Wednesday, 30 January 2019

Old (Pre-White Album) Open Thread

Beast from the East open thread. Lights are green - please go ahead.


  1. I trust you'll be writing about the cutNpaste of CNN the BBC has done about the red hat Catholic school boys.
    Which triggered every libmobber to tweet hate against them .. until they saw fuller version of the video
    It seems this could be one of the biggest "lib0media agenda pushing" own goals of the year.

    1. Craig's done a great filleting of the Fake News in the post "Singing the Indian Song". I noted that both Hugh Sykes and Nish Kumar (BBC notables) have been promoting the Fake News on their Twitter accounts and show no sign of rowing back, since they have no interest in truth.

    2. Doh @MB that's my error for working near midnight, I didn't pick up that it had already been done
      Mind you the title "Singing the Indian Song" is a bit obtuse

  2. The BBC smuggling in opinion as fact in their Fake News presentation:

    "The backstop is the "insurance policy" in the withdrawal deal, intended to ensure that whatever else happens, there will be no return to a visible border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic after the UK leaves the EU."

    That's an opinion which takes at face value what the EU claim. My opinion is that:

    "The so-called "backstop" is the negotiating ploy used by the EU to weaken the UK's position in the negotiations and sow discord within the UK polity. There is no prospect that a visible hard border will ever be erected in Northern Ireland as neither the UK government nor the Irish Republic would ever break the Good Friday agreement to do so. So the so-called "backstop" is entirely unnecessary."

    If the BBC were not a Fake News outfit, they would have prefaced their comments with something like "Supporters of the deal claim that the Backstop amounts to an "insurance policy"....etc etc" But they are a Fake News outfit and so like to present opinion as fact, as they have done with Bryant's offensive piece about President Trump.

    1. You are dead right MB.

      Another example is Trump wall:

      As usual, it is disguised as a factual unbiased long report but peppered with unnecessary adjectives and quotes which gives the game a way as a Trump poison piece.

      I’ve never seen so many quotation marks in a report, a favourite BBC degrees of separation trick

      The coup de grace for the BBC is that they say the data shows the real problem is Canadians overstaying their visa.

    2. I like that: "Trump Poison Piece". I shall use the TPP description in future.

      Yes - all those Canadian actors and ingers have been spreading mayhem in the USA, not to mention dodgy vowel sounds like "aboot"!

  3. Anybody with any doubt as to the bias at the BBC should listen to the exchange between Jon Sopel and Justin Webb, who I think is the worst culprit on the radio.

    It starts at 1:15 here:

    After Jon Sopel explains that President Trump is coming in for criticism from the right for his softening stance on immigration, Justin Webb says the following:

    "be amazing wouldn't it, after all the talk of Russia and everything, if it was just this that did for him".

    The words alone were bad enough, but just listen to the tone of voice. It leaves no doubt as to the nature of them and us, Trump and his supporters and us, the BBC and all right thinking people.

  4. Live on Westminster Green, Ben Brown is the BBC's man on the ground. How inaccuracies trip off his tongue. As the camera panned around he said something along the lines that the protesters were once again out in force, take a look at the the flags and banners - all sides of the argument are represented.

    In fact, the EU flags outnumber any others by about twenty to one. Scottish, Welsh and Union flags were there - one each. No UKIP, no Leave means Leave, nothing which might suggest balance. This site has noticed before how the EU flags are allowed by the BBC whereas others, expressing views opposed to their own are banished.

  5. The BBC - hoisted by their own petard, by 50 years of relentless race baiting.

    Useless Bruce has landed herself in hot water with the PC crowd. Whilst the BBC can get away with "fob-off" responses to the general public's complaints - even when outrageous bias has been shown - they can't simply ignore a protest from DA, especially not when the Corbynistas might be in power this time next month.

    The only thing protecting Bruce now is that she is a woman. If I were her, I'd be more than a little concerned at this para:

    "Viewers had reacted warmly to Ms Bruce's first edition of QT the previous week." Love that "had". A week is a long time in the media snake pit.

  6. Just wanted to record that I listened to Evan Davis p.m. this evening
    he interviewed a historian about previous times when party politics are broken down and referred to the corn laws period of the 19 century
    at the end evan asked him if he was happy with the current situation
    the historian said no we should just go back to the previous status quo forget all about Brexit
    And that was it folks

    1. I bet that answer came as a big surprise to Evan, not...

      Having checked Twitter I see the "historian" was the Ghastly Garston-Ash, long time Guardian contributor, who was wrong about so much re the post cold war period in Europe. They quote him as saying:

      "It’s the first time, since fall of Calais in 1558 - that we are making a retreat”

      USA (War of Independence)? Heligoland? Russia 1919? Turkey 1923? Ireland? Dunkirk? Singapore? Tobruk? India? Palestine? Aden? Hong Kong?

      A rubbish historian and a rubbish political prognosticator.

    2. No intelligent historian could talk about “return to status quo”. There’s no such place.

  7. Very surprised to find Newsnight leading with Zimbabwe.

    Is the Brexit thing not going according to plan?

    Still at least they had their favourite Rachel Sylvester. Nice cosy chat with Emily about how best to overturn the democratic vote of 17.4 million people. No irony after Emily had been giving the Zim rep a hard time for a similar approach to democracy.

    1. Incidentally there's been some discussion about how Brexiters should approach a second referendum. Isabel Oakshott even foolishly was saying it "bring it on" as though it would be a fair rerun of the original - it won't be. The question will be fixed so the choice is between a lousy mishmash withdrawal agreement with a vague trade deal versus Remain. The franchise will be fixed so 16 year olds can vote.

      Looks like even Farage has been fooled into thinking there could be a fair second referendum. There won't be.

      The only way to deal with a Rigged Rerun is a Brexiter boycott. Then, in the circumstances, when everyone can see it will be a huge percentage win for Remain, fewer Remain voters will come out to vote. One can reasonably hope then the Remain vote will come in at well under 17.4 million, maybe as low as 13 or 14 million and it will lose all legitimacy.

    2. The problem with that MB, it that the result will still be valid. And there won’t be a third referendum.

      The genie is well and truly out of the bottle though and things can never be as they were before the referendum.

    3. The problem with engaging in a bogus rerun with a doctored franchise and a "bad choice" ballot paper is that you will then be trapped in that bad agreement, bound hand and foot or you will legitimise Remaining. Remember, the withdrawal agreement is simply the divorce settlement. May plans to use the trade/future relations agreement (about which nothing has been agreed) to further dilute immigration control from the EU, to cancel out our fisheries independence, make us accept all EU rules and make it impossible for us to develop our own trade policy.

      If you refuse to take part, the country will likely Remain, but with no legitimacy, leaving plenty of space for a new ERG Conservative Party, possibly in alliance with UKIP or a Farage-based party to win support for a second Leave, this time with a clear WTO-based exit and leaving on our terms, not the EU's.

  8. 1 PM News, BBC 1 - Good news from economics correspondent, Darshini David: wages have risen on average by 3.3% and the number of people employed has risen by 141,000, bringing the unemployment rate down to 4% - the lowest since 1975.

    Ms David went on to assure us that, "There is no evidence whatsoever that Brexit uncertainty is impacting on hiring plans." Good grief! Is the woman mad? - she'll be unemployed herself by tonight! Well, maybe not: the Beeboids in the backroom have done some number-crunching & managed to dredge up some bad news: it seems that there are signs that wages are again failing to keep up with inflation.

    1. Will this, mainly good, news make it through to the 6pm news? If it does it must mean the BBC is so convinced that Brexit is dead that they can afford to relax.

    2. I doubt it. I heard Andrew Verity putting some spin on the news on Radio 4. Firstly it was reported (in a cynical tone) that jobs had been increasing now for several years, as though the good news could thus be discounted as a result of some inexplicable or possibly nefarious process. Secondly, he put in a Brexit warning, claiming that these figures did not yet factor in "Brexit uncertainty" (thinking about it, that's completely at odds with Ms David's comments). Given the BBC has been touting the reality of Brexit uncertainty's negative effects on the economy for two years, this was somewhat disingenuous of Andrew Verity but his job will be more secure than Darshini's. :)

    3. On the other hand, Darshini's hand has been strengthened since Fionagate/Abbottgate because she ticks a couple of boxes that a white male can't...and the Beeb wouldn't want to be accused of racism, would it? Well, not twice in one week, anyway. :)

    4. BBC radio 2 news put a negative spin at the end of the report by saying.....”but wage increases are still struggling to keep pace with inflation.”

      And that final few words is the bit remembered by most listeners. It’s a classic propaganda trick. Finish with the line you want people to remember.

      You can rely on the BBC to suck the good news out of any story and kill it stone dead.

      They are the most miserable, negative, joyless and dangerous organisation in the UK.

    5. True, Sisyphus,

      I once saw Verity out with his mates in central London...there was a lot of "toxic masculinity" (ie blokes drinking pints at a pace and enjoying each other's laddish company) on display...that sort of thing must be frowned on in the modern BBC, so yes, now it's Verity looking more vulnerable. :) Time for him to play the equivalent of the Warren-Native American card...perhaps he could claim his granny was a gypsy.

    6. MB 6pm News - Darshini nowhere to be seen (banished to Siberia/Salford?). Sophie did, very briefly, break the 'bad' news about the good employment figures. I was side-tracked & will have to watch again on iPlayer tò check what else got through.

      Arne - Yes, on 1pm news, Darshini mentioned the (negative) number crunching.

    7. The negative spin , given as the last sound bite , on the 6 pm R4 News was that “real wages are still below those before the financial crash. “.

      Desperate stuff .

    8. Agreed, Ozfan - I think the enthusiastically pro-no deal audience at last week's QT has shaken them to the core.
      "You mean that, despite two years of relentless pro-Remain propaganda, the bastards still won't think as they're told?"

    9. Yes we should always discount for all the BBC propaganda. A pro BBC count of 60% equals 10% in reality. :)

    10. Interesting that Andrew Verity has come up again. His impartiality been called into question before on here. I also vaguely remember reading something about dubious behaviour. It might have been on BBBC but I forget the details.

  9. Hurrah. Nadine Dorries has extracted an apology from BBC Newsnight for fake news!
    Nadine Dorries Twitter
    BBC apology

  10. BBC 1 6pm News: What was a lengthy item on the 1pm News: the record high employment/low unemployment figures, was chopped to a mere 17 seconds as Sophie galloped through it. No mention of the average 3.3% in wage rises, but to be fair, the alleged failure of wages to keep up with inflation wasn't mentioned either.

    1. Think you are being more than fair to the BBC there! lol

  11. The BBC like to ask politicians tough questions, as long as the politicians are Leavers. Different when they are Remainers of course.

    Anna Soubry is never asked why she supported the Referendum, approved it taking place and understood it to be binding. She says the only reason she did was because she thought Remain would win. How pathetic.

    1. Indeed. The BBC only like to ask the right kind of tough questions.

      They will never challenge or think to challenge their worldview or political position because they are not self aware enough to believe that they could possibly be wrong ...on anything. they

    2. Right - they think, Lord help us, that they occupy the centre ground.

  12. From BBBC a post from Emmanuel Goldstein:

    Copied from a facebook post by Richard Matthews.
    List of UK Companies that have been transferred to other countries using EU grants. Anyone who thinks the EU is good for British industry or any other business simply hasn’t paid attention to what has been systematically asset-stripped from the UK.

    Cadbury moved factory to Poland 2011 with EU grant.
    Ford Transit moved to Turkey 2013 with EU grant.
    Jaguar Land Rover has recently agreed to build a new plant in Slovakia with EU grant, owned by Tata, the same company who have trashed our steel works and emptied the workers pension funds.
    Peugeot closed its Ryton (was Rootes Group) plant and moved production to Slovakia with EU grant.
    British Army’s new Ajax fighting vehicles to be built in SPAIN using SWEDISH steel at the request of the EU to support jobs in Spain with EU grant, rather than Wales.
    Dyson gone to Malaysia, with an EU loan.
    Crown Closures, Bournemouth (Was METAL BOX), gone to Poland with EU grant, once employed 1,200.
    M&S manufacturing gone to far east with EU loan.
    Hornby models gone. In fact all toys and models now gone from UK along with the patents all with with EU grants.
    Gillette gone to eastern Europe with EU grant.
    Texas Instruments Greenock gone to Germany with EU grant.
    Indesit at Bodelwyddan Wales gone with EU grant.
    Sekisui Alveo said production at its Merthyr Tydfil Industrial Park foam plant will relocate production to Roermond in the Netherlands, with EU funding.
    Hoover Merthyr factory moved out of UK to Czech Republic and the Far East by Italian company Candy with EU backing.
    ICI integration into Holland’s AkzoNobel with EU bank loan and within days of the merger, several factories in the UK, were closed, eliminating 3,500 jobs.
    Boots sold to Italians Stefano Pessina who have based their HQ in Switzerland to avoid tax to the tune of £80 million a year, using an EU loan for the purchase.
    JDS Uniphase run by two Dutch men, brought up companies in the UK with £20 million in EU ‘regeneration’ grants, created a pollution nightmare and just closed it all down leaving 1,200 out of work and an environmental clean-up paid for by the UK tax-payer. They also raided the pension fund and drained it dry.

    1. continued ...

      UK airports are owned by a Spanish company.
      Scottish Power is owned by a Spanish company.
      Most London buses are run by Spanish and German companies.
      The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government, using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations. Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.
      Swindon was once our producer of rail locomotives and rolling stock. Not any more, it’s Bombardier in Derby and due to their losses in the aviation market, that could see the end of the British railways manufacturing altogether even though Bombardier had EU grants to keep Derby going which they diverted to their loss-making aviation side in Canada.
      39% of British invention patents have been passed to foreign companies, many of them in the EU.
      The Mini cars that Cameron stood in front of as an example of British engineering, are built by BMW mostly in Holland and Austria. His campaign bus was made in Germany even though we have Plaxton, Optare, Bluebird, Dennis etc., in the UK. The bicycle for the Greens was made in the far east, not by Raleigh UK but then they are probably going to move to the Netherlands too as they have said recently.
      Name one major technology company still running in the UK, I used to contract out to many, then the work just dried up as they were sold off to companies from France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, etc., and now we don’t even teach electronic technology for technicians any more, due to EU regulations.
      I haven’t detailed our non-existent fishing industry the EU paid to destroy, nor the farmers being paid NOT to produce food they could sell for more than they get paid to do nothing, don’t even go there.
      I haven’t mentioned what it costs us to be asset-stripped like this, nor have I mentioned immigration, nor the risk to our security if control of our armed forces is passed to Brussels or Germany.
      Find something that’s gone the other way, I’ve looked and I just can’t. If you think the EU is a good idea.
      1/ You haven’t read the party manifesto of The European Peoples’ Party.
      2/ You haven’t had to deal with EU petty bureaucracy tearing your business down.
      3/ You don’t care.
      Brexit means the dissembling stops and Westminster is held to account for the good and the bad on every decision. As it should be. No wonder the Camerons and Blairs are terrified at the prospect…”

      The reality seems to be that the EU already have a financial stranglehold over UK industry and businesses. Ever-likely Westminster MPs are nervous about severing ties to the EU. The electorate might wake up and realise what has been happening over the decades by successive Conservative and Labour Governments sleep-walking into the hands of the EU.

    2. And I watched Vodafone for years move department after department from the UK to southern and eastern Europe with EU grants.

  13. As I suspected, there is now an outright ban on UKIP leader Gerard Batten being interviewed by the BBC (plus ITV and Sky).

    It's not for the BBC to decide that a party which enjoys the support of 6-7% of the electorate and which has many elected MEPs and Councillors should be censored and kept off our screens.

    Where does this sort of approach stop? Are our polling companies also adopting a "Stop UKIP" policy by deliberately underestimating their support?

  14. The BBC has produced a handy guide full of Fake Facts for the unwary to be shepherded into either backing May's deal or opting for a second referendum:

    One could take issue with virtually every sentence but here's a couple of examples:

    "A no-deal Brexit would mean the UK leaving the European Union and cutting ties immediately, with no agreement at all in place."

    Cutting ties? No, that is barefaced lie. The EU has already set out the steps it will take to keep ties in place on things like air travel, right of residence and so on. So, why is the BBC lying about us "cutting ties". "Cutting some ties" would be truthful but not "cutting ties". Another tie that would still be in place is the Common Travel Area with Ireland. The EU has explicitly stated they will not interfere with that.

    Then there's this:

    "Some campaigners - who call their proposal the People's Vote - want to have another referendum on the UK's membership of the EU.

    It has been suggested the vote could have three options - Theresa May's deal, no deal and Remain. But some campaigners think there should only be two choices."

    Suggested by whom? I have not heard a single prominent Second Referendum campaign suggest that "no deal" should be on the ballot paper. This is deliberately misleading, to encourage people (like Farage himself it seems!) to think they would have a choice of no deal. It is absolutely clear that if MPs support a second referendum it will not have "no deal" on the ballot for the very good reason that the polls suggest "no deal" might win.

    1. I caught some of what I assume is related to this on 5Live this morning, before I could bear no more, and they are referring to this BBC campaign as 'Brexplanations'.

      It occurred to me at the time that 'Remainsplaining' would probably be more appropriate, and your link confirms this.


    2. Nice one! Remainsplaining!!

  15. Crazy but no less than I would expect. They continue to agitate and campaign, always on behalf of the liberal left, the elite and Remain.

    No chance I suppose of the BBC reminding that we voted to leave with the biggest ever vote cast by the British electorate. That all parties said they would honour the result and that it was made very clear on both sides that we would leave the single market.

    No chance I suppose, that they could explain that parliament is trying to overturn the democratic will of the people and that some MPs are fighting against the very bill that they voted for.

    No chance I suppose, that they could explain that our democracy is at risk and why. Or the reasons why the London vote was so out of kilter with the rest of Endland.

    Of course not.

    1. 1pm News, BBC News: Clearly the Beeb is launching a major push - it seems airbus is threatening to relocate the work done here to elsewhere in the EU. No mention of the fact that the uk is a world leader in wing technology & that it would take years for anyone else to catch up; no word either from Lord Bamford of JCB, who says No Deal is No Problem.

      The whole point was, of course, to launch their, "supercharged mission to explain No Deal." Chris Mason introduced Deborah Mathison(Matheson?) of "Britain Thinks" - who she? what it? - no idea, we weren't told. Apparently a small group of people are worried about the implications: running out of important drugs etc and, "a small group of people, mainly leavers, are drawn to the idea of No Deal because of its simplicity, but they also have no understanding of what the actual implications might be - they just think it seems like a simple way out." Just two points there, 1. it is NOT a small group & the latest poll shows remaining in EU is less popular than No Deal. 2. Ms Mathison's claim that we don't understand the implications of No Deal is downright patronising & insulting. What No Dealers understand is that it's the only way to leave both the Single Market & the Customs Union ie to LEAVE the EU.
      MB has already covered Mason's 'explanation' of No Deal, above.

      Incidentally, does the Head of the OECD not understand WTO/No Deal either? He clearly doesn't think it's a problem::"The whole world is running by WTO rules these days" (See Guido, yesterday). Also, today's Guido reveals that the boss of Airbus UK has admitted the Govt. asked them to point out the 'threat' to uk jobs,

    2. Britain Thinks? Hmmm...very opaque about who funds them and what their status is.

      Their clients include...the BBC (any interest declared?), Labour Councils, Government departments, trade unions and super-charities.

      Hopefully this is just another "Kaiser's Army" style push that will run out of steam. I think a large proportion of the population just don't believe the scare stories any more. Why should they? So many have been debunked already.

    3. Time for a lexicon/Brexicon of our own, MM? To paraphrase Corporal Jones, "They wouldn't like it up 'em, they wouldn't!"

    4. MM? I meant MB! - Must've been a freudian slip brought on by reference to the Kaiser's army!

  16. This is where we'd got the Brexilexicon up to:

    1. NO DEAL. (Phrasal noun) Used to denote departing from the EU to return to our previous independent status. Often used to reference an imagined but unreal catastrophe (something like Krakatoa, East of Java crossed with the Towering Inferno and the Ethiopian Famine.

    2. CRASH OUT (Transitive verb). To survive much as before, but to be a cause of worry to Paris, Brussels and Berlin.

    3. TO GRIEVE (Verb) "He was Grieving..." This suggests he was pretending to be a traditional English Conservative when the reality was he had a French mother, had been given a high award by the French Government, attended a French school, backed Macron's Technocratic movement, spent much of his time in France, broadcast in French and represented the interests of the French government in the UK.

    4. IMPARTIAL (Adjective) Applied solely by the BBC to refer to panels weighted 4 to 1 in favour of Remain, against Leave.

    5. SECOND (Adjective) Cognate with "rigged". As in "Second Referendum". Careful usage in this context favours "Rigged Rerun" as being more accurate.

    6. MODERATE (Noun) A Moderate is someone who favours no borders, mass immigration, British forces being absorbed into a new EU army, assassination of Donald Trump and extinction of British culture. (This is a technical usage confined to the BBC and other media outlets).

    7. HARD (adjective) A person who takes a stance or position, for example in a referendum. Applies only to those who took leave of their senses and voted to leave the EU and continues to support this notion. Must never be used with the noun Remain or Remainer.

    8. DISORDERLY EXIT - Just heard on Newsnight, is Remainspeak for 'Leaving on WTO terms.'

    9. MANDELSON (noun) A Mandelson is a type of central distributor which sends out electronic messages (usually in the form of texts) to Robo Politicians who then act accordingly. For example the text might say "Pivot towards a second referendum." The receiver will then pivot towards a second referendum,which will often involve standing outside Parliament with a stupid banner while smiling and group hugging.

    10. MARK URBAN (Verb) To "mark urban" is to cover the scent of your military historian and intelligence- linked righty background by depositing large pellets of politically correct ordure at strategic points in your reports. This "scent camouflage" makes it virtually impossible for the audience to detect what you are actually saying. But it might be that "Merkel calls the shots".

  17. 11. CUSTOMS UNION What Mrs May wants us to have with the EU - an agreement on tariffs. Confusion in usage sometimes occurs e.g. when Mrs May says: "We will be leaving the Customs Union." More accurately this should read as "We will be leaving the Customs Union and then immediately rejoining it."

  18. I embraced #floataway today on twitter, and will be using it on any BBC 'news' that uses 'crash out' to ask if they have ever reported anything about Brexit that 'could' lead to positives.

  19. I've read somewhere that Ministers asked the Airbus man to make a statement. They said Jump and he said How high? Nice. Who be Ministers? Oh, look who's the SoS for Business. One fanatical remainer. And who else is most likely to have direct dealings with big bosses of such as Airbus? Fanatical remainer Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    1. Absolutely...Enders was not credible. He was basically saying "Just because we've invested billions in the UK don't think we aren't prepared to walk away and spend billions somewhere else even if that reduces our profits substantially".

      What's more likely? That Airbus reduces its revenue by several billions or that the EU will accommodate Airbus by reaching an agreement on aero part tarrifs?

  20. Definitely worth a read - an excellent article on the BBC and Brexit by Robin Aitken.

    Much of it, particularly about BBC groupthink and the mindset rings very true.

    Link below
    BBC Article by Robin Aitken

    1. Yes good article. One point while it's true that the BBC are formally "pro-EU", there is little evidence that they are in their heart. In their hearts they are all Americophiles, in the sense that the USA is their love object. You can love someone and still hate all they stand for (wasn't that the theme of Look Back in Anger?). Yes, forget China or India - who cares about those billions of people, as far as the BBC is concerned they are of little interest - one reporter max for each, while there are at least 30 based in the USA. If the BBC was really in love with the EU there would be daily reports from Brussels about the doings of the EU bureaucracy all the time, not just when there is a crisis and BBC Channels would be stuffed full of French, German and Italian programmes, rather than being the rare birds they are. Also, they would really get behind the "European Project" - and bang the drum for the coming EU army, fiscal union and the actual fact they are are quite luke warm about such things.

    2. 'I have met conspiracy theorists who believe there is some central command post within BBC News and Current Affairs where the orders of the day are sent out mandating what the official line will be. It’s really not like that of course; there’s no need for orders.'

      On this he's right that there is a certain disposition among the BBC staff. Yet you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to notice certain things about the operation of the BBC, notably the political appointment of a former Labour Cabinet Minister to key strategic roles at a critical time of review of the Charter, including being in charge of the flagship radio station, and the more recent appointment of Kamal Ahmed as a director in News whose role does seem to involve some sort of centralising command or direction of an editorial line.

    3. A number of things come together. The media group culture. The leftwing university monoculture. London metropolitan values. PC globalism. The staff selection procedures.

      However I think there is also a conscious element of bias as well.

      Clearly the BBC management do influence the staff and output. Partly through organisation policy, partly through editorial meetings and partly through failure to ensure impartiality guidelines are followed. I think these all do influence how such matters as Brexit are reported. BBC reporters feel that they have carte blanche to express their personal political opinions no their Twitter accounts and increasingly within programmes.

      The BBC could easily eliminate bias if it wanted to. That's the conspiracy: the BBC management don't want to stop it. They think it's good.

  21. Tonight BBC2's #backintimeforschool did the 60's
    My mother was watching it.
    Was it real history or was it BBC NPC version of history ?

    There were falsehoods
    - "in the 60's there were no dinner ladies, instead lead pupils would ladle out the food"
    - Misrepresntation "In the 60's boys had carpetary and girls had domestic science"
    FFS I went to school in the 1980's and it was like that.
    but the strange thing was the BBC's commitment to race baiting
    so we had a largel white class, with a token black boy and a couple of extra BAME.
    But in the last 10 mins they had a segment on Enoch Powell and on how terrible the racial hatred was.
    The pensioners around here disagreed. I was typical in this area to have one or two non whites in each large factory and in general everyone was respected as much as anyone else was.. one of that "No blacks , no Irish, no dogs, " signs etc.

    \\ Showing a tiny snippet of Powell's speech , being told people were racist then asking for views...that basically have to be PC & liberal. That's not a debate or open discussion. It's agenda driven . //

    Also the prog had strange segments
    I don't think that British schools had nuclear drills and driving lessons for 15/16 year olds.

    We saw pupils taught with overhead projectors
    surely they didn't come in in the 60s, it seemed new in the 80's

    In another segment the girls had to cook for a male teacher playing the role of a husband.

    1. Yes, just PC propaganda. Some boys did domestic science at my school (basically cookery) in the 60s. There were definitely dinner ladies. Air raid shelters at schools were not used for nuclear drills in the 60s. They were used for storing things like cleaning chemicals. There was probably more skin colour racism back then. But there was very little anti-semitism in contrast to today. Overhead projectors were certainly in use by the late 60s.

    2. Stew: I only saw the first of 'Back in Time for School,' and decided I didn't want to see another. I am able to speak about how one grammar school was in the late 50s/early 60s:

      1. Lead pupils - 'Heads of table' - did indeed ladle out the food to the nine boys on their table, BUT the boiled-to-death cabbage/spinach etc was first slopped into aluminium containers by, er, dinner ladies!

      2. There were no overhead projectors, but the Geography Dept. boasted an epidiascope, which made it possible to project pages of a book. There was also a 35mm slide projector. OHPs were in common use in schools by the early 70s.

      3. Several departments had radios and, when I was in the VIth form, the Modern Languages dept. acquired a reel-to-reel tape recorder.

      4. We never had nuclear drills, but I do recall an inadvertent fire practice , when somebody's head was used to break the glass of the fire alarm.

      5. 'Driving Lessons?' - er, no!

    3. 1960-67 we sat at square tables, two pupils per side, eight in total. The first course we were served at the counter by the dinner ladies. When the table was ready a junior or two was sent off to fetch a pudding tray/custard from the counter. The table was headed by a couple of 5/6th formers. I remember epidiascopes but don't recall them being used. Boys in the 6th form sometimes took cookery, but in the lower forms, when a practical subject was an O-level option it was all girls. Air raid shelters were stuffed with old desks! I recall the 'Cuba Crisis', a boy said to me, another few minutes and we will know if it is the end of the world. I didn't know what he was talking about and I was more current affairs-aware than most, even got a pass in General Studies, "Silent Spring" and all that guff!

    4. Anon: '59-'66! We were still using the old, late Victorian/early Edwardian desks. The iron hinges of the lift-up bench seats were so worn that the seats pointed down at about 35° from the horizontal - this meant you either stayed awake or slid off & under the desk!

      I, too, remember the Cuba crisis - the deadline was in the middle of lunch...

  22. Guido is reporting this in reference to the issue of a NI border in event of no-deal:

    "Michel Barnier then let the cat out of the bag yesterday while trying to reverse the diplomatic damage, admitting that in the event of no deal “we will have to find an operational way of carrying out checks and controls without putting back in place a border”, going on to say that “my team have worked hard to study how controls can be made paperless or decentralised, which will be useful in all circumstances.” "

    As Guido observes, this blows out of the water the whole fiction (backed by our PM, remember) that the Backstop is essential to prevent a hard border emerging in Northern Ireland. Barnier has now exposed the EU's illogical position: that there is a risk of a hard border if there is an "orderly" Brexit (as the Remainers like to call it) but not if there is a "disorderly" one!!!

    I have said all along the Backstop nonsense was a negotiation ploy.

    The BBC however are continuing to promote the EU propaganda line...

    At 02;43 the BBC presenter promotes the Fake News that there will definitely be a hard border in the event of No Deal. An absolute falsehood belied by the actions and statements of the Republic and now Barnier's statement...

    Barnier's statement is hugely important and the BBC are simply not reporting it as far as I can see on their website. What does that tell you?

    1. Yes - we'd already seen yesterday that there'd been triangular collaboration between the Government, Airbus & the BBC. And on the saga of deceit goes!

  23. I think we are at the Houdini moment. Houdini was a master of illusion. Sometimes he'd have lots of people running around the stage while he carried out his deception, and then - when the curtain was removed he'd have disappeared. I think that's what's happening now. The BBC are suddenly going rather quiet about Brexit and focussing on lots of other stories, just when, it seems to me, we are finally at a crucial juncture. Prepare for another Great Betrayal. What's it going to be? Some impressive sounding concession from the EU which allows Parliament to agree an Article 50 extension while the details are worked out thus avoiding the Plague-like horrors of a No Deal Cliff Edge Crash-Out Armageddon-Brexit? Could be...

  24. I fear you're right: the anti-no deal propaganda has peaked. Strange, though, that the Beeb has chosen today to give extensive coverage to asylum-seekers & even to admit that the Albanians are 'economic migrants' - didn't think the Beeb's PC Guide allowed those two words to appear together.

    1. Yes, very odd. Both the lack of Brexit news at the back end of this week and the economic migrant story on the news.

      However at the end of economic migrants story it seamlessly segued into high asylum seeker applications just to muddy the waters.

      Despite this, the lull across all the MSM is telling. Something is brewing, the ERG and DUP are quiet too. A deal is being done (maybe behind the scenes at Davos).

      My guess is that May’s deal will get through following further minor backstop assurances and a cave- in by those Conservatives who voted against it. Maybe not enough to get through on Tuesday but soon. The fear of a Corbyn govt. or no-deal or no Brexit will bring the Conservative dissenters and DUP into line.

    2. I think the EU are cracking a bit. We might see the Backstop effectively removed. One way might be they agree a time limit by which alternative border check arrangements (the ones that Barnier's team are working on, he tells us) are put in place. If the time limit is not met, we can withdraw from the backstop arrangement.

      That might be enough to get the deal (or rather "non-deal" since there is no trade plus agreement in place)over the line with maybe 10 Tory Remainiacs opposing, some Labour (5?) on board and a few abstentions on the Labour side.

  25. A little story on the BBC website today reveals a lot about BBC journalism. As so often is the case, it’s what they don’t say that betrays the BBCs bias or amateurish incompetence - take your pick.

    Zimbabwe's Mugabe 'lost $1m in stolen briefcase' -is the story.

    What springs into my mind immediately is
    “what is he doing with £1m in cash in a suitcase in his house?”

    But this question isn’t even addressed in the story, instead the BBC asks “ where did the money go?” And then use the full article to answer that question.

    In a nutshell, that’s typical for a BBC report. They ignore the obvious question, sometimes deliberately to avoid an awkward truth that might undermine their narrative for that topic.

    1. They should adopt this slogan:

      "No Important Question Ever Addressed."

      Another one they seem shy of at the moment is "What political ideology does President Maduro of Venezuala espouse?" Surely they can answer that. Clue: It's not "Far Right". It can't even be described as "Conservative" (a favourite BBC ploy - as with Iran's Mullahs).

    2. It can’t be ‘far left’. It’s not in the BBC lexicon.

      They will just say socialist and remind us not to poke our noses into Venezuela’s right to democracy and self-determination.

    3. Arne - "Venezuela's right to democracy and self-determination" - rights which the BBC seeks to deny to the UK!

  26. As MB reminded us earlier, the BBC are fixated with the US and US news stories above all else.

    Tonight they are running a Roger Stone story (who? we all ask) calling him a political agitator and dirty trickster.

    Perfect phrases to describe the BBC itself I would have thought.

    1. Bet they are devastated the Stone assault did not involve helicopters.

    2. They may have taken on more than they bargained for with Stone...he may use the charges as a platform to publicise the truth about the Deep State in the USA.

  27. This comment has been removed by the author.

  28. Fake News alert
    Not the BBC but it does show that some journalists don't let facts get in the way of a good smear when TDS takes over. It does make you wonder how many others in the MSM just make it up as they go along. (Especially where Trump is involved.)

    Following last Saturday’s (Jan 19) Telegraph magazine cover story “The mystery of Melania”, we have been asked to make clear that the article contained a number of false statements which we accept should not have been published. Mrs Trump’s father was not a fearsome presence and did not control the family. Mrs Trump did not leave her Design and Architecture course at University relating to the completion of an exam, as alleged in the article, but rather because she wanted to pursue a successful career as a professional model. Mrs Trump was not struggling in her modelling career before she met Mr Trump, and she did not advance in her career due to the assistance of Mr Trump.

    We accept that Mrs Trump was a successful professional model in her own right before she met her husband and obtained her own modelling work without his assistance. Mrs Trump met Mr Trump in 1998, not in 1996 as stated in the article. The article also wrongly claimed that Mrs Trump’s mother, father and sister relocated to New York in 2005 to live in buildings owned by Mr Trump. They did not. The claim that Mrs Trump cried on election night is also false.

    We apologise unreservedly to The First Lady and her family for any embarrassment caused by our publication of these allegations. As a mark of our regret we have agreed to pay Mrs Trump substantial damages as well as her legal costs.

    1. Tells you everything you need to know. That's the Telegraph. If they can't be relied about to apply some fairness towards Trump and his family then there's no hope for such from the BBC.

    2. It also highlights something else besides unfairness to Trump: it's the abysmal quality of what passes for journalism.

  29. You know that thing the BBC do when they don't like someone - give a potted history of their background in case you've forgotten a few details they feel will affect your judgement in the way they want it affected.

    But someone like Tom Enders is just "Chairman of Airbus Group". Not the man who attempted a takeover of BAE Systems - and failed. Not a Major in the German Army Reserve. Never a Chair of the German Aircraft Industry Group. Never mentioned he was appointed to Remainer David Cameron's UK Business Advisory Group (thanks Dave! great move!!). His work at the German Federal Parliament never cited. His current membership of the Bilderburg Group steering committee not referenced. No mention that he is currently a member of the European Commission’s High-level Group of Personalities on Defence Research. No mention either that he has a seat on the board of HSBC in Germany. Finally not referenced that "the Airbus board confirmed Enders will not stay beyond April 2019 amid corruption allegations in sales campaigns". (All from Wikipedia.)

  30. There is a clear or even transparent narrative on the Brazil dam disaster, each BBC news report has clumsily tried to conflate the new "far right" president Bolsonaro's possible future actions regarding relaxing restrictions on Brazil's mining industry and the current disaster.
    The local correspondent was visibly flummoxed by the line of questioning in early reports, she was obviously e-mailed by the person at the BBC who pays her, she is now on-message..

    1. Yep, I saw the way they played that...not "this will increase disillusionment with the incompetence of the recently departed left wing government that allowed this unsafe expansion..." - which is an equally valid interpretation of events.

      It's a bit like the whole BLM thing in the States. It was being used to beat Trump over head in the run-up to the 2016 election. But since Trump was elected there seem to have been far fewer BLM-type deaths. I mean...we were being primed to expect that things would get far worse under Trump...and the same is happening here, like "there's going to be one of these every week if you let him rule".

  31. Why are the BBC unable to address honestly the issues behind violent Jihad?

  32. Here's a story from the 25th January 2019. It's all so Very BBC - again:

    .... 'BBC announces outcome of competitive tender for TV coverage of the BBC Proms' ...

    We find from this media announcement we learn the name of the successful tenderer:

    ... 'The bid from Livewire Pictures was considered to be the strongest from a field of six eligible producers who submitted proposals.' ...

    Hm. Better see what a search for Livewire Pictures shows up!

    ... 'Guy Freeman exits BBC to launch Livewire Pictures' ....

    ...'Freeman said: “At BBC Studios I've been lucky to have worked with some incredibly talented people, on a whole range of programmes that I'm extremely proud of. However, the chance to build a new company, creating more of the shows and events I love, at such a dynamic time in our business ...'.

    What a surprise!

    1. Is this a new front in the BBC's campaign to destroy the Proms? They had a go at taking apart the Last Night a few years back. They had to retreat because of public anger. Since then they've been trying to turn the Proms into an all-genres music festival...while turning the "Last Night" into an EU Flag Waving Competition. I wonder what they are scheming to do now? Could be useful to put it all at one remove so they can claim that whatever further vandalism is being proposed can attributed to a "groundbreaking approach by a respected media content provider to create a new and diverse Proms that serves everyone" or some such nonsense.

    2. Yes, that as well. I raised an eyebrow over what sort of tendering process it is that would land a plumb contract with a former BBC programme maker. Does insider knowledge run counter to the concept of competitive tendering? Probably not in the BBC universe.

  33. I just want to reference this from Article 50 since the issue never gets discussed on the BBC or more generally in the MSM:

    "In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."

    You'll notice that there is a SINGLE agreement, and that it is supposed to set out the arrangements for withdrawal, but those must take account of the framework for future relations.

    Nowhere does Article 50 prescribe a two stage process - a divorce settlement, followed - after we leave - by an agreement on our future relations.

    So why did the UK agree to an illegitimate two stage process? Why did it never make clear that it would not accept a two stage process? If the EU leadership persisted why did it not make a legal challenge to the ECJ?

    To me it is quite clear Article 50 envisages only one agreement and that single agreement should be concluded before the state leaves.

    1. Of course the "divorce" settlement and the future relation should have been negotiated in parallel. IF May had really wanted to leave the EU. But the whole aim is to drag things out as long as possible until the referendum can be forgotten.

      We now observe the farce of being told that we should accept May's "deal" (the handing over of 39 billion and continuing under EU rules indefinitely) or no Brexit.

    2. I think that is the only conclusion one can come to - that May was never as committed to Brexit as she claimed. She's lied about so much, it's not that much of a stretch to think she has been telling us a very big lie all along.

    3. As Anthony Charles Lynton Blair observed: "The civil servants have done an excellent camouflage job." ( on May's Abject Surrender Document)

  34. Laura, sorry love - but I think your bias is showing...

    "But in another sign of the wild kinds of suggestions this slow moving crisis is producing, Jacob Rees-Mogg today suggested that if MPs vote to take control of Brexit next week, the government should shut down Parliament.

    Whether you think that's reasonable from a man who argued for Parliament having more power is down to you. "

    Not the pejorative words: "wild"..."shut down". Is it "wild" for the Government to seek to make good on its Manifesto commitments. To "shut down" Parliament sounds like some novel possibly unconstitional action. But of course what JRM suggested was that Parliament be prorogued - a perfectly normal and constitutional process.

    Of course it's all down to you what you think - Laura Kuennesberg isn't trying to influence you in any direction whatsoever.

    1. The BBC News website, Politics page is worth a look. LK's section at the bottom of the page is updated, but John Pienaar, Deputy Political Editor's contribution hasn't been updated since 7th December 2018. I make that eight weeks or so, during which we have been witnessing what is probably the most shattering discord within our parliamentary democracy. Is this not worthy of comment JP?

    2. Jon Sopel hasn't written an article on the US-Canada page since 5th November. Biased, incompetent...and lazy with it, seems to be the standard for BBC journos these days. His pay I think was £250,000. He does his little pieces to camera, which are simply reworkings of what CNN, NYT and other lefty media sources in the USA say, adds a bit of moralising, tut-tutting and fear for the future. Maybe he does a couple of those every week maybe. The rest of the time I reckon he's writing a book, at our expense. It's amazing how many BBC US correspondents find time to write books.

  35. Another quiet weekend in France it seems...

    1. The Globalists have got it together with a counter-movement - the Red Scarves...

      The BBC are straight on this one and seem to be behind it!

  36. Technical note : Is it necessary to have the list of labels on every page of this website ?
    #1 that list on the right makes each page much longer than it should be
    #2 Google indexes each webpage from its own content, the label list therefore distorts that indexing.

    1. Thanks.
      We'll convene a top-level board meeting and get back to you. ;-)

  37. Bias by omission?
    On Radio 2 today, Jeremy Vine was discussing why 5% of the population are holocaust deniers. The young of today are historically ignorant and not taught history at school beyond age 14 was the conclusion. No discussion about who the 5% might be and what other factors may be at play.

    Elswehere on the BBC, news that a Banksy memorial artwork has been stolen from the Bataclan door. The BBC state that armed militants killed 80. Silly me - I thought that Islamist terrorists murdered them.

    1. Interesting, I seem to recall that at the time of the attack the BBC did, unusually, refer to them as terrorists. But clearly they have reverted to type with the mealy mouthed "armed militants".

    2. Arne - Only the BBC is allowed to re-write history! :)

      MB - re: Les Misérables, I wonder if the series has now reached peak-ethnic minority: there wasn't that density of non-whites in central Paris in the late 60s-early 70s! A pity, because in other respects the production is excellent; It'll be interesting to see if they manage to flog it to French tv, though!

    3. I thought that when watching Les Mis - I didn’t know 19th century Paris was 60% black, Asian or mixed race. The BBC will be patting themselves on the back for casting such a diverse production. They want us to be colour blind so far as race and skin colour is concerned. It’s the performance that counts they will say.

      But of course it’s only one way colour blindness. They agitate and campaign in real life when a white actor is cast in a role written as black. Hypocrites!

    4. We should never have let them get away with having a black Norman knight at the battle of Hastings!:)

  38. OK, children...let's see what's in the BBC bias basket today...[down Shep!]. OK, you'll like this's Racist Dog Whistles...

    You see, according to the BBC blurb only nasty Far Right people like UKIP use "dog whistle" politics. Good people like Yvette Cooper, Chuku Ummuna, Nick Clegg and Stella Creasy would never use dog whistle words like "privatisation of the NHS", "crashing out", "heading over a cliff", or "Far Right".

    Anything else in the basket? Oh, yes Fiery Jack's Brexit Ointment - put it on and you'll feel the pain! Well this one is packed full of various exotic ingredients including Bullshit, Waffle, Non Sequitirs and Fear-mongering Tosh.

    "No-deal Brexit 'to leave shelves empty' warn retailers" -

    Well the headline is a lie in itself. The retailers involved (all Remain stooges including German Lidl)actually warn of risks relating to the food supply. Nowhere do they warn of empty shelves. That is something Jack claims retailers have "told him". Perhaps they have, or perhaps he thinks he heard them say it, but if they don't put it in a letter it's because they know they will look absolutely stupid.

    What he actually writes is this: "Retailers have told me that they fear shelves would be left empty if there were significant disruptions to supplies." That's a bit like saying Virgin Trains have expressed concern that they will not be able to provide timetabled services if the track is blown up an asteroid impact.

    But Jack is presenting it as a prediction of what is going to happen. He is acting, as he always does, as a cheerleader for Project Fear. It's simply not acceptable. He's not a journalist, he's a Remainer.

    More lies. There's the claim that "fresh food cannot be stockpiled". This is ridiculous. Many fresh foods are kept at v. low temperature for months on end e.g. apples, pears and so on. The same is true of meat, cheese and other fresh foods.

    I've had tomatoes in my fridge for a couple of weeks and they are perfectly edible at the end of a fortnight. Similarly with cucumber. So some stockpiling in advance of March 29th must be possible.

    Yes, some salad veg cannot really be stockpiled. But we are getting down to the salad leaves now.

    1. And on it went, with the first 11 minutes of 6pm News devoted to yet another relaunch of project fear. They are shooting themselves in the foot with this - take, for example the Remainiac retailer who told us that, 'delays at Calais have been predicted.' Do they think we all have Alzheimer's? - it's only a week ago that they were reporting that the Calais authorities were taking on hundreds of extra staff to ensure there would be no delays.

      Did you notice how the Tesco redundancies item was placed immediately after the 11-minute-cower; just to associate job losses with Brexit in very simple minds?

    2. I think BBCs scaremongering and project Fear has made a serious error using lettuces and tomatoes as their weapon of attack.

      Simon Jack just looked ridiculous and the public will see straight through it.

    3. John Pienaar tried a different tack when he did a follow up project fear report at the end of the BBC news. He focused on how worried a cross channel lorry driver is because he won’t get paid for queuing and waiting around at the channel with s no-deal. He then interviewed the concerned wife with young child. Pienaar said that there are 10000 lorries a day and this is a worry they can do without.

      You couldn’t make it up!

    4. I saw John Pienaar's piece. Absurdly biased. I noticed how when he discussed the views of those who didn't think Armageddon will take place on 29th March, he used words that suggested emotional belief on their part, rather than rational consideration. So those who didn't follow the BBC Party Line were said to "have faith" or "were hoping". When it came to those spewing the absurd Remainer propaganda - they were shown to be making careful evidence-based calculations.

      The only reason there will be empty shelves in supermarket on 29th March or after will be because irresponsible extremist organisations like the BBC have deliberately sought to encourage panic-buying.

    5. "fresh food cannot be stockpiled"

      That's the excuse also given why our wonderful Food Banks are stuffed with junk food as opposed to fruit & veg. Mind you, some of their regular customers wouldn't know a broad bean from a courgette anyway.

  39. Switched on Radio 4 this evening. Big mistake.

    "Analysis" (there's a misnomer) - "The War for Normal" presented by Peter Pomerantsev he of the LSE "Institute for Global Affairs" whose partner is the "Institute for New Economic Thinking". These organisations pose as apolitical, rigorously academic, but they clearly have a political purpose. They argue against fundamental classical economics because it fails society at large. That is a political position, not one I would disagree with. But you can equally argue the opposite.

    The Institute appears closely associated with Soros. What a surprise.

    Anyway, I missed the first half of the prog but I got the drift I think. PP (as I shall refer to him) was concerned about the way extremists - Far Right and Islamists - attempted to create a "new normal". (No shit Sherlock - whodda thunk it?). PP seemed to think the poor Islamists had been pretty much driven into their belief system by the Far Right.

    Of course the programme was full of misdirection and lies. It was suggested that the Caliphate idea was something IS had tried to introduce into mainstream thinking, when of course it has always been part of Islamic political philosophy as any fule know.

    But what really amused me was that PP, who professed to be so concerned about extremism and the creation of "new normals" kept quoting Gramsci - with great approbation I might add. Yes Gramsci, the Marxist Leninist and active Communist who worked closely with Lenin and Stalin to extinguish bourgeois democracy and institute rule based on the Party and Soviets/Workers Councils.

    Well that's Moderation for you - as defined by the BBC.

    Anyone hear the section about the Far Right? Was this the Far Right as defined by the BBC ie anyone to the right of Kenneth Clarke or anyone concerned about mass immigration running at 6 million a decade?

    OK, what comes after Analysis? "The Romanian Wave". This started with the absurd claim that the Romanians were the "most derided" of recent migrant groups. I have never heard Romanians derided anywhere - certainly not on BBC Radio. I've heard American derided, often and often in extremely abusive terms. I've heard the English derided. And Ulster Protestants. Haven't heard Romanians derided. The programme mentioned the confusion between Roma and Romanians but that begged a lot of questions (not least how ethnic Romanians regard ethnic Romas - I bet they didn't go there).

    Anyway, the whole thrust of the programme seemed to be to make us (who's us these days you might ask) feel guilty about creating jobs for hundreds of thousands of Romanians.

    1. A theme emerging? They had a programme on last Tuesday asking why Romanians get such a bad press, considering they come here and work in farming etc. This was presented by a Romanian-friendly historian.
      Among the doctors and academic types, they had one who was not exactly BBC PC in his comments about Romanian gypsies. And tucked away at the end of the programme they had a couple who cleaned cars for below minimum wage / cash in hand, yet were still managing to send hundreds per month home to Romania by living in accommodation for £50 a week.

  40. Loving this twitter storm:

    Idiot Nihal makes unsubstantiated and damaging allegation against fellow virtue signaller Ben Fogle. Being an idiot, doesn't back down but doubles down. Lurving it!!! :)

    The further ridiculous element is that both VSers deny Staffies are dangerous. Just google on "killed by Staffie" and see what you find. While checking the 71,000 results I found this:

    "Pet dog 'ate crack' then killed owner in front of BBC crew filming drug documentary"

    Haven't heard that mention on Nihal's programme.


    1. Someone said someone else's dog was dangerous but I'm not sure which one said it and about whose dog and there was something about a wife and children but again it wasn't clear whose. Oh dear. He must be the Nishal who was throwing out accusations at Melanie Phillips on Question Time. I thought at the time he looked wild eyed and angry. They say people resemble their dogs. Perhaps it was his dog.

    2. Nope. Two totally different people - although united in idiocy.

    3. Ah, right. Nihal, not Nishal. My mistake.

  41. May's move: 'Astonishing, desperate development'
    Rob Watson
    BBC World Service political correspondent
    It’s an astonishing, critics might say desperate, development.

    I just read this on BBC Live.
    Critics might say, says Rob Watson, critics like him and the rest of the BBC reporting cabal no doubt showing a rather partial headline.

  42. Listening to R4 PM Evan Davies show is amusing. He's desperately pushing a permanent Customs Union and panicking about a "no deal" approaching. Impartiality is an unknown concept.

    1. Yes, I just had the misfortune of listening to much of the Evan Davis Show, the compere sounding like an infant told he couldn't have a lolly from the shop. Luckily none of his heavily biased statements were challenged because he took the precaution of not having any real Brexiters on his show.

      The luv-in interview with Labour's underwhelming shadow Brexit secretary was risible. Davis had to step in more than once to complete her sentences and help her out.

      Also rather odd was Kevin Connolly's contribution from the EU, having been asked about their view of Brexit and a possible change to the deal. KC (who sometimes does some reasonably good reporting) basically said: "Who knows? We depend entirely on what the EU tell us at their press briefings." Can you imagine Laura K. coming on and saying she was not going to speculate and could only relay the information provided at No 10 press briefings? No, neither can I! The deference shown to Brussels is unbelievable.

    2. I would have to disagree about KC being sometimes ok. For me he’s one of the very obviously noticeable bad ones. Most recently his hit job on Orban was pure Soros propaganda.

    3. I think he once did a reasoned piece at the height of the Jenny Hill "No Borders" hysteria - probably influenced my opinion. But yes, I haven't heard anything good from him recently and today's was absoultely pathetic. A complete dereliction of journalistic duty.

  43. MB - With luck BBC PR and top floor is not. This is yet another BBC staffer piling in based on... sod all. And clearly of the view he is in the clear to do so.

    Idiot Nihal might have to go in the lexicon, if erring on tautology.

    Staffies can be dangerous as they are designed to be physically.

    Mentally all I know with good owners are sweethearts. Those walked in the park at dusk by a chav swigging a can of Stella, thank god they are on chain leads, poor sods.

    Suspect Nihal and spouse may also be fielding some dark looks from those who don't do dogs at all.

  44. The BBC will be apoplectic with the way the Brexit debate has moved today and this evening.

    Impartiality has been sadly lacking tonight because they have already had the big guns out rubbishing these developments, Chris Morris, Laura Kuenssberg and Katya Adler have already published negative reports on what’s happened.

    I suspect there will be glum faces all round within the BBC tonight whilst they digest what has just happened and try to work out how to further influence and poison their audiences against Brexit in light of today’s events.

    1. Arne , your comment on the BBCs big guns gave me pause for a wry smile. Those people are peashooters compared with the Beebs past . It really has fallen quickly and very far. It’s standards have dropped off a cliff. Morris is a liar, LK is over promoted and Adler is characterless.

    2. Agreed, I nearly didn’t write that description!

      Incredibly the BBC do employ them as some of their big guns.

      I should have added in my post that once again they don’t report, they just give us their prejudiced opinions which they falsely call analysis or reality checks

    3. Sadly, I think they are rather ecstatic about the Spelman amendment going through... :(

    4. Yup - by tomorrow they'll have spun it so it eclipses the Sir Graham Brady amendment - which is really the one that matters!

    5. Yep, Sis, they are already working on that - getting reaction from Remainiac organisations like IoD and FDF.Whatever happened to the Sandwich Makers Association.

  45. Sloo-mo Sopel must read this site. After criticism of his low work rate (no article on the US-Canada page since early November) he comes up with this:

    It's just one of those unhistorical potted histories that his rival and potential usurper Nick Bryant produces, but about one tenth the length.

    1. Whoops - slo-mo! But sloo does sound slow.

  46. Best moments of the evening were hearing Anna Soubry telling us she was in despair and sounding like she had been drowning her despair. Good. Long may she remain in despair as she despairs of us remaining. And then there was the once puffed-up Legion d'Honneur, French broadcaster, resident of France and friend of Emanuel Macron, Dominic Grieve looking very deflated. The essential vanity of the man was on display - his main concern on Newsnight was to remind that it was he who secured amendable motions.

    1. Yes, agreed.

      Is it just my inbuilt bias or is the BBC doing its best to side with the EU today rather thatn report objectively and maybe show just a bit of patriotism and positivity.

    2. Nope, just business as usual. They take the EU press briefings and regurgitate them whole. Meanwhile they fail to report on growing crises within the EU. Nor do they dwell on the pressure to put in place an EU Army - backed by both Macron and Merkel - which proves the Remainiacs lied in the EU Referendum Campaign. I don't think they've reported on the 95% reduction in illegal migration to Italy, thanks to their populist government, giving the lie to the idea these migrant waves are inevitable.

  47. Where's Andrew Neil? He hasn't been on today or last week for PMQs, although he was on that silly programme This Week last week!

    Did anyone see that interview Hurly Burly did with Press Gazette? Interesting snippets such as about Politics Live format being influenced by an American programme which I'd not heard of. Of course there's nothing new about BBC or British TV in general borrowing from America.

    Has quite a bit to say about bias and impartiality - they are successful at achieving the latter(!) - and he is not impressed by counts of panel members. Hm. But I'm puzzled about a comment he made while appearing to concede a little:
    'But, he goes on: “Where they’ve got a point, I suppose, is that the balance of opinion in Parliament is more towards Remain than it is towards Leave in general terms, and people, maybe with some hesitation, support Brexit just because they feel they have to now,” he says.'

    1. Is that the quality of Burley's analysis? Poor.

      I think Neil is winding down.

  48. One to keep tabs on...

    Radio 4 have already tried and convicted Donald Trump, guilty as charge of Russian collusion and treason...

    Jonathan Myerson, ex Labour Councillor and husband of the more famous Julie has got some pathetic play coming up where I suppose in the play (judging from the trailer) he will supply the damning evidence against Trump so far missing from reality (a sort of BBC Reality Check).

    The Myersons are of course the lovely couple who kicked their kid out of the family home for smoking cannabis. Perhaps these pontificators should sort out their own family life first before causing mayhem in wider society with their poisonous politics.

  49. I recall the last time a BBc senior type used 'boring'.

    Didn't end well.

    Until he left the BBC, that is.