and David Lammy are actually dangerous extremists when it comes to free speech and democracy: they actually want to prevent free speech and turn democracy into licensed voting.
I think Ozfan's post below pretty much answers your (rhetorical) question.
DeleteThe BBC has a list of scenarios that reflect a perfect world, and employs people who approve of that list.
From that point everything relates to the list and is either white hat or black hat.
Stark insight to Beeboid thinking from Evan lats night on PM. He was interviewing a Dutch supporter of the Yellow Vests. He was clearly struggling "to get a handle " on the interview.
ReplyDeleteSo he hummed and haahed for a bit then sotto voce said oh it's hard for people in UK to understand where you are on the political spectrum. What he obviously meant it was hard for Beeboids to label you (are you far right was the implication). So continued Evan, I will ask you three questions .... they were:
- Trump or Obama?
- Same sex marriage , yes or no?
- Abortion, yes or no?
So there we have the defining issues for Beeboids on whether you are with us or against us.
Maybe those are the questions they ask when selecting audiences for QT and Referendum debates with Nigel Farage!
DeleteAbout Craig and Sue - MB was worried that 'Out of Office' might mean that they had been packed off to a re-education centre for a spot of brain-washing (6 December at 22.18). I just stumbled across Craig's reply, which many of us will have missed because it was posted 3 days later. It's worth reading, and reassuring...in a way!
ReplyDeleteGood to know Craig is at peace with Auntie and will not have to undergo whatever is the equivalent of the rat cage now (being forced to watch back-to-back BBC Breakfast and One Shows interspersed with interventions from the chair by David Dimbleby and silent shots of Evan Davis gurning?? - well that would be my breaking point!).
DeleteThat plus a loop of Laura K in full screech mode!
DeleteLaura was trying to tell me the mood had "darkened" with threatens to May's leadership, using her best scare-the-kiddies Halloween intonation...I'm thinking - "No, Laura, BRIGHTENED. Liberation beckons."
Delete