"We have been asking for hours now to give us a date, a time, for a new open thread. As of now, none has been forthcoming. There is no law, no Supreme Court ruling, that can force Sue and Craig to start a new open thread but..."
(interrupting) Oh for goodness sake, Andrew, stop moaning! Here's a new open thread.
Thank you for your support and comments.
There is a forlorn look to Andrew Neil as he accepts that the much prized scalp of BoJo has avoided his clutches. He shouldn't look for the listening/viewing public's sympathy he won't find any.
ReplyDeleteThe run-up to the General Election, which should have been about Brexit (the most important democratic decision in a lifetime), has been clouded by the self-interest of the BBC to the extent that they have made themselves the story. We know the BBC likes their own, but here we have an organisation incapable of unbiased reporting.
Every point on the wish-list pronounced by Andrew Neil was covered to an extent in the Marr interview. The issue is an internal one for the BBC. AN is sore because he believes he would have landed the blows better than AM and in that he's most-likely right. There is no substance to the claim that Boris Johnson is avoiding scrutiny. There is plenty of evidence that Marr as the BBC chosen reporter fumbled the interview making AN furious and leaving the BBC with egg on its face.
What is it spin doctors say about themselves? "When you become the story, it's time to exit." Take that advice BBC. The BBC have helped make people think seriously about the licence fee structure. They should reflect that Charters can be revoked as well as granted, especially where the recipient fails to meet the terms of the Charter.
DeleteThey do sometimes - as on yesterday's WATO - drop in the odd comment showing that people might think they are navel-gazing, but they go on navel-gazing nonetheless. It's a wonder that they don't all have stiff necks (as opposed to brass necks).
DeleteThere's a house style rule at the BBC. When writing headlines include "Labour" in the headline if it's a positive story about the party but exclude it if it's a negative story. So...it's "Labour beats other parties on climate change" but "UK-US trade document linked to Russia".
ReplyDeleteAny Answers has been remainer central today. Not heard a single caller in favour of leaving the EU or even voting Conservative in the first 30 minutes.
ReplyDeleteI did suspect as much after reading a tweet a few minutes ago from a pro-EU left-winger saying, "That was a surprisingly sensible #bbcaq".
DeleteAn interesting article on Conservative Woman about axing the BBC.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/why-id-bin-the-beeb?fbclid=IwAR044FvmjldHl1eLlO_NTdLVZ34O9rCbW7gMWrxJlmyVH14bvWf5qN2MH5k
If you did scrap it altogether you'd have to ensure the copyrights were kept otherwise it could be relaunched by some PC billionaires. Even if you do scrap it, there is a danger it could return in some form, with a slightly different name, even more PC than before.
I favour a multi-pronged offensive to get the BBC back on track:
1. Move to a subscription service with some state funding for particular services e.g. for people with disabilities, minority languages and regional programming.
2. Ensure that all subscribers can vote for all the members of the BBC board of management.
3. Make a portion of the BBC budget (perhaps 10%) available for externally edited programming, for which subscribers could vote. This could be done via a website.
4. Put an Impartiality Board in place, to ensure that the BBC's news and current affairs is fair and balanced but also that the broad range of programming reflects public views and perceptions.
5. Cut the BBC down to size. Asian Network, Radio 6 Music could be cut or sold off. Same for all BBC local radio stations.
6. Give it a specific brief to support British culture, freedom of speech and democratic processes and values.
7. Specify by law the number of people at the BBC allowed to earn over 200% and 400% of the average salary, respectively. This will put restraints on the BBC's ludicrously complex management structure.
8. Ensure that a certain amount of prime time broadcasting time is available to national newspapers on a pro-rata basis to broadcast their programmes (if they wish) for a nominal payment. So maybe allocate something like 200 hours per annum.
Noone ever looks at the bbc's accounts and capital spending. This is an organisation the size of a cointry. Does a public broadcaster need to be so large? Confine its remit to public broadcasting, strip away radios 1,2,5,keep 4 and world service, loose channels 2 etc. Back to basics, sell off its estate and reduce staff from 25000 to 4000.
ReplyDeleteNot the BBC, but Gillian Joseph on Sky Papers stoutly defending the Labour Party over anti-semitism. She is robustly proclaiming that there is a Jewish group inside Labour, and a group of Jewish academics, who do not accept that the party is institutionally anti Semitic. Press reviewers Rachel Cunliffe and Ruth Lea look gobsmacked!
ReplyDeleteAmol Rajan's old paper, The Independent has been going on about "the trouble with Jews"...
ReplyDeletehttps://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/the-independent-revises-op-ed-saying-settlements-are-trouble-with-jews-today1/
I suppose it's kind of "Alf Garnett Lite" now.
The introduction of BBC's own app aimed specifically at children had passed me by until I saw a continuity clip in amongst all the free advertising that they afford themselves:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-49726844
... 'BBC launches 'digital wellbeing' Own It app for children' ...
.... 'It monitors how young people interact with friends and family online and through messaging apps.
It uses AI to evaluate a child's mood so it can offer advice or encourage them to talk to trusted adults.
The app is designed to offer help and support especially if children are about to share sensitive data or send an upsetting message.' ...
Surely, this is an truly Orwellian expansion of the BBC's PC ideological propaganda into the minds of the young - the thought police at work.
From comments in the Open Thread above, the future of the BBC must be questioned. It seems the BBC is free to expand at its own whim - pledging potentially unlimited sums of money into pet projects - this app and the Sounds app to name two. The reference to AI is equally worrying. Who is to monitor the information the machine learning throws up?
Who is directing and exercising control over their expansion?
As others have pointed out, the BBC is way too big. It squashes diversity through it's size across all media platforms.
DeleteAn AI driven app to monitor children is yet another example of an out of control unaccountable monster with it's own agenda. I'd have the BBC out of children's education completely.
It's extraordinary. The BBC's empire is far too big anyhow, and now they're launching this, which seems to be way beyond what most people would think of as being the BBC's remit.
DeleteI see their report features an approving professor, It reads like a plug (probably because it is a plug).
AI has the tendency to throw up precisely what is meant to be avoided. It's not without its own inherent bias - dependent upon who specified the parameters.
DeleteThe BBC seems awfully confident that it will not only continue to exist in perpetuity, but be allowed to grow to NHS size. Doubtless paid for by those also covering the extra costs of care the NHS seems so keen to bear.
ReplyDeleteI am losing count of the number of new BBC [insert snappy handle here] cropping up, with office, team, facebook page and twitter, that appears to only exist to serve as something to quote other new BBC [insert snappy handle here] specialist areas, who then return the favour. As pyramid schemes go it is awesome, as it is based on a limitless supply of other people's money.
Of course there is a limit, and when reached I suspect the plan has been to become too vast too fail, given inflated salaries and daft pensions already.
If any future government is tempted to 'help', assuming I still have a vote that counts, I will not be keen.
Add to that the aged retainers who seem to do little to no work - or not any that finds its way on to the airwaves despite their prominent titles: John Simpson is the most obvious example but there are others. And there are some "BBC reporters" you hear nothing about for several months or even years before they pop up again. And of course all of these correspondents have plenty of time to write weighty tomes. If you look at ITV's news operation, by comparison, you'll see they have a much, much higher work rate.
DeleteI also fear that the BBC is another NHS in the making - full of would-be national treasures, and ever an increasing number of staff, newly acquired premises and their 'stars' (that no-one heard of until they became BBC appointed celebs). The One Show has a seemingly limitless queue of these folk lined up with an exact diversity match to suit their brief.
DeleteKate Adie is another. Sole job (as I can understand) is to introduce 2 editions of FOOC each week. Whereas on the World Service this is done by a "lesser" person.
DeleteAdie, to be fair has been a freelance journo since 2003...but Simpson is still on the BBC payroll. Of course we have no way of finding out how much Kate gets paid for her 5 mins of work a week! :) But it's probably way too much.
DeleteA question of trust and lying politicians.
ReplyDeleteJohn Pienaar takes a look at one of the key questions asked of Corbyn and Johnston. I have to say he’s better than most of them when it comes to being fair and balanced - both with written word and in front of the camera.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50705781
Well done BBC!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50706835
Sadly, you had to report the FBI declaration that the Pensacola murder of three American sailors by a Saudi student was a terrorist offence.
Still, at least the BBC were able in a substantial article were able to avoid all mention of the I word, the M word, the J word, the K word or indeed any cross referencing to 9-11.
They also managed to avoid quoting the online comments of the perpetrator reported on other, proper news sites (e.g. Fox).
Once again the BBC proves itself to be the PC BBC.
BBC Reality Check unreality:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50705261
The verdict is "Some goods entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain will have to be checked even if they are staying in Northern Ireland."
But oddly, further down we read:
"A few countries, such as New Zealand, have a deal with the EU where only 1% of consignments of meat and dairy product are checked.
It is possible that the UK could negotiate a similar deal but it would not be able to get rid of checks entirely unless the whole of the UK was going to stay in the single market.
The current political declaration, which sets out the broad shape of the future EU-UK relationship, suggests that is unlikely."
"Unlikely" that it won't happen does not equate with "will have to" does it?
However, the BBC conclusion is wrong. The UK cannot "stay in the single market" if it is going to leave the EU (and the Withdrawal Agreement reached in October specifies the UK is leaving the EU). That is a legal impossibility. So the BBC are peddling nonsense here.
Meant to add - isn't it strange to illustrate the story with a pic of a Sinn Fein demo. Sinn Fein would be only too happy to have a hard border between the island of Ireland and Great Britain!
DeleteRe what happens next, post election win for Boris?
ReplyDeleteMy call would be to appoint Andrew Neil as Interim DG; he has a great pedigree as Editor of the Sunday Times, launched Sky Channels in the UK, managed a stable of newspapers and titles in the UK & beyond. He is a journalist and a broadcaster who would know how to achieve balance at the BBC and cut it down to size.
The new Culture Secretary would have the job of agreeing the terms of a new Contract with the BBC; ensuring balance in news and current affairs (and much more drama, entertainment etc) and a remitbwhich reduce the scale and reach of the Corporation.
Who would you choose as Culture Secretary to act quickly to take out Tony Hall and start the long awaited reform of the BBC we all desire?
All that would require revocation of the Charter and issuing of a new Charter.
DeleteI don't think the Conservatives are serious about BBC reform. They are too frightened of the BBC.
I posted above (7 Dec) my recommendations.
I think the key is that there isn't just one solution. You need to change the culture, change the charter, change the funding, change the management and change the structure.
I wouldn't trust one person to achieve all that. I think creating an Impartiality Board with direct powers to ensure impartiality (e.g. immediate closing down of programme series, commissioning approval, ability to suspend staff and so on) - one of the conditions of appointment to the Board being that they are neither ex or current BBC staff or people with close relations with the BBC (e.g. contractual or through personal relations).
John McDonnell seems to have replaced Jeremy Corbyn as the face of Labour on the BBC News website.
ReplyDeleteYes, good spot . As ever, the BBC gives a leg up.
DeleteGuido thinks there's some real muck coming Corbyn's way from his past. Maybe McDonnell is a late replacement for the benign Grandfather figure. I don't think the public will see him as that though.
DeleteIn terms of numbers on the BBC News website Election 2019 page major stories are three each for Boris Johnson and John McDonnell - with zero for Jeremy Corbyn. I this a last-ditch attempt to allow McDonnell to preach an end to austerity and change Labour's poll ratings?
DeleteMeanwhile...a v. strange segment on WATO with a focus group. Very odd focus group...for the BBC as in they weren't particularly obsessed with the NHS, trust and racism...in fact, in anything they seemed unusually obsessed with "gettting Brexit done", which then led about 5 out of 7 of them to declare they would vote Conservative (or "Tory"). In other words, this focus group seemed to be presaging a Conservative landslide...
ReplyDeleteThere was no comment from the presenter after, even more oddly.
It was almost as if the segment was meant to persuade the Lib Dems among WATO's listernership (and I expect they represent quite a high proportion) to go out and vote tactically for Labour...but I am not sure even the BBC is capable of such Machiavellian forethought. Maybe it was just one of those random cock-ups, which the silence that followed it might suggest.
I am trying not to harbour the insane thought that the focus group reflected reality - I truly don't think it does. The Conservatives are not going to win by a landslide...though they may punch some holes in the Red Wall.
But if only it were true - just imagine the depths of depression in Broadcasting House and the subsequent bloodletting in the Labour Party and the chagrin of the Lib Dems and the SNP...
Boris Johnson was asked about the BBC licence fee. would he make it free for everyone? his answer was somewhat guarded, his minders get upset apparently. He did however hint at whether the current structure remains valid in the new subscription world.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to follow how this develops if he gets his majority.
Anne g.
Thanks for highlighting that Anne.
DeleteFabulous BTL comments - kept me chuckling for ages.
ReplyDeletehttps://order-order.com/2019/12/09/boris-hints-tv-licence-reform/#disqus_thread
I'm enjoying reading them now too.
DeletePalpable bias on the BBC's live election feed. Here are headlines relevant to the campaigns (rather than general background stuff)...the last ten at the time of writing:
ReplyDelete1. "Hospital apologises over sick boy sleeping on the floor". Unhelpful to the Conservatives.
2. "Hancock: Horrified at picture of Jack".Unhelpful to the Conservatives. And nice touch of personalisation...who wouldn't be disturbed at this pic of Tiny Tim, sorry I mean Little Jack.
3. "Are you panicking, Matt Hancock? 'No'" Unhelpful to the Conservatives. Why not just ask him when he last beat his wife while you're at it.
4. "Sturgeon continues bid to 'lock Boris out'" Unhelpful to the Conservatives but positive for SNP.
5. "On the trail with Nigel Farage". Unhelpful to the Conservatives, to highlight the Brexit Party. Not anti- Brexit Party really. Though by highlighting Farage being called a "Tory" that, is helpful to Labour as well.
6. "Health Secretary in Leeds after PM's reaction to photo of sick boy" Unhelpful to the Conservatives.
7. "WTO rules would be 'a shock' for UK trade". Unhelpful to the Conservatives - as Boris has countenanced a no deal WTO exit.
8. "Tories have 'contempt' for poorest in society - Corbyn" Helpful to Labour and unhelpful to the Conservatives.
9. "Johnson campaign visit cancelled over security concerns" Fairly neutral but could be viewed as unhelpful to the Conservatives if interpreted as meaning Boris is v. unpopular.
10. "Analysis: Johnson facing questions over trustworthiness" Unhelpful to the Conservatives.
The BBC operation to secure a hung Parliament is in overdrive! Totally anti-Conservative!!
Mark Easton assured 6pm News that, "Both leaders are equally unpopular" - a blatant falsehood: Boris is well-received & liked, wherever he goes; which is why the BBC has so rarely allowed us to see him interacting with the public. Such adulation as Corbyn receives appears to come from Momentum groupies.
DeleteYep - and that is exactly why the BBC and all in the PC alliance were so desperate to destroy his political career and prevent him becoming PM.
DeleteH/T to TheIsland on BBBC...seems like the "Little Jack on the Hospital Floor" story was Fake News:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/MarcherLord1/status/1204137780571492358
It is alleged he was seen within 20 mins and had a trolley. It was his mother who put him on the floor.
Certainly has the ring of truth.
If true, this means the BBC has been pushing a Fake News story with strong anti-Conservative implications all day long.
There are similarities between the photo and that of Jeremy Corbyn when he couldn't 'find a seat' on the train. There is no context to the photo - leading to a suspicion that it might have been staged.
DeleteI've been trying to get to grips with this for the last hour or so. It's still somewhat in 'fog of war' territory, but it rings true to me too. If the BBC fell for a political stunt today and ran with it then this raises serious questions about BBC reporting.
DeleteOn the strength of this story, Laura K has posted this story:
Deletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50722167
... 'General election 2019: Boris Johnson's bad day shows election not over.' ...
The validity of Boris Johnson's bad day that LK writes about depends totally upon today's Leeds hospital story:
... 'And in every election in recent history, the Labour Party has tried to sow doubts in voters' minds about whether or not the Tories can be trusted with the health service at all.
That's why Boris Johnson's terrible day on the campaign trail today matters.' ...
... 'What was unusual today is how Boris Johnson was asked by an ITV Calendar reporter, Joe Pike, about the photograph of four-year-old Jack, who had been pictured on the front page of the Mirror, and refused at first really to engage with it all, then took the journalist's phone and put it in his pocket.' ...
Laura K has swallowed the story hook line and sinker. If it is found that this was a stunt pulled in order to damage Boris Johnson, then we must question not only the standard of BBC reporting, but also ascertain why Laura K was duped so easily.
Allison Pearson says she is going to expose the lie in her Wednesday Telegraph column...but on the other hand the hospital did seem to offer quite a detailed apology, so I am not clear on this. I've read rather confusing and contradictory stuff. One strand seems to be the parents felt the medical treatment was superb, it was just the lack of a trolley to lie on that was the problem.
DeleteIt's a shame we can't have a grown up debate about A&E provision. I personally think it is underfunded and obviously for various reasons (not least mass immigration) the demand is very heavy on the service now. But how much money would you have to spend to ensure every child was seen swiftly and had a bed or at least trolley if required within say 30 mins? I've no idea.
Even if there were no extra money available for the NHS I would prefer to see A&E funded properly and some other areas experience longer waiting lists if necessary.
We'll know before Wednesday if the story is genuine or not: if it's fake, the BBC will quickly 'disappear' it from its pages and Corbyn & co won't run with their precious ball after all! Meanwhile, my money's on Allison Pearson - a fiery Welsh journalist of the old scool!
DeleteSchool!
DeleteYsgol!
DeleteThis morning’s Radio 4 Today programme is making a VERY big thing about the Daily Mirror’s Child on the Floor Jack at the LGI. And yet, there are counter stories out there saying that Jack’s mother staged the photo. The timing of the story is very clever. If the story was staged and is fake, then the non-apologies from all the outlets that pushed the story without checking its veracity first will only come after voting day. The BBC, with its army of journalists, will be more guilty than most for failing to check. My guess is that the BBC already know that the photo was staged and are happy to hide the fact (particularly with Boris now talking about the licence).
ReplyDeleteThis story has a hint of a co-ordinated 'attack of the day' by the BBC. Labour activists at the Leeds hospital, the reporter who confronted Boris Johnson, Jeremy Corbyn waving the newspaper photograph at his rally, and the BBC giving the story top headline status - including an intentionally damaging Laura K's 'bad day for Johnson' prominently placed article - wouldn't just happen without a preconceived plan.
DeleteI don't approve of someone putting a private phone conversation in the public domain, but the Ashworth call is instructive about how the campaign has really been going.
ReplyDeleteIt's instructive that he feels Labour cannot perform outside the cities...We have to realise this is one of the reasons why Labour is so supportive of further mass immigration. It is their election migration lifeline. They've seen London turn from an essentially Conservative city into an essentially Labour city thanks to uncontrolled mass immigration. They would like to do the same to the whole country. Mass immigration is clearly keeping them in contention in cities throughout the UK, in many parts delivering 30-40% of their vote I think.
That linkage between electoral interest and migration policy is never put to Labour by anyone in the mainstream media.
BBC Bias. On their election feed the BBC Reality Check Distortion Team essentially back Hugh Grant's claim that 69 out of 70 polls show the public now favour Remain. They however (cannily) put in a link to a John Curtice article, knowing that most people won't read it. But if you do follow the link, you find nothing of the kind.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50043549
The first poll quoted by Curtice shows that Remaining in the EU wins only if you chop up all the Leave support into separate options. All Leave options secure 50% against 34% for "Remain in the EU" option.
You could equally chop up the Remain option if you wanted into "Remain in EU whatever", "Remain in EU on back of David Cameron's negotiated deal", "Remain in EU but opt for full integration into Schengen and Euro" and "Remain in EU as long as an EU army is not established and Turkey does not join the EU". If you did that, the "34%" would probably become 5, 15, 4 and 10 and Leave with no deal would be top of all the options. On Grant's logic that would mean Leave with No Deal was now the most popular option.
The article also shows that 9% of people who voted Remain in 2016 had switched to Leave with No Deal by October of last year, in event of no deal being negotiated!
The intellectual dishonesty of the Remain camp is limitless and Grant's claims about what the polls show are outrageously misleading. That BBC Reality Check gives them any credibility shows how totally divorced from reality that politicised unit have become.
re Child on Hospital Floor...
ReplyDeletehttps://metro.co.uk/2019/12/10/trolls-claim-photo-boy-hospital-floor-faked-labour-activists-11589821/
It appears that the hospital do fully accept their care fell below the desired standard.
The Metro however makes a false claim: that "trolls" were claiming the pic was a faked image.
I've seen no such claim. The concern was, I think, that a politically motivated parent might have deliberately put their child on the floor and taken the photo to create a public scandal.
The child was after all only 4. I think in most circumstances, a parent would simply cradle a child of that age, or create a "bed" with chairs if necessary (chairs were mentioned)...on the face of it, the last thing you would do is put the child on the floor, especially a child experiencing breathing difficulties - I think that was what aroused people's suspicions. Of course there may have been reasons why the parent made the choice they did - factors which we are unfamiliar with (e.g. the other mother could have a disability which prevented her doing so). You can see from the pic that the child had already been seen by medical staff since their breathing is being assisted...but there is no suggestion anywhere the mother said "My child needs to lie down to go to sleep...if you can't get me somewhere for him to lie down I will put him on the floor."
There just appear to be some puzzling gaps in the narrative. There still feels something not quite right with the story to me. But I am happy to accept the hospital did not meet fully the desired standard of care.
I Read the Metro article earlier on today, but as a counterweight I also read:
Deletehttps://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10517443/jeremy-corbyn-slammed-politicising-boy-sleep-hospital/
... '‘Repugnant’ Jeremy Corbyn slammed for ‘playing politics’ over picture of boy, 4, asleep on hospital floor.' ...
I hope the truth will emerge eventually. If it was a co-ordinated attack by Labour, it has probably fizzled out by now as they try to limit damage caused by Jonathan Ashworth, the Shadow Health Minister when: "Mr Ashworth is heard saying he did not believe Labour would win the election".
The defence that it was just banter doesn't ring true when the recording is heard. He sounds serious.
Yep he had to make up the banter excuse on the hoof! lol If he'd had more time he should have used the old "bribery" defence of "I was just trying to draw him out, so I could see exactly what he was up to...I was just feeding him stuff he wanted to hear!" would have been much better as a defence. No one believes the banter defence in this case!
Deletehttps://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/dec/10/woman-says-account-hacked-to-post-fake-story-about-hospital-boy
DeleteThe 'Boy on floor at Leeds Hospital' story is riddled with falsity. If you look at the BBC story:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-50713236
... 'Boy slept on hospital floor due to lack of beds' ...
This story is dated yesterday. You will see a photo credit at the corner for Ben Lack - who, it transpires, is a professional photographer in Leeds. Why was he there? The acknowledgement that he took this photograph suggests to me that he is protective of his copyright (quite rightly) and hat money changed hands. It wasn't the boy's mother who took the picture after all.
Ah yes, I just referenced that on the Game Changers thread...
DeleteIt's possible she reached an agreement with Ben Lack to share copyright...in other words she wanted to make money from the marketing of the photo. Either way we need to be told. The story still doesn't feel right to me.
Yes, I hadn't considered that the mother might have assigned copyright in that way - but, to make money?
DeleteI can't think of any other reason. Likely on a 50-50 share I would think. She wouldn't have the knowledge of the photo business to really exploit the photo commercially but presumably he would.
DeleteYes, and also expertise in photoshop - cropping of the image if not more.
DeleteHas anyone worked out what all the pipework was supposed to be? 'The Metro' has two photos of the boy, one with, I presume, an oxygen-feed to his nose and one, lying on the floor with pipework but no oxygen outlet under the nose. Presumably that's what some of Allison Pearson's professional contacts were referring to. When he's on the floor are the pipes a drip? Why, for tonsillitis?
DeleteNewsnight had a report on this by Gabriel Gatehouse. It was all about the "trolls" and he attempted (weakly and without success) to link a pro-Conservative medic to fake news and Matt Hancock.
DeleteHe asked no relevant questions such as:
1. Was there a trolley in the room on which the boy could lie?
2. Is true as reported that the parents thought he had received excellent medical care while in the hospital?
3. How quickly was the child seen by a doctor after arrival at the hospital?
4. Who is Ben Lack, who appears now to own the copyright on the photo? And has he come to a financial ownership agreement with the mother?
5. Did the hospital approve the child being laid on the floor?
6. Did the mother ask hospital for something on which her child could lie down, if there was not anywhere in the treatment room?
Did you notice how the woman from the Mirror was insisting that the boy had been TREATED while on the floor. Why isn't the hospital denying this? There seems to be plenty of support for the view that no UK medic or nurse would entertain the idea.
DeleteNo I didn't spot that. But, yes, I can't see that being permitted except in an extreme emergency.
DeleteYes, Sis. The photo lacked context. Where was the oxygen supply? Was it from the 'main' adjacent to beds in a ward, or was it from a portable cylinder? If it was the latter, then they are usually mounted on the trolleys. Was the trolley with the oxygen cylinder occupied by another patient, or was it in fact empty in which case the boy could have used it? A photo of wider context would have allayed suspicions that the photo was staged.
DeleteThe BBC News website Election 2019 page is still running with this story this morning. Let's have some scrutiny BBC.
DeleteArthur - indeed...the hospital have never apologised for there not being anywhere to lie down in the chldren's emergency treatment room where the pic was taken...But of course hospital management at the top level is a highly politicised area. There are fanatics at the highest levels of the NHS who would be prepared to see their hospital's reputation suffer in order to facilitate a pro-NHS political point being made.
DeleteSo, yes, I am still dissatisfied with the narrative we have been fed. A picture can tell a thousand lies as well as a thousands words.
You Gov predicting a 28 seat majority for the Conservatives but a hung Parliament is within statistical probability. So everyone knows how important this is...The Newsnight folk seemed quite chipper it has to be said, which is worrying.
ReplyDeleteLooking at how many seats were predicted and the voting percentages, this is how many seats each party gets for one percentage point:
SNP 13.6
Cons 7.9
Lab 6.8
Lib Dems 1.2
Greens 0.3
Will this analysis stop the SNP complaining that they are hard done by north of the border? Er - no.
Our country is in extreme danger. As Sue said elsewhere, the BBC has normalised Far Leftism and the Far Left are now on the brink of taking power with incalculable consequences.
ReplyDeletePeople may be lulled by the idea of a Labour-SNP coalition or alliance, thinking the SNP will take the edge off Labour. They are deluded. The coalition gambit is a classic Far Left (and Far Right) tactic.
They just need to get their hands on the right levers of power. For the Far Left, I think it would be Treasury, Defence, Police, Media and Migration. Despite allegedly being interested in health, education and welfare those would not be their primary areas of interest. They will be particularly interested in politicising the army in the way the Police have been increasingly politcised.
They will have an immediate illegal migrant amnesty, enfranchise 16 year olds and all resident foreign citizens. They will turn on the migration tap: open refugee policy, take in migrants from France, allow all asylum claims, and not refuse migration applications.
There will be a crackdown on (their Orwellian concept) "hate" (ie anyone who opposes PC ideology or Far Leftism). They will move quickly to take over the BBC (you will see a quick succession of changes in management once they have control of EHRC and Ofcom - expect Paul Mason as DG at some point).
The Treasury will engineer an almighty splurge of welfare payments that will artificially inflate the mass of people's incomes within a year before the inevitable economic crisis centred on gathering inflation gets a hold.
Once they have everything in order they will call another election, where we will of course see mass fraud that will go unpunished. With the franchise changes and a supportive BBC, they may be able to get themselves over the line with a majority.
They may well make use of People's Assemblies (as favoured by the Greens) Soviet style to create a parallel government as well.
Of course, thinking about it, the SNP won't enter a coalition anyway - it will just be a confidence and supply agreement. So a Labour minority government will occupy all government posts. Far Left Marxist, pro-terrorist extremist Jeremy Corbyn will have control over all that government patronage. We've who the so called "moderates" like John Ashworth are prepared to lie and make their accommodations for the sake of advancement. The power of patronage is huge.
DeleteThe most telling example of BBC pro-Labour bias has been with regard to Labour's position over Brexit. How can a potential PM get away with saying he's 'neutral' and a Labour Government would 'sort out Brexit'? How exactly?
DeleteWe all saw a parliament paralysed by anti-Brexit MPs. The election was called primarily to shift this log-jam. Why haven't the BBC 'scrutinised' Corbyn over Brexit and laid bare his lack of a clear policy?
The reality check team are on overdrive during this election, publishing the BBC version of the truth on every major statement.
ReplyDeleteIt’s as biased as ever, maybe more so as the team reach fever pitch egged on by Chris Morris.
This ones main aim is to take another pot shot at lying and untrustworthy Boris. There is a feeble attempt to inject balance by including a short Labour piece but it’s half hearted and the author has clearly used all his energy on discrediting those dishonest Tories.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50559366
There's a page on the BBC News website Election 2019:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50291676
... 'Who should I vote for? General election 2019: Compare the party manifestos.' ...
Compare the top lines:
... 'Conservative - Bring back the Withdrawal Agreement Bill to Parliament before Christmas to achieve Brexit by the end of January.' ...
... 'Labour - £400bn national transformation fund, including £250bn for energy, transport and the environment, and £150bn for schools, hospitals and housing.' ...
Considering that the election was called because of the parliamentary gridlock over Brexit - surely this should be the top priority for all parties - but no, for Labour it's "let's shake the money tree".
Arthur, no doubt about it, the BBC are a political organisation with a clear position on all the key issues including who they would prefer to be in Number 10.
DeleteThey have used their enormous power to influence the electorate and shape the agenda.
Echoing The Guardians editorial today they believe that Labour remains indispensable to progressive politics.
I heard similar stuff on Radio 4 and Radio 5 Live today. Today was when the BBC made their pitch for the "undecideds" (aka Labour's last hope).
DeleteSo how did the BBC structure this? It was simply reporting on the election bribe/bidding war - which of course Labour win hands down.
So they had "members of the public" (often Labour activists of course) asking "What are the parties promising to do for...x, y, z"
Of course by chopping up everything into x, y, z without asking what the overall spend will do the UK economy was of course completely to Labour's advantage and v. much the sort of thing to appeal to the last minute and unreflective voter.
Lord Hall can raise his head high knowing the BBC did everything in its power to stop the "Tories" winning! :)
Imagine if a pro-Conservative group was planning to boost the Conservative Party's chances in the election through getting its members to influence betting odds.
ReplyDeleteI'd say that would probably be the top story on the BBC tonight...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zznUp79w9bw
All praise to Allegra Stratton on ITV News destroying that false meme from the BBC about this being a "miserable" election full of doom and gloom. Allegra states what I think to be true - she found no "grumpy" voters only people grappling with what they see as the most important elections of their lives...and doing so in a very serious way, being prepared in many cases to give up their normal party preference if necessary.
ReplyDeleteTo me that seems a much more accurate description of this campaign than the BBC Liars have served up.
As if to confirm it - I switch to Newsnight and the first thing up from Maitlis is "a lacklustre" campaign.
DeleteOn to Layton...calling Boris a liar about the Brexit process. Extreme bias. Presumably they think they can get away with it.
Still claiming he won't get the trade deal within the prescribed timetable - despite the EU having signed up to it (not mentioned)!
BBC Bias is appalling.
I think I will call it for the Conservatives (or rather Boris) tomorrow...think they might just scrape it...
ReplyDeleteBut this should be the absolute final warning to them.
They can't go on like this - basically appeasing PC multiculturalist ideology.
If the Conservatives can only scrape a victory when they are up against a dull, not very intelligent, thrice-married septuagenerian Marxist, pro IRA, pro Hamas, vegetarian, hater of all things British, then surely the lesson is obvious... They will never win another election if they along things to go on as they have been with gathering mass immigration, PC ideology taught in our schools and universities, mutliculturalism accepted as our official doctrine, free speech being squeezed out of existence...
Of course, I might be wrong. The Conservatives could well lose tomorrow because it might already be too late.
From the days when politicians were actually rather intelligent and were allowed to debate things without being interrupted by lightweights like Marr, Barnett, Etchingham, Husain, Peston and so on...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zBFh6bpcMo
Heard on Sky (Wannabe BBC) tonight on the press preview...the presenter (Aussie, Isabel?) says:
ReplyDelete"Then you have Far Left Corbyn...of course he's not Far Left..."
Not Far Left?...poor guy! What more does he have to do to prove he's Far Left?!? He's a Marxist and he wants to nationalise everything in sight, supports Hamas, supports the IRA, hated Blair, supported Castro, visited the GDR as a tourist when it was under Communist rule, hates the USA, hates NATO, won't use the nuclear deterrent, wants to shut down free speech...do I have to go on?
This is the state of our UK media - literally frightened of calling Corbyn exactly what he is and what all his actions for 40 years have shown him to be: Far Left. What a bunch of lying sickos!
BBC R4 Midnight News headlined the last day of the election campaign with clips of leaders Johnson and Corbyn and mentioned "polls tightening". What was completely omitted was that the polls show the Conservatives to be by far the largest party and that the only way that Corbyn will be PM is in alliance of some form with the SNP.
ReplyDeleteI almost didn't register this myself. It's a classic, yet very serious, BBC bias trick of omission.
Yes, good spot. Sometimes the bias is so subtle that even us old hands miss it! lol
DeleteAnother subtle bit of bias they ran with during the campaign was that Corbyn was being criticised by the Jewish community for his "failure to tackle anti-semitism in the Party". That distances Corbyn from the anti-semitism, whereas he has in fact been accused of personal anti-semitism and also (this is well documented) of associating closely with a huge number of people who have engaged in hate propaganda against Jews, sharing platforms at public meetings and so on.
Such BBC bias techniques are very effective in turning round a negative into almost a positive ("Well, he's trying his best even if hasn't quite succeeded").
Seems to be a lot of school budget story’s today on BBC - surely thats political?
ReplyDeleteIn fact it’s worse I think they are old ones that are being spread by targeted ads on FB.
DeleteSome crazy dude at the BBC admits they can affect how people vote...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48124106
It's just the take the day off, when it's polling day, once every few years not to exert that influence.
Given about 35% of people will have voted by post BEFORE polling day, this makes no sense at all!!
am i reading too much in to the fact that most of these dogs are dressed in red? I owned dogs for 20 years and never dressed any of them in a coat come rain or snow.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50755053
"Harry and Heidi are wondering why their owner is leaving the house in the cold and dark in Essex. Pawrent Max Miller says: "Usually we'd take them during a summer time election and have a nice walk, but it's just too chilly and dark to make the journey."
Someone at the BBC really has a thing about Boris daring to call an election in winter!!
My wife and I have just voted in West London. Ahead of us in the queue to vote were two African people, a boy and a girl, both Somalians I think. They seemed no more than 'children' to me; the woman wore a headscarf and spoke in broken English for both of them. She asked for 'voting papers'. The polling officer asked for their address and their names; they were not on the register. After some further discussion about registration, they were both asked their ages; the girl wasn't yet 17 and the boy 15! They were both sent away with cards advising them 'how to register to vote''. At no point in time did anyone ask their nationality.
ReplyDeleteThis episode is instructive; the constant appeals, instructions and pleading to register to vote on the BBC encourages everyone to appear at the Polling Station. I am extremely suspicious of the 3.8 million people who registered to vote for this election late in the day. Are all these people really entitled to vote? Is their registration throughly checked?
The polling officers did their job today but, in my humble opinion, the BBC should not be acting as an adjunct to the Electoral Commission.