...and any other matters that take our fancy
"Now children settle down and go to sleep or we'll let the Sweeney Monster in to breathe on you...""Noooo!!! Don't - we promise to be good!!!"
We know Amol as amongst the gobbiest of BBC news and current affairs staff, a keen tweetist, and very quick to promote the need for "transparency" in the media...https://twitter.com/MarkHorsleyUK/status/1198657164916789256So why no response to these claims from Mad John Sweeney that he, that is Amol, and other BBC journos are in the pockets of the Russians, through Evgeny Lebedev...?
The great public of Maltby in the Rother Valley were the voxpop stars on BBC tonight. ‘So what do you think of Boris Johnston?’ repeatedly asked Vicky Young having spent all afternoon wondering what clever question to ask them. The answers were predicable and obvious and we learned nothing new. Vicky ended by saying that the Tories would need to convince voters if they wanted to turn this seat from red to blue.Lazy, lazy news gathering. Do the powers at BBC News really think this format is still fresh and relevant?
Vox Pops are the lowest form of wittering.
On the launch of the Labour manifesto the other day, I listed the top six stories on the BBC News website Election 2019 page. Five referred to Labour against one negative story about donations to the Conservatives. Here is the same exercise today. There is a slight variation because there are seven in the lead set of stories:1. Tory manifesto 'to forge new Britain' - Johnson2. Tories seek to avoid manifesto calamity (Laura K article)*3. As it happened: Boris Johnson unveils Tory manifesto 4. Labour pledges payouts to pension age rise women5. Sturgeon: scrapping Trident is SNP red line6. Top energy firms move offshore over Labour plans7. Politicians seem 'childish to the working class'* The LK article was originally titled: 'Kuenssberg: Tories try to avoid calamity'.'Tory' and 'Tories' used three times. 'Conservatives' not at all. The overwhelming support for the Labour manifesto at its launch might have been justifiable if the same one-sided promotion had been afforded to the Conservatives today. But, what do we expect?
Excellent observations. There's no doubt the BBC and MSM generally are trying to blunt the Conservatives' campaign. Can you imagine how they'd be reporting things if Labour was 12-19 points ahead in the polls? It would all be "Labour riding high", "Labour soar in polls", "Corbyn confident on back of huge poll lead" etc The way the Conservative poll lead is being reported by the BBC and MSM deprives them of momentum and simply introduces doubt and denial.
Mark Levin is very good. :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDRoqzue0c8
News bulletins on BBC radio have been leading all day with the banning of the film Blue Story by two leading cinema chains. The narrative has been odd. Despite violent incidents at Birmingham and Vue saying they have had 25 incidents since the film opened, the BBC tone has been critical of the chains who are trying to protect the their family friendly image.The BBC are framing their reports by saying that posts on social media are critical of the chains. A quick look on twitter reveals posts supporting the chains as well as the critical ones. So the BBC could have framed their reports completely differently by saying social media posts supported the ban. But they didn’t. Could it because the film was made by BBC Films? A material fact withheld on every radio report. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-50541204
It is an article of faith among the Beeb congregation led by the Rev Mark Easton that no "moral panic" has ever been justified and that no film can influence people towards violence or other reprehensible behaviour. So when faith comes up against facts, faith wins...especially when the film is made by BBC Films! :)
Except when it was The Joker less than a month ago, which the BBC was 'warning' about.
moral panic may be a no-no, but as for 'moral outrage' they are the masters.
Anonymous - oh yes, I read The Joker was bit non PC...of course non-PC films like Reach for the Sky are very dangerous and have to be censored. :)
If you recall they were also strongly against the pulling of The Hunt in the summer. They said it was just a satirical film in which liberals hunt Trump supporters and kill them for sport. The liberal characters referred to their prey as "deplorables".The BBC were very supportive of this film.
So. So, why do guests on MSM invariably. start their reply to a question with an intonated so?So, the use of the word in this way is relatively new, it seems to have crept in over the last couple of years.So, if you analyse the most frequent users of this phenomenon, I am sure you will find it is the woke metropolitan set.
I am guessing you are talking about "so" as an introduction to answers...I think that's the big change. It actually came into general use within the space of about a year as I recall...I'd say around 2013 in the UK if my memory serves. It spread like wildfire! Some people think it started in Silicon Valley and spread from there. It was noted back in 2008 in the USA. It sounds very like an American teacher convention which I can imagine could become established in computer classes where linguistic versatility is not gradually valued, so each new point in the instruction programme would be introduced with "so". It's very annoying! But of course it gives the respondent a valuable second or two of thinking time, which is probably why it's so popular.
gradually = greatly!
Fox News often have fun with the American MSM - how they all suddenly adopt Democratic Party talking points (in turn often based on focus group research)re the Impeachment Hearings. So CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC etc all switched from "quid pro quo" to "bribery" overnight, simultaneously. Then they all referred to the Ambassador's evidence as a "bombshell" - like none of them could be bothered to consult an online synonym dictionary. Such is the state of US journalism. In other words, the US media is now virtually an arm of the Democratic Party. So I wasn't at all surprised to find the BBC's Anthony Zurcher assuring us this was "A bombshell for President Trump". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50495289The American media has totally abandoned journalism. I first really noticed this when Clinton had that weird seizure in public. The "journalists" present were clearly terrified to witness her bizarre behaviour - partly because it was bizarre but more I think because it might oblige them to write something that wasn't positive about St Hillary. Their relief and acquiescence in the pretence of laughter is quite pathetic:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtU5nMbEsQ4
You'll like this I think :https://yasha.substack.com/p/ukraine-and-meddling-in-2016-a2c
:::NEWNSIGHT WATCH:::Gross bias by Emily Maitlis..constantly and aggressively interrupting Peter Lilley re Brexit trade negotiations, while giving the SNP spokesperson virtually free reign. At one point Lilley, with some presence of mind, refused to answer one of her interruptive questions and said "I'm going to continue giving my answer to your question, rather than this new question" or something like that. This followed on an interview with Ivan Rogers (I didn't see it), the great seer (May appointment - absolutely useless, probably a deal saboteur) now telling us a trade deal can't be done in the allotted time - earlier this year he was claiming a Brexit deal on a Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and EU under Boris's government was "most improbable". In other words, just the normal anti-Brexit propaganda. The interesting thing about the programme as broadcast was that just at the end of the item (owing to incompetent editing*)you could hear an irate Peter Lilley saying something like: "None of my arguments were..." I presume he was complaining he wasn't allowed to air his views in the same way as the SNP spokesperson was. Appalling! *They will probably edit it out on I Player I expect.
:::NEWSNIGHT WATCH:::Balanced approach to discussion about "are you enjoying the election"? Who shall we get in to discuss this? Well two Labour supporters. One Far Left (Billy Bragg) and one Blarite Left (Jenni Russell). Conservatives, Lib Dems, and all others need not apply.
Earlier today on Radio 5 Live this morning they were keen to discuss "pivoting"...what would cause you to pivot on your views on something fundamental?...It sounded like a hopeful exercise in mind control...with Labour so far behind in the polls they are getting desperate. The excuse for the "pivot" nonsense was that the entertaining-but-not-very-bright Jeremy Clarkson had decided he was now a pro-Thunberg climate change activist because he hadn't been able to take a trip on a boat in Cambodia (shades of "not getting my hot meal" after a hard day's filming). The river had dried up, so clearly Thunberg was right, seemed to be the general drift of the BBC's reporting. Hmmm...when the planet warms up, the general picture is that warmth means more evaporation, means more water vapour, means more rain, means more surface water, means rivers full of water. That's why in the hottest parts of the planet we have rainforest as the most common type of ecosystem. Accordingly I am sceptical about dried up rivers in Cambodia being a result of carbon emissions climate change. A more likely explanation might be deforestation in Cambodia or further south in Indonesia leading to regional climate change, or water extraction, or human influence on the landscape...or the sort of climate change we just don't understand (possibly to do with chaos theory - ie essentially unpredictable). The cynic in me says Clarkson has seen the writing on the wall and is going to "pivot" to electric vehicles in the future, to maintain Top Gear's franchise value, since it is as clear as day that the era of the internal combustion engine is coming to an end.
So is the Labour Party issuing under-the-radar manifestoes with crazy commie commitments? I haven't heard much about this "faith and race" manifesto. What else have they got simmering on the cooker top? https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1199097985965142016
Not normally a huge fan of Chief Rabbis - they normally come out with a load of pious and hypocritical guff (Sacks being one of the worst offenders). But can't disagree with the current Chief Rabbi that this election is a battle for the soul of the nation. It is as important as that. Corbyn has supported terrorists in the IRA, has worked for and been paid by an anti-Jewish regime (Iran - via Press TV), has associated himself with a Jew-hate organisation (Hamas) and has himself stood on platforms with anti-Jewish activists or made statements that have a strong whiff of anti-semitism about them. So, well done mate! For once the Chief Rabbi has got it right.
How's the Clinton Foundation doing? Not so well, now she's no longer a big player:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NyhpIY9T9oNo. 1 foreign country donor used to be Ukraine! lol And an internal review made clear that donors expected "quid pro quos". :)
Lord Pearson - the only honourable Parliamentarian in the UK at the moment (1 out of about 1400): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMyerGmnRJE
It's an absolute scandal that Radio 4's Today has decided to base its live election tour of the UK on Universities. It is difficult to think of another institutional sector (except possibly the BBC itself) that is more pro-Labour, whether we think of academics, administrators or students. The overall impact is to create a "hostile environment" for the Conservatives day after day after day. They could have decided to go to motorway service stations, or army bases, or factories up and down the land. Why have they restricted their tour to Universities? This stinks.
To say nothing of the volatile atmosphere created around universities during the recent strike action.
Quite - which they must have known about.
9am news on Radio 4. Although it's definitely still news (having only appeared in the newspapers this morning), the Chief Rabbi's comments on Corbyn, Labour and anti-semitism are dealt with in a very cursory fashion, but the news bulletin lingered longingly over Alf Dubbs' denial of the Chief Rabbi's criticism and apologia for Corbyn. Also, the report referred to Alf Dubbs having been a Jewish refugee from central Europe just before WW2, to give the denial more authority. I am sure the Jewish community is largely incandescent at Dubbs allowing himself to be treated as a "useful idiot", to deploy Lenin's phrase.
There have been a series of unnerving stories on the BBC News website recently with a message: 'Even if the Conservatives win the GE Brexit won't happen'.There are two such stories today:... 'Heseltine: Lifelong Tories should back Lib-Dems'. The ex deputy PM says Boris Johnson'd claims he can get Brexit done by January is nonsense.' ...And, 'Ex UK Diplomat attacks PM's Get Brexit Done vow'... 'Sir Ivan Rogers describes Boris Johnson's Get Brexit Done election pledge as diplomatic amateurism' ...This follows the Tony Blair BBC interview of 22nd November:... 'General election 2019: Blair claims that Brexit 'nightmare' may not end.' ...These three articles are all negative towards the Consevatives and are being promoted in an openly biased way to cause damage. Plus they are all from 'former this and former that' retirees.I guess that if or when Boris is returned with a majority, the BBC will continue to attempt to reverse Brexit.
Obviously a co-ordinated attack. Blair is one of the best political communicators but even he seemed to have a garbled message...I guess he doesn't want to bring an end to his dream of returning as Labour Leader, so can't advise people to vote Lib Dem. Ivan Rogers has been wrong about everything. Why would anyone go to him for sage advice on trade treaties?
A ban against protests outside the Birmingham school has been made permanent:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-50557227... 'LGBT teaching row: Birmingham primary school protests permanently banned.' ...On this site we have been watching as two of the most favoured minorities, LBGT and RoP, seemed to be on collision course over the subjects taught in school. It seemed simple - until ... 'Christian campaigner John Allman, from Okehampton in Devon, had also opposed the exclusion zone, claiming it limited public protest.' ...As far as I can Allman was not named in court papers - how convenient though that the BBC (and other MSM) can suggest that the protests have a wider faith element.
Sounds suspicious to me...Devon isn't a hotbed of traditionalist Christian campaigners. Yes - very convenient for the BBC. I still predict it will end in a riot and then the authorities will cave in to the Islamic lobby.
... As far as I can see Allman was ...
Stunned by the lunchtime edition of the local BBC Westcountry news programme Points West. Apparently Matt Hancock was denied a photo opportunity by two hospitals in Sherborne and Taunton this morning. Without any footage to screen, the political correspondent Paul Barltrop proceeded to show the footage of Boris Johnson being harangued by a parent (he did at least admit the latter was a Labour activist). That footage was from East London (not local) and was about three weeks old (not news), so its only purpose can have been to tar the Conservatives with the same old brush. One wonders whether Labour had a similar stooge lined up at Taunton, only to be denied his 15 minutes of fame at the last moment by the hospitals' stance (something to do with "purdah" and public servants, apparently). Luckily the BBC had one they'd prepared earlier!
Same incongruous clip in the main evening edition. I look forward to other hospitals and schools turning down Corbyn's requests for photo opportunities...
Here's a nightmare scenario for you: the anti-semitic thing gets out of control...Corbyn does a mea culpa "Whilst strongly committed to anti-racism, I have failed to tackle this issue effectively, and I have submitted my resignation as Leader in order not to damage Labour's prospects at the forthcoming general election." John McDonnell is appointed Leader, gets a huge burst of media coverage and support from the BBC and MSM more generally after issuing an apology for anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Labour surge in the polls...
I don't think it'd be McDonnell, it would be Starmer. They're keeping him in the shadows in case the shit hits the fan. I'm amazed it hasn't already happened. Momentum are very powerful, but once they're done - i.e Corbyn goes - Maccy will go too.
It's odd that anti-Semitism has drowned out all other issues upon which Labour and Corbyn are weak:1. Where does the £58 bn come from to pay for the WASPI group?2. How can a Party Leader remain neutral whilst presiding over any new difficult and intense WA negotiations without making further concessions?Brillo exposed Corbyn's lack of conviction in this evening's interview, but the BBC News website simply fail to report it. I hope you are wrong MB with your nightmare scenario.
Anonymous - even worse if it's Starmer, could take a lot of Lib Dem votes...I did google as to what the current position is on the Deputy Leader...Watson resigned the position, so who is the acting Deputy Leader? I can't find anything on that. I suspect it might be down to the NEC to appoint an Acting Leader in these circumstances.
Take a look at their official site. Watson is still deputy, apparently.https://labour.org.uk/people/shadow-cabinet/
Arthur - Well said. 1. The BBC, Sky and ITV have done nothing to tackle Labour on that promise/pledge/aspiration/lying inducement to WASPI women. 2. Yep, you are quite right. The whole point of our Parliamentary democracy is that a PM is accountable to Parliament. Is a Labour PM really going to go to Parliament during negotiations and say "Sorry mate, nothing to do with me. Keith (or whoever) is handling the negotiations. I've really no idea what's going on. He doesn't tell me." Are we expected to believe that No 10 will have no influence over negotiations? Will pro-Remain Cabinet Ministers be allowed to criticise the negotiations? Will the Minister who conducts the negotiations be expected to support the negotiated deal against Remain? If not, how on earth can the public be assured they really tried the best and weren't negotiating for failure? There are so many questions that could be asked of this incoherent Labour position on Brexit. But the BBC have done hardly anything to highlight the contradictions and difficulties. I think the BBC have a guiding principle in all this. They want the "Tories" to lose in order that Brexit can be blocked. But they don't want to deliver Corbyn a thumping outright majority (not least because that will mean higher rates of tax on all manner of things for high paid BBC staff).
Thanks Anonymous, I've just seen he is resigning as Deputy Leader with effect from 12 December. That makes no sense either, because if Corbyn resigned that would mean on 13 December Labour would have no Leader acting or otherwise at a time when it might need to enter into negotiations with other parties re a coalition. And how (if Corbyn resigned) can you have Watson as Acting Leader when he's not even standing as an MP...makes a mockery of everything. So - a muddle.
On the BBC News website Election 2019 page this morning, there isn't a single mention of Boris Johnson nor is there any photo of his campaigning. On the other hand, there are six images of Jeremy Corbyn. How's that for balance?
Not the BBC, but Sarah-Jane Mee announcing the death of Clive James on Sky News: "The Bee Gees famously walked out on his evening show...I remember watching that." Er no, love, that was Clive Anderson. :) It's always amusing when mediabots announce things with such certainty.
Been picked up by the Daily Star that well known paper of record:https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/clive-james-confused-clive-anderson-20974197
History's backwaters:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guPsvUlMHEEIs that a young Anne McElvoy at 03:17?
Blimey, Old Denis was quite the stand-up comedian in those days.
Yes, he must have auditioned for Granada before he settled on Westminster! :)
:::NEWSNIGHT WATCH:::Ash! Where have you been...Maitlis - referencing "misery" around this election. Well yes, if you can see BJ and the "Tories" winning a 68 seat majority and seeing through Brexit, yes people like Maitlis are going to be miserable. Award winning Maitlis listens to Nick Watt describe this crucial You Gov MRP poll - giving the Conservatives a 68 seat majority and the Lib Dems cut down to 12...she then asks the panel "Who's happy or unhappy with this poll?" Duh! My comment: the Conservatives need to build on this poll and crush the opposition. This poll is quite recent and doesn't take on board the anti-semitism row in full. Boris needs to get in some heavy punches in the last ten days, making a vote for Labour the equivalent of a vote for racism, a vote for endless Brexit delay, a vote for unpatriotic extremists, a vote for Sharia, a vote for millions more mass immigration.
>>>PESTON WATCH<<<Warsi on Peston peddling her pro-Caliphate views. We are not allowed to be critical of Islam's aims. That must be made illegitimate and illegal. Wants to close down The Spectator and censor Rod Liddle. Represents Boris Johnson, a completely liberal, as some sort of rabid fascist. Fake facts go unchallenged by Peston who, although he opposes every single aspect of Islam and Sharia, doesn't have the guts to address what Warsi is promoting. This is why we need a populist government needs to bring a law that makes it clear (a) that Sharia law does not apply in the UK and (b) that conspiracy to introduce Sharia into the UK is illegal and subject to legal penalties. Serious threats to democracy have to be blocked.
>>>PESTON WATCH<<<Peston giving Gauke the softest of interviews...virtually skating along arm-in-arm smiling and pecking each other on the cheek. Doesn't ask Gauke why he has reneged on his 2017 manifesto commitment... Why is Gauke allowed on the programme to present himself as a candidate in his constituency (he is an independent only, not a member of a party so he can't be seen as anything else but a constituency candidate)? What about all the other candidates in his constituency? Why aren't they allowed on the programme to present their views. They weren't even mentioned! I think ITV have broken electoral law. Hope the Conservatives put in an immediate complaint about this to the Electoral Commission.
Quite a cultural moment today...three deaths: Gary Rhodes, Clive James and Jonathan Miller. Who should lead in the headlines? I'd opt for 1. James 2. Miller 3. Rhodes.
Miller has one of my favourite quotes. I was 13 when he said it and I've never forgotten it :"The weapon of language isn't in the phonetics, it's in the semantics."Simple, very true and should be chiseled into the yard outside broadcasting house.
Let's go fact-checking. Here is a story on the BBC News website Election 2019 page:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50578207... 'General election 2019: Labour promises to plant two billion trees by 2040.' ...The BBC report swallows the headline hook line and sinker, saying that the plan is 'ambitious' - in fact the most ambitious of the main parties. Further down the piece:... ' Labour's plan - which would mean more than 270,000 trees being planted a day' ...Really, that figure should sound alarm bells in any reporter's mind. The figures simply don't stack up. At a typical rate of 500 trees per acre, the plan will require 4 million acres, or 93,628 square miles of available land - 6.75% of the entire UK land area (that is without adding in the accepted 20% extra for paths and clearings within a forestry scheme). How about the manpower to plant these trees at a rate of 500 per day? That works out at 540 'teams' working every day with logistics back-up to get the seedlings into position. And the cost for all this? £3.7 bn from the aptly named money tree - a mere £1.85 per tree! Think of all the planing processes, the land acquisition, those strange but heavy forestry machines. What is the purpose of this shift in forestry policy? Can all these trees be harvested for biomass fuels? Think of the costs of harvesting and transporting wood-chip. Think of the costs of replacing gas boilers with messy woodburners. Think of the huge volumes which have to be stored at each boiler location. (I worked out that for a three-bed detached house if a double garage was filled to the gunnels with wood-chip fuel, it would last some eight weeks).Or, are all these trees there to look pretty and be 'the lungs of our cities'? Any estate owner will tell you that looking after broadleaf deciduous trees is a very time-consuming and expensive operation.The BBC complain when they are themselves fact-checked. We should do more.
That’s nearly 200 a minute - 24/7
It's probably feasible...in terms of planting. But I remember reading that in urban areas 90% of planted saplings die. The figure might be lower in rural areas but, even so, there must be a lot of attrition. So it's probably plant 2 billion, see 500 million live on. It's probably feasible on a global scale but then you have serious accountancy issues, ensuring your billions of pounds of investment result in real living trees and not trees that are also being "sold" to other countries and investors, so that you have multiple counting of carbon emission reductions. That said, if carbon emissions really are a problem then trees really are a relatively quick solution and can have beneficial effects in areas that have been subject to over-grazing for instance.
Guido is onto this absurd proposal. His figures make mine look conservative:https://order-order.com/2019/11/28/labours-2-billion-trees-plan-leaves-no-room-homes/#disqus_thread
I'm a bit slow but I've just noticed a familiar pattern to the Blue Story story:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-50581312Violent incidents occur associated with a particular film. Film makers insist that it is not violent but a film about love. Film makers accuse cinemas of prejudice/racism. Cinemas say how important the film is and how much they wish to support the film. No-one asks the salient question: how come the violent incidents came to be associated with this particular film?I expect politicians will be soon be weighing in and declaring it a 'film of peace'.
The BBC have been to the fore in pushing the conspiracy theory that the rioting related to the "Frozen" sequel and the banning was racist, intended to suppress the black community. It's outrageous. They claim to be against fake news and conspiracy theories, but when it comes to race they will broadcast anything that supports a charge of racism!
Let's face it, from the moment the West Midlands Crime Commissioner came out and said "We didn't recommend banning this film", it was obvious that Frozen fans were the culprit and he was just trying to cover it up. I've heard tales of 4 year old girls hiding machetes under their glittery dresses, and sharpening their plastic tiaras in preparation for conflict.
I referenced above Maitlis going on about this election being a "misery". Reading the latest Spectator I see Andrew Marr is using its columns to peddle the same line - it's a miserable election and we are all crotchety about it...So this is another of those Beeb-memes - like when they attempted to make out the EU Referendum was boring and yawn-inducing (that didn't succeed either). Trying to make everyone miserable and crotchety is meant to undermine the Boris Feelgood Factor. It's worked to some degree. Can you imagine them saying all this misery stuff if Labour were heading for a 68 seat majority? Er no, neither can I. You've got to remember that Maitlis, Marr and chums have dedicated huge amounts of energy to (a) getting the Brexit vote overturned (b) stopping Boris from becoming leader of the Conservative Party (hence the ludicrous Rory cult) and (c) stopping Boris from succeeding in this election. They have failed in (a) and (b) so far despite the strength of their attacks and (c) isn't looking too good either (they tried accusing Boris of being an inveterate liar, fascist and scumbag, they tried Swinsonmania, tactical voting and detoxing Corbyn - nothing has worked so far). So they are staring down the barrel of a big Conservative win...Marr also indulged in some unclever historical analogising, likening Corbyn to Ramsay MacDonald. The purpose seemed to be to keep the hopes of a Corbyn victory alive and present him as less toxic than he really is, someone who would pragmatically modify his opinions in power.
Very low key reporting by the BBC today on the jailing of a Shia Muslim for attacks on five mosques in Birmingham.At the time of the attacks, BBC West Midlands had this as a high profile lead story of hate crime. There was a clear inference that it was a white hate crime backed up by angry and concerned voxpops talking of Islamophobia.
Yes, this has happened so often. We discover much later and with much less hoo-ha that it was something like a family, clan or religious dispute.
:::NEWSNIGHT WATCH:::Barmy Barnett talking for longer than her interviewee guests - well definitely in relation to Charles Walker MP. Her questions now take the form of an apparent question followed by mini moral lecture or homily followed by hostile accusation and followed by an early interruption denying the interviewee is answering the question properly.Guest from the grand-sounding Institute for Strategic Dialogue...not introduced as an interested pro-EU body...well can you guess who funds it? As per normal, it's Open Society Foundations or - if you prefer - George Soros's cheque book.There are so many of these Soros-funded bodies posing as non-partisan independent think tanks when they are there to promote Soros's political views and to interfere in our democratic processes.
Just heard McDonnell's party political broadcast on R4 Today 7.30am. Justin asked him to tell us about the new regional policies! Not a question at all! Then allowed him to rant about the BBC because Boris didn't want to be grilled by Andrew Neil. Hardly any interruptions... a 10 minute free ride never given to any Conservatives who are constantly interrupted and not allowed to answer a question that provides the "wrong" answer in the mind of the BBC lefties who don't want us to hear anything that they don't agree with.
Meanwhile Boris Johnson is described by Jack (?) as "elusive"; whereas Jeremy Corbyn is not described as "terrorist-supporting". :) Yes, the bias is palpable - following on that You Gov MRP poll, there is widespread gloom and despair at the BBC. They are panicking. They can see Brexit happening, the UK flourishing outside the EU, constituency boundaries being revised to give a much fairer distribution (favouring Conservatives), SNP becoming like the Quebecois independence movement (gradual decline to irrelevance), the TV licence fee being replaced by subscription and even, possibly, mass immigration being restrained to some degree.
Across most of the BBC's output runs a consistent bias due to their barely concealed wish for the Conservatives and Brexit to be defeated. For example:... 'General election 2019: Labour to change strategy with two weeks to go' By Iain Watson ...... 'The Labour Party is to re-shape its general election campaign strategy - particularly in Leave-voting areas - to try to turn around a stubborn Conservative opinion poll lead.' ...It's the word 'stubborn' that's the giveaway. Definition of the word: ... showing dogged determination not to change one's attitude or position on something especially in spite of good reasons to do so ...As has been said on ITBBCB many times, if it were Labour enjoying a lead in the polls, it would be 'a commanding opinion-poll lead'.
I would agree the "stubborn" is a tell. He could have said "persistent" or "unrelenting".
I suppose the BBC will be downplaying this story because of the link to their soulmate - The Guardian. No sordid details on their report I expect, something bland instead so they can bury it quickly . David Pemsel , the new Premier League chief and former chief executive of The Guardian newspaper has resigned after being accused of pestering young woman for sex.
Why is this hagiography of Greta Thunberg, essentially an opinion piece, appearing under "News". The only purpose seems to be to rally support against "conservative voices" during this election campaign. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49918719It's full of Fake News. There is no evidence that she has "inspired a generation" across the planet. The BBC seem to forget that most young people on Earth live in Latin America, Africa, China, India, Russia and Indonesia. They don't give her opinions much thought. If the BBC mean she has inspired a generation among European and American children they may be less fake, but even that is arguable. There's little evidence that young people are changing their habits in a major way. The other fake aspect is trying to make out she is working solelyby herself rather than being the mouthpiece for manipulative adult advisors.
Yesterday's BBC website headline in the morning was about Labour changing strategy to appeal to brexiteers. I read the artice and then thought "this is not news". Going back over the article there was a single "BBC understands from insiders..." So not any news at all. just hearsay. Yet it was the lead piece on the bbc website. Staggering.In this context the "Understands from" probably could be replaced with are".
Evan Davis rises to the occasion on The Evan Davis Show (aka PM). With reference to the London Bridge terror attack, he calls the life and death struggle between the brave members of the public and the assailant, a "tussle". Then, talking to an ex head of Met Police counter-terrorism unit, he notes that a while back the Police had indicated they were dealing with as many Far Right terror plots as Islamist terror plots. Er? The ex Police Officer had to correct him on that - noting that there were many more Islamist terror plots than Far Right plots...that was the case before and the case now. Of course, Evan might almost be forgiven for that faux pas, since it was certainly the intention of the Met Police hierarchy and the Mayor to give the impression there was some sort of "equivalence" between the terror threats.
Yes. Basu said in September that the far right represented the fastest growing terror threat when the reality is that no more than 10% of active investigations involved them. He was promoting a false narrative and this continues tonight when he was being coy again saying they are keeping an open mind on the motive.
Could Davis have been so thick as to think the Police had actually said there was statistical equivalence, or did he think he could smuggle in the idea into the conversation without being corrected...
He thought he could sneak it in. Classic BBC trick - just put it out there with confidence as if is a fact.
Ha @MB I thought your 18:43 post was a copy of minebut you in fact posted an hour before mine at 7:46 pm "5:12pm The EvanDavies show"
I've got copyright on "The Evan Davis Show" lol! I've been calling it that since the first week he took over!!
The latest London Bridge terror attack is indicative of all that is wrong in the UK. Our Judges, the people who should be protecting us, engage in judicial activism and undermine effective counter-terrorism measures agreed by Parliament on the basis of their own PC ideology (applied with extreme prejudice in favour of Jihadists, IRA terrorists, socialist activists and Extinction Rebellion, but not to activists who oppose PC ideology). Our idiotic academics invited a known Islamic terrorist to a conference in central London, giving him the perfect excuse to evade controls on his movements. Who recommended him? Who invited him? Why? Were any Islamic advocacy organisations involved at all?Our Probation authorities let a known terrorist circulate freely in the Metropolis. Our media (Sky) this morning allow Muslims (of unknown provenance) unfettered and unchallenged access to tell us the attack had nothing to do with Islam - which is clearly fake news since we know the terrorist was previously convicted of terrorist charge relating to his belief in Islamic doctrine of Jihad against the unbelievers. Will Ofcom censor Sky (and the BBC by now) for allowing such Fake News and conspiracy theory nonsense on their airwaves? Imagine how offensive this must be to the victims' families - to be told that their loved ones were not killed for the very obvious reason that they were.
Why doesn't anyone in our Malevolent Media ask Mayor Khan some hard questions about the full political support he gave to Babar Ahmed, trying to prevent his deportation to the USA (Ahmed later pleaded guilty to a terrorism-related offence). If they did Khan would do what he has done before and imply Ahmed was simply a legal client. Ahmed was never a client - Khan gave him full political support in his campaign against extradition on the basis that we was not aiding terrorism. Khan has NEVER apologised for his support for Ahmed.
English-born, Freeman Dyson is a real scientist:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson#Early_lifeInteresting comments on climate change (which he does not deny in case you are wondering).
And this is an interesting video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J48LQSQIinA
Owen Jones has just finished a 25 minute rant on the Stephen Nolan 5 Live programme (Sat 30th Nov). His central premise is that the BBC is institutionally biased towards the Conservative Party; he cites as evidence the fact that the BBC has allowed the Prime Minister to be interviewed by Andrew Marr having previously said it would only allow the interview if Boris Johnson agreed to face BBC 'rottweiler' Andrew Neil. Stephen Nolan put up a reasonable defence of the BBC but Jones's accusations were at best laughable. He clearly felt the Magic Grandpa (Corbyn) took a hell of a beating from Andrew Neil and is very sore Boris won't be subject to the same scrutiny. If only he read Is the BBC Biased!
This whole London Bridge attack has a bizarre, surreal feel - shades of Evelyn Waugh prison scenes in Decline and Fall and then a kind of "UK politics in miniature" element as well. Just want to note our media don't seem to be doing their job. I think anyone following the London Bridge attack story would want to know about this Criminology Conference which seems to have provided the opportunity for the terror attack. Forget Jack Merrit, one of the victims - who seems to have been left to carry the can - I very much doubt the conference was his idea or that he organised it without support and advice. It appears to have been organised by "Learning Together" based in Cambridge (but part of a wider network). Learning Together appear to have had some formal status within Cambridge, including receiving funds from the University but as with so many of these "units" and "initiatives" within our tax-funded universities, they also appear to have an autonomous status outside academia and adopt an advocacy/political role.There are two names proudly attached to the "Living Together" initiative in Cambridge: Drs Amy Ludlow and Ruth Armstrong. https://www.cctl.cam.ac.uk/tlif/learning-together/detailsI haven't heard either mentioned in the news coverage. If they have been it hasn't been mentioned in the main bulletins I've seen. Neither appears to have issued any statement. All relevant twitter accounts seem to be locked down. In other comparable circumstances, our media would be demanding answers of them, just as they demand answers of lots of people in public life...and if they take our tax money, then they are in public life. Can you imagine if these academics were part of a right wing think tank?...the BBC would be camped outside their offices with a reporter gesticulating towards their location saying "As yet neither have offered any comment or explanation..."