...and any other matters that take our fancy
This is a story deemed by the BBC to be sufficiently important to be in the top six headlines on their News website Home page:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51119236... 'Eniola Aluko: Ex-England, Chelsea & Juventus striker retires' ...When the story first appeared, it had the 'Breaking News' image, and as such made no reference to the fact that the story referred to women's football. We were expected to believe that women's and men's football were equal in importance. The photo entered later helps.A story about men's football, such as Harry Kane's injury that might prevent the England captain from playing in the 2020 Euros, would rarely find a position as 'Breaking News' in the top six.
Mind manipulation! I think the problem for the BBC is that up to maybe 20 years ago they were always pushing at an open door. The public were ready for socially progressive ideas such as removal of corporal punishment, gay rights, equality in the workplace for women and so on. But now they are getting some pushback. People, or at least a large section of the population, are starting to ask: "Hang on! Where are you going with all this? What's the final stop on the line?" Increasingly people can see the dangers in the "equality of outcome" agenda which is in any case very selectively applied (you won't hear it applied to law or medicine, because in those areas ethnic minorities are over-represented). They can see the insanity of pandering to extremely small minorities e.g. the "transgender communities".Gender equality in sport, where women demonstrably can never hope to equal men in terms of absolute performance measures, is just another example of the insane agenda. At the moment I'd say perhaps 30% of the population support the agenda in some shape or form, 70% disagree with it and of the latter maybe just under half are prepared to say so. Our future depends on the extent to which the the other half are prepared to "speak out" and "vote out".
Arthur, I was shocked to see the other evening on the BBC evening Sports News, after the main News, a first story giving us an outside report and result on a Women's Football match from a three quarter empty stadium.Then low and behold, two stories later they gave us an outdoor report and result on a top flight men's Premiership Football match. Since when has Women's Football, something the BBC are constantly throwing down our throats, well why does it now take precedence over male Premiership football?I don't think an evening goes by in our front tv room where someone shouts out (about the BBC) "Oh here we go again."And the very worst of their output is the BBC London Local News...almost unwatchable. Their diversity agenda on this show is so over the top and doesn't represent London at all.Lucky ol' Craig as he probably gets to watch BBC Spotlight in the far West, a less infected local show.But if he was ever tempted to watch our BBC agenda infested local London show, then that might overload him with more blog posting work.I have theory that if any of the BBC researchers on that local London Show don't come up with at least two diversity agenda reports, then someone will likely get the sack.John.... North London.
Hi John, Don't worry, BBC North West (Craig's areas as well as mine) also has strict diversity targets of the sort you experience. My pick was when, just before Christmas, we were introduced to the delights of an alternative Muslim pantomime. All the actors wore black and most seemed to wear masks. Again, we were expected to enjoy the diversity, when in fact it looked about as funny as most of what the BBC pass off as comedy. To put it another way: HIGNFY is about as funny as a Muslim pantomime.
Thanks Arthur, Whoops. I wonder why I thought Craig was from the West (Devon/Cornwall).But I enjoy watching BBC Spotlight occasionally as I visit the area regularly.But BBC London and BBC Spotlight seem like worlds apart.But one dirty trick BBC London regularly does is that when they run through a preview of the up and coming evening show, you watch it and think, Oh, okay then I'll watch this. Then halfway through the show they'll throw in unannounced their major evening diversity agenda top report/story that was NOT mentioned in their preview.They do love catching us out.Another ongoing mystery at BBC London is that at the start of some shows you'll see Asian presenter Asad Ahmad standing up and supporting himself with a walking stick (he had a motorcycle accident a few years ago).But the mystery is how I've seen him over the last couple of years in two outside BBC London reports where he's running around London and even hopping (without a stick) on to a London bus.But anyway, having seen a lunchtime preview of tonight's BBC London News Show, it looks like their London program researchers jobs are safe for yet another day!John.... North London.
"Mad John" Sweeney retweeting 30 years younger Ayesha Hasarika in a desperate attempt to remain "relevant". https://twitter.com/ayeshahazarika/status/1217490884557770753Sorry, John but Ayesha has you marked for the media abbatoir, along with Piers who dared call out her BS on Meghan Markle. Ayesha (has she ever researched who she is named after one wonders...?) has never responded to Piers' challenge to give a single racist quote from any UK publication about Meghan Markle. Obviously she can't, and neither can the BBC but that doesn't stop them asking at least once an hour "Has Meghan been driven away by racism?"
The BBC are becoming adept at launching false narratives:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-51102826... 'Stormzy: No 'credible' reason to hate Meghan Markle.' ...This is Stormzy reinforcing the narrative that Meghan Markle has been the victim of racial abuse. Stormzy has become the go-to authority on Racist Britain. As I remember, Harry wished to protect Meghan from the excesses of press intrusion.And today, the narrative that the USA has poorer level food standards than those of the UK and therefore that we shouldn't be entering into trade deals with them. In my experience, food standards in the USA are very bit as good as they are in the EU. USA labelling in meat is much more detailed than ours, with most beef products labelled as 'hormone free'. Why not investigate Halal methods and worse, the ritual killing of animals in the UK. Remember the litigious marketplace in the USA. Chlorine washed chicken seems to be the flagship argument. This is the same chlorine as is used to wash ready-packed lettuce in this country. How many of us rewash the contents before we eat it?Both of these false narratives eagerly promoted by the BBC and chlorinated chicken there to bolster up the Remain/pro EU message. The Meghan racism narrative is an inversion of the truth - used as a weapon against the pale stale population of the UK. The headline 'Stormzy: No 'credible' reason to hate Meghan Markle' infers that Stormzy is standing up to anti BAME racism when in Meghan's case, that wasn't the reason for Harry's outspokenness.
.. Both of these false narratives eagerly promoted by the BBC and chlorinated chicken there to bolster up the Remain/pro EU message... change to:..... Both of these false narratives eagerly promoted by the BBC. The chlorinated chicken narrative is there to bolster up the Remain/pro EU message.
MB - no mitigation, but John Sweeney retweets everything. Arthur - Stormzy is shaping up as Solomon in BBC producer circles.
I see the BBC have become full-time Greenpeace campaigners. Apparently 2020 is their year of "special coverage" (they were trumpeting this morning on Today) of climate change. To back this up they had a snippet nonagenarian David Attenborough - not a scientist with any relevant qualifications in climate science - explicitly link Australian bush fires with climate change (but only in 2020, not 1939 or 1898 or any time before over the last 60000 years). I don't recall the BBC's Charter mentioning a duty being placed on the BBC to launch political campaigns, making use of all its resources. If climate change, why not the NHS, or the level of investment in industry or child poverty or housing provision or any number of other areas of policy which we expect parties and special interest groups to campaign on? Of course the BBC do campaign on these issues - let's not be naive - but with climate change their favoured approach is brazen and they will not allow any contradictory voices air time.
Here's a link...https://twitter.com/BBCWorld/status/1217711154849636352
Or child (white girls) sex abuse by "Asian" (Muslim) men.
And a link to a very interesting piece in last week's Speccie - that I've shown to as many people as I could, as something you'll never hear from the BBC - https://www.spectator.co.uk/2020/01/fight-fire-with-fire-controlled-burning-could-have-protected-australia/
I notice that in the Labour leadership election process the BBC have been showing Rebecca Long-Bailey against the red Labour backdrop. I made a quick search on Google images putting in the words 'BBC Rebecca Long-Bailey', and repeated the exercise for each of the hopefuls. The results were surprising. Out of the top 36 images, the numbers of images with the red Labour backdrop were as follows:Starmer 5Long-Bailey 9Phillips 0Nandy 3Thornberry 2Something tells me Long_bailey is the BBC's choice.
I don't know about that - I think they are more Starmerites than RLBers. But I am pleased to see that my rubbishing of the You Gov/University of London poll that gave Starmer a big lead has been justified by the latest Survation/Labour List poll which gives RLB a 5 point lead. That sounds much more credible to me.
Yes, my list puts Starmer in second place. There would be an outrage if he as the only male gets the job ahead of four women. Judging by the Politics Live discussion, Phillips and Thornberry are also-rans, and Nandy doesn't have the media coverage.
Momentum, Labour's PLP alter-ego is backing RLB (through a rigged vote according to Guido), whilst briefing against Starmer. Isn't this the way Corbyn was shuffled into leadership? The BBC are possibly 'in the know' with regard to Momentum affairs.
Heard an interesting snippet on Today where Robinson brought up the campaign to remain and project fear with Lionel Barber who opined that the FT had been moderately Remainer, accepted the result of the referendum and the real bad thing was the prediction of an immediate recession. Quite deft and a bit of a slithery customer, our Lionel, I thought. ANyway even more interesting that he's leaving the FT and being replaced by his deputy. I wonder if it has anything to do with Ahmed from New Malden. Ahmed who 'identifies as a black man...' wasn't happy with the colour of the FT - no not the pink; do keep up - the lack of understanding of 'black issues', lack of socialist opinion, working class folk and so on. Lionel published his letter and agreed with his call for a revolution. Cue a Greek chorus from another Ahmed, namely Samira, and Hirsch but alas missing the wee Scottish yap. Now after an interval of a year or so, Lionel is leaving to be replaced by a Lebanese woman. Happy days. https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/time-for-a-revolution-says-ft-editor-lionel-barber-as-he-publishes-letter-criticising-lack-of-diversity-among-papers-columnists/
...whereas Mr Barber seems to identify as a Frenchman of European heritage:FROM WIKIPEDIA: "In 2016, he was made a Chevalier (knight) in the French Ordre National de la Légion d’Honneur for his "contribution to high-quality journalism, and the Financial Times' positive role in the European debate". "I don't see how people like Barber and Grieve can expect to be taken seriously in the Brexit debate when they accept honours for services to the French state.
Yes like Prince Harry turning up to do a Royal turn today at Buckingham Palace after announcing that he's not going to be / do it any more and on the whole he'd rather be in Philadelphia.
Did anybody see the Politics Live yesterday (I haven't access to iPlayer or a clip to put up) and the manner in which Jo Coburn's introduction to the BBC licence fee topic attempted to dictate the terms of discussion, effectively limiting it to the BBC's own policy position? She'd clearly come prepared with Sir's script and eager to leap in with back-up figures at the first hint of any dissent. Her pitch was in effect a threat and a taunt - you will lose this this and this; which of these programmes from my list would you like to lose? Take that, mugs! That's not journalism.It reminded me of the same tactic reported here from Newsnight where Maitlis had introduced a topic by declaring that there were three possibilities. My fact-checking antennae tell me that there cannot be only three, if only because I can think of a couple more myself. And even if I couldn't think of any, there is plain logic and reasoning that would show up this fakery. Is there a name for this technique on the list of 50+? False framing? Logical fallacy? Plain BBC self-serving propaganda?
I think framing did appear in the Festive 50 but, yes, restrictive framing is a particular technique they use. Similarly with the discussion of the housing crisis - in the BBC's exhaustive analysis of the problem, no mention is ever made of population pressure resulting from mass immigration. Coburn is one of the most biased presenters on BBC - because she controls her facial expression and tone of voice it's not always quite as evident as with Maitlis and others just how biased she is, which is "very".
Such negative reporting all the time about enviornmental issues makes the BBC boring and difficult to listen to . Why cant they report positively as to what is being done to improve the environment. This video produced for World Environment Day highlights progress with renewable energy, wastewater recycling, desalination. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFBoXjSw4Ek
Yep, I think I was reading the other day that the wooded area of the UK is now the largest it's been for several hundred years...it might even have been mentioned by the BBC... but only in passing of course. As someone who can remember the life-threatening "pea-soupers" of the late fifties and early sixties I can attest that air quality has improved hugely. Likewise, the end of the coal industry means that thousands of our towns are no longer coated in black soot. Our rivers are also much cleaner (though more needs to be done). The future looks bright as well: electric cars and electric planes will reduce air pollution in our urban centres. Renewable energy will reduce carbon emissions.
The BBC Asian Network is as usual taking a skewed view of English cricket:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/51122948... 'Moeen Ali: England all-rounder always felt 'one of first to get blame'' ...
BBC news lead tonight with David Attenborough and warning saying 'the moment of crisis has come' and 'the continent of Australia is on fire'.Here we have it. The News is created by one of their own, the saintly wildlife presenter. He has spent his life with the BBC travelling the world to look at animals. He does voiceovers and can read an autocue but he is no expert or scientist yet he is cast as one to give the report gravitas.The report by David Shukman was one big Extinction Rebellion political broadcast where we were all to blame by heating our homes with fossil fuels and belching out CO2 with abandon. We all have to cut emissions that are warming our planet says Shukman. Even Microsoft will be carbon negative by 2023 he says.This report lasted nearly 15 minutes, almost half of the entire news bulletin. It isn't news, it is blatant propaganda where the BBCs preferred position on the climate change is force fed to viewers under the guise of education.
I commented about this on 16 Jan: "I see the BBC have become full-time Greenpeace campaigners."It is completely unacceptable I think for the BBC to launch a political campaign like this at our (licence fee payers') expense. There couldn't be anything more political and fundamental then our energy policy. If we decide to abandon fossil use in the next five years as demanded by the Extinction Rebellion death cult (and logically Attenborough must support that recommendation, given his analysis supports their analysis)it would result in the worst human-made catastrophe since Mao's "Great Leap Forward" in the early 1960s. We would see the collapse of the NHS, millions of early unnecessary deaths, millions of cases of hypothermia, mass poverty, malnutrition, riots, breakdown in civil society, collapse in industrial production, mass unemployment and hyperinflation...we truly would be moving towards extinction! But the BBC will not allow any debate about these policies - the BBC accepts ER policies as virtue-signalling expressions of concern that cannot be challenged. Incidentally, I say all this as a supporter of green energy which is definitely the future for the planet - but the BBC and Extinction Rebellion with their insane policies want us to follow the road to hell.
BBC Reality Check now reduced to agreeing with politicians' non-controversial claims...as long as they are Labour politicians:https://twitter.com/BBCRealityCheck/status/1217450027666288640Did anyone actually claim Corbyn had got it factually wrong? Actually, I see that they even agree Boris was right about some claim...Why are they wasting our money on checking that true statements are true?
1984 UPDATE:BBC pursuing its Ingsoc agenda wants to control language so it can control thought:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51139005?ocid=socialflow_twitterThis article might appear a little frivolous (though I can attest to the fact that the effects of MSG are as described - MSG used to be used excessively in the UK back in the 1980s). But by the end of the article, the BBC are starting to inject much darker notes of menace about "racism". Still, "fare" play, the BBC aren't good spellers these days:"The campaign theme fits within a larger movement to elevate ethnic foods, which chefs like Mr Huang have argued are unfairly seen as inferior to European fair." "The campaign theme fits within a larger movement to elevate ethnic foods, which chefs like Mr Huang have argued are unfairly seen as inferior to European fair. "
This is another article from the BBC without the name of the reporter/journalist at its head. What are the origins of the article, and what are the motives for its publication? Placed in the USA and Canada pages, it might be any one of the army of North American BBC people, or alternatively, it might be a junior staff member in London seeking to make their name.
Arthur, a book could be written about the BBC's byline culture! There seems to be no rhyme or reason as to what has a byline and what doesn't...what gets ascribed to a "team" and what gets ascribed to an individual. Then there's the question of outsiders writing articles in the "news" section. Sometimes these get flagged up as being written by someone invited from outside to do so. Often they will be presented as an independent academic, even though they are usually very partisan academics. Often these external contributors almost go under the radar. If you didn't know, you would think they were BBC staff. And of course the line between "news" and "opinion" is constantly being blurred.
I think we all have a duty to combat the BBC's Extinction Rebellion death-cult climate hysteria. I've just been investigating what our foremost marine climate change body (fully signed up to the climate change ideology) has to say about sea level rise because I think sea level rise is where some of the biggest lies are being told. http://www.mccip.org.uk/media/1999/mccip-report-card-2020_webversion.pdfBearing in mind this is a pro-climate change orthodoxy body, here's what they say about sea level rise: "WHAT IS ALREADY HAPPENING HIGH CONFIDENCE Mean sea level around the UK has risen by about 12–16 cm since 1900." So that is a sea level rise probably of 1 mm per annum over 120 years. In other words, if that rate continues it will take 1000 years - it will be 3020 - before the sea has risen 1 metre. And to put that in context - half of the Netherlands is more than a metre below sea level...it's not apocalypse now. And I suspect that in 100 years' time, let alone 1000, we will have full solutions to the issue of carbon emissions in any case. Yes, of course, they peddle more extreme scenarios in the future for sea level rise...but of course the future hasn't happened yet. I remain highly sceptical about the more extreme forecasts.
Tell tale headline from the BBC:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-51158263"Australia fire: Heavy rains hit some blaze-hit regions"The message is Australia "hit" by rains (after being "hit" by fires - a double hit, or maybe just poor sub-editing!). I think the average Joe or Joey might have written "Australia: Welcome rains douse fires bringing relief" or something to at least underline this was a welcome development. Weather has always been extreme in Australia. But nope, the BBC want to keep the negativity in place. It's all about the narrative...it always is. It would be interesting to correlate positive indicators with the era of extreme climate change we are supposed to be living in. If we went back to say 2000 and compared 2000-2020 with say 1980-2000. During the last 20 apocalyptic years have (a) people got poorer or richer across the world (b) do we support a much greater or a much smaller human population (c) are there more polar bears or fewer polar bears (d) have more people died from weather-related disasters or fewer (e) are there more people living in the hottest areas on Earth or fewer (f) is there more or less biomass on the Earth? I'm thinking that all the answers are going to be in the positive. I'm not arguing for overpopulation but the climate alarmists argue and have been arguing that we won't be able to feed the growing population because of climate change, so it's for them to justify such claims.
An article on the Sport pages of the BBC News website has a worrying undertone:'Australian Open 2020: Margaret Court to be 'recognised' - why is she such a divisive figure?'Sonia Oxley sets out an argument, which in fairness is a report of Tennis Australia's words, that the Margaret Court Tennis Court should be renamed and Margaret Court's achievements - at present unrivalled - should be 'recognised' but not 'celebrated'. The reason is that she has become a church minister and she holds views that are incompatible with the values of the current tennis administration's requirements for inclusivity discrimination - specifically in relation to LGBT matters.Court was a marvellous player - strong, athletic and ruthless. However her comments, made long after her playing days were finished, are supposed to negate her achievements on the court.The problem is: when watching supreme sporting performances such as those of Ben Stokes, are we to reserve judgement over their quality until some time later when we are sure that he won't express a view that the thought police latch onto? The next step surely is to make every sportsperson sign up to a code before they are able to take part. I wouldn't rely upon Ben Stokes to keep his mouth shut, but I thoroughly enjoy watching his skill, commitment, concentration, speed of reactions, unpredictability and other qualities. Will his name be trashed eventually by the right-thinking thought police? He's pale and male - a bad start.
That is disgraceful. Airbrushing out people who don't toe the political line was once the preserve of Stalinist Russia.
I heard Jason Mohammad interviewing Hana Ali about her book: 'At Home with Muhammad Ali: A Memoir of Love, Loss and Forgiveness' on Radio 2 Good Morning Sunday.His thrust was that: 'in the dark days of the 1980s, growing up surrounded by racism ...' It struck me that Jason, a practising Muslim, was trying to make the great Ali a role model to suit his own experience. That's all well and good, but should a personal view be broadcast as if it were the only interpretation, and by inference a role model that shouldn't be available to all?By the 1980s, the time Jason M refers to, Ali's boxing career was over - his last fight was in 1981. Jason M's claims are at best of second-hand manufactured outrage against racism he suffered as he was growing up, or could well be the result of a carefully reconstructed narrative invented by the BBC.
I fear we are witnessing a wholesale rewriting of cultural and sporting heritage to suit the current BBC PC narrative.
Here's an insight into the rates of recycling within London Boroughs:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51135424... 'Recycling household waste in London 'impossible'' ...The article has a bar chart showing how each of the Boroughs performed. Next to the bottom is the City of Westminster which recycles just 21.7% of its waste compared to the national average of 43.5%. City Hall, Broadcasting House and the Palace of Westminster lie within the Borough. Recycling in only 6 Boroughs (mainly the affluent ones such as Kingston and Richmond) out of the 33 are rated above the national average. Could overcrowding and poor housing have anything to do with it?
Hmmm...another Green Party/Sadiq Khan advert it would seem! I think the truth is that it is a lot to do with immigration (limited ability to read and speak English), overcrowding, illegal sub-letting, air B&Bing and poor housing (without proper storage).Lots of boroughs outside London recycle large quantities of green waste...it's not a very eco-friendly thing to do but it increases their recycling percentages (because people have more and larger gardens outside London).I think it's true to say as well that London boroughs use incineration more than areas outside London (which have easier access to landfill or can more easily develop composting and biogas facilities). There is a lot of metal recycling takes place post incineration but that doesn't count towards the recycling figures. I think developing sensible return deposit policies for waste is a better way forward - collect money on bottles and other receptables returned.
It always amazes me how the two major 'woke' projects - 'diversity' and 'being green' - are completely incompatible with each other. How does your average Guardian reader square that in their head?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4BVkZMWFwdMVDcqTQpfgyyN/finding-your-story-ten-remarkable-novels-about-identity"Ten remarkable novels about... Identity!"
Here is a curse:Be ye ever so diverse.
Mark Easton is at it again tonight on the main news. He never lets up about immigration. He obviously has an obsession over the subject. Just like clockwork, he appears on our screens monthly to remind us how wonderful immigration is. He blames the horrible Tory government for being hostile and points his finger at the rest of us for being racist and ungrateful.The real problem for his argument is that by and large we are not racist or unwelcoming and that the migrants know it.At he end of his report Easton had to admit through gritted teeth that most immigrants find the UK welcoming and friendly which rather made his entire report pointless, irrelevant and downright baffling.
He did seem somewhat surprised that we might prefer the East European to the West Pakistani, (white versus brown, Christian versus Muslim, integrator versus separatist).He did forget to mention that there is plenty of space, which is unusual for him.
Anonymous - Lol! - yes he likes to lecture us about how there is plenty of space in the UK ...just so long as you don't count gardens, parks, forests, National Parks, marshlands and farmland! Watatwat!! It's amazing that Easton - who is allegedly being employed at probably £150k plus for his unique analytical skills (or maybe just the glint in his eye) - can't distinguish between different types of immigration: seasonal work hiring; temporary residential permit migration; permanent resident status migration; chain migration; naturalisation migration; illegal (documented or undocumented) immigration; bogus aslum seekers; and genuine asylum seekers.
This was Easton at his worst; the implication of his report was that we in the UK are a bunch of racists.He used two examples to underwrite his report. The first was a charming Latvian who worked in Wales as a window cleaner. His feedback was that he found the UK the most warm and welcoming country and life here was great. By contract, we were introduced to a Bangladeshi chef who was an "illegal" immigrant with, surprise surprise, no passport or documents whatsoever. He was pictured working in a kitchen although he complained about not being able to work. Most relevant of all, was that he had been fighting the Home Office for 16 years to obtain leave to stay; his conclusion was that he had been consistently discriminated due to his race/colour, ethnicity and religious. His view was the UK was not a welcome place to come to and he had suffered terrible racism. Someone with a real axe to grind.Easton concluded that we are accepting of white European migrants but not black/brown Asian migrants. These two cases, one legal and the other "illegal" are far from a fair comparison and not any way to draw any conclusions. You could not make it up!Typical of Lord Hall's BBC.
Mainly white...mainly male...mainly old...mainly British...completely unbiased coverage...... and highly entertaining.It's a small miracle that the BBC show any snooker at all!
I think that was all objective comment up to the "highly entertaining" claim! :) At least when it was broadcast in black in white back in the day, you had to use your own imagination! :)
We need to keep pushing back on climate alarmism. This is great! - https://twitter.com/Cartoonsbyjosh/status/1218205386903375875/photo/1Climare alarmism should be treated like other social ills. To say race-baiting is a pernicious influence on our society is not to deny that there is racism or that in the past it has not had appallingly negative effects that are still felt now. To say that Far Left Bolshevism had and still has a pernicious influence on society is not to say that there is no poverty or class prejudice and that poverty does not diminish people's lives. To say climate alarmism is a pernicious influence on our society is not to deny that climates change exists or that we might be facing new and demanding challenges in that area.
Here's my Meg and Hal conspiracy theory... She wants to make him KING of CANADA and has already broached the subject in private with Justin "Woke/Blackface" Trudeau.
She wants to be the Queen monarch and supreme ruler. He can only be a king consort.
From the Guardian:'Tony Hall to step down as BBC director general'
Look at the BTL comments on the BBC news website
Guido has Tony Hall's full resignation letter.The BTL comments are worth reading - they begin with:-____________________________"In an era of fake news, we remain the gold standard of impartiality and truth"My God he really is delusional.______________________________
I just copied the same sentence, but you beat me to it. He probably only hears opinion from within the bubble.
If I remember right someone posted here recently that Sir was going to Cardiff and speculated about whether we could expect a major announcement. Prescient or what?
Amol Rajan reported the Tony Hall news by saying the new DG faced two big challenges, the first a political one, getting a new licence fee deal past a Conservative majority government.The second a commercial one with the streaming giants like Netflix, Amazon and Apple flexing their muscles.He's not wrong but why raise 'a Conservative majority government'? Surely thats a case of deflection Amol because the issue is one of trust, value and bias rather than the big bad Tories breathing down their neck for no good reason.
Maybe he was alluding to the nature of the BBC as a Labour beast!
:::NEWSNIGHT WATCH:::We can analyse ourselves objectively. To begin with we will have three pro-BBC guests/pensioners on who will show industrial levels of delusion. Then have three people on, one pro-Beeb, pro-more PC-Beeb and one Beeb agnostic (well, feels it's not performing as well as it should, sounding more PC by the minute...wants public broadcasting - wants a "digital licence fee"). So that's a grand total of six people who want to preserve the BBC! And no one who wants it abolished. Usual BBC impartiality, then.
This is a typical example of why the party is over for the BBC and they have to be dealt with. https://www.bbc.co.uk/ideas/videos/what-would-the-uk-be-like-without-immigration/p080b8wx?playlist=bbc-briefingMass immigration has and is changing the UK out of all recognition and putting incredible strain on our resources. So who do the BBC give a platform to address migration? Sir Andrew Green of Migration Watch? Nope. Jonathan Portes, who was intimately involved in the bogus assessment of how many people would emigrate to the UK, when Poland and Romania joined the EU - 18,000 people according to the genius team who did the maths. Several million people later...And he uses his platform to rehearse all the bogus arguments we are so used to listening to. London's population dropped by millions between 1950 and 1970. According to Portes this was an economic disaster for the capital. It was nothing of the sort. The period saw a huge rise in prosperity. He's straight up lying about what happened - by focussing only on the 1970s (why? population fell over a much longer period but of coruse the 1970s saw a couple of serious recessions) and only inner London, so he can paint a misleading picture of economic decline. Portes distorts the picture by (as he always does) looking only at the balance between work and benefits for new migrants, not once they have settled here and started having families. To show that Portes is fundamentally a frivolous man, rather than address the real issues of mass immigration he sets up an opposition between "absolutely no immigration" (which has never ever been the reality in the UK) and "the mass immigration of the type and level we have had", as if no other possible approach could be imagined. He claims that we would "all be poorer". Why? Hungary has had virtually no immigration and has been growing at about 4% pa over several years. Having leant on the scales throughout the video Portes shamelessly ends with: "The overall balance sheet? Well that's up to you..." The BBC intends - always intends - you to conclude the balance sheet is positive. Here's a random list of ten things Portes never mentioned in his fraudulent "balance sheet" (and never will):1. No FGM cases and no FGM clinics. 2. Much lower rates of diabetes and birth defects (resulting from close cousin marriage), easing pressure on the NHS.3. Much reduced terrorism threat. 4. Much lower rates of drug abuse. 5. A lower prison population. 6. Lower levels of crime. 7. No need to fund Teaching of English to children whose home language is other than English. 8. No grooming gangs with tens of thousands of vulunerable young girls being horrendously abused. 9. Lower house prices and lower rents in most of the country. 10. A healthier population, as we would have to walk to the takeaway rather than getting it delivered to the door! :)
Re my post above...this "BBC Briefing" thing has popped out of nowhere and seems the latest attempt by the BBC to turn itself into a Goebels-style propaganda outfit. Clearly they must be thinking: "Mein Fuhrer, the Reality Check campaign has run into the ground and our troops are being massacred mercilessly...we must open up a new front: BBC Briefing. This will ensure the masses get the message that immigration running at 6 million per decade, or 30 million over 50 years, is a good idea and will make our country a prosperous and happy place, even if it isn't."
Might we have had fewer 'food miles' and trips 'home' without immigration?Immigration has certainly been good for the German car industry around us. Of course all the front gardens have had to go, (and the back gardens too), so not so much wild life. Then there is all that water run-off leading to flooding. There also appears to be a cultural need to wash all that German hardware, whatever the weather, perhaps to impress the cousins 'back home'? (It is like the gold miser bathing in the stuff!) Not much real 'community' either, no casual conversations in the street. The big cities have become very anonymous, like one great hotel foyer.
I've heard on BBC today at least three references to "only the third impeachment trial in American history" or some such. Oddly, they don't mention any names regarding the previous two, leading you to conclude perhaps it must have been long ago, maybe both back in the 19th century. Could it possibly be that the BBC is trying to protect the Clinton brand? - because of course the last President to be impeached before Trump was Bill Clinton, caught out lying to Congress. Around that time Bill was often seen carrying the biggest Bible ever and putting in an Oscar-winning performance as a "contrite Christian". Perhaps BBC stands for Bell-ends Believing Clintons?
'The teenage climate activist tore into world leaders' said Huw Edwards tonight on the BBC News.Love for Greta, hate and bile for Donald. Thats how the BBC report the news nowadays.
Yep, there's no denying the contrast in tone. But this is part of the problem of declaring "ex cathedra" that "the science is settled" when no one really understands how all the climate mechanism interact. Greta is by definition on the side of science and the angels, according to the scientifically illiterate BBC. Personally, I think Trump is on the right track by attacking domesday cultishness. But if C02 emissions are really a/the problem then planting even a trillion trees is only a sticking plaster which have little impact. The best route forward is to support further development of green energy so that it becomes so cheap we can use it to manufacture methane (what we know as natural gas) from air and water - that will take the CO2 out of the atmosphere.
If we can get heat by burning methane it follows that we need energy to make methane.So what is this 'green energy' that will make the methane? (Perhaps solar power from parts of the world that are actually sunny?)The CO2 that is used to make the methane will, of course, become atmospheric CO2 again once it is burned. Ah, you will no doubt argue, that means nett 'zero emissions', unfortunately Greta has already banned that, insisting on actual 'zero emissions', we have been told!
Anonymous - even in the UK utility level solar power is becoming cheap. It's already cheaper than coal and nuclear and at 5 to 6p per KwH beginning to get closer to natural gas. Of course, currently the issue is intermittency, as with wind. In sunnier climes, tenders based on solar plus chemical battery systems are now coming in around 2 cents per KwH, beating other energy systems. The storage allows the systems to even out electricity production during the day to match demand better. Most analysts think the dramatic reductions in the cost of solar are going to continue into the future. At that point using surplus green energy (the waste energy that occurs when it's very windy and/OR very sunny) to manufacture methane becomes feasible. Getting rid of intermittency makes green energy much more valuable as you can use it for both baseload and rapid response to demand. It's true Saint Greta wouldn't like net zero emissions, but she's a religious fanatic rather than a practical proponent of good policies! If the energy industry was creating no new carbon emissions, you could probably gradually reduce the amount of carbon by planting more trees and get back to historic levels. Of course, whether people will really want a colder climate remains to be seen.
Looking out at the still, overcast sky how is the UK currently doing?A demand of 44GW, 3.6GW from wind and 0.6GW from solar. Thank heaven for all that 'excess green energy' that could have made the thousand tonnes of methane that we would have needed lately!
Yes, interesting language: 'tore into world leaders'. You go, girl! I wonder if anyone else will get that kind of descriptive boost. Personally I was hoping that Huw would introduce the story as 'Powerful men enjoyed being verbally spanked by Swedish teenager...'. But that's just me.
To return to this BBC Briefing thing - it's very insiduous in my opinion. The BBC have produced a nearly 200 page document to support and argue for mass immigration:http://news.files.bbci.co.uk/include/newsspec/pdfs/bbc-briefing-immigration-newsspec-26148-v1.pdf200 pages! How many of their website visitors will actually bother reading it? 0.001? perhaps? 200 pages is the sort of length of analysis you might expect from a Royal Commission. The BBC is not the arbiter of truth...that's something it can't seem to accept. I've scanned the document. It's the usual concoction of misdirection, lying by comission and false representation. But you have to know quite a bit about the subject to realise what they are keeping hidden, how they are keeping it hidden. You might notice they keep switching betweeen "migrant", "ethnic minority" "non UK national"...it's all done to support the case for migration, with the different categories being deployed as it suits the pro-migration argument. I didn't notice any proper discussion about different types of migration - seasonal, time-limited, residential status etc. For the BBC there is only one type of immigration - the type that leads to naturalisation. Anyway, I think this is a sinister development. The BBC is now explicitly telling us what to believe about the big issues of the day - all pretence of impartiality having been ripped away.
Agreed MB. This is an attempt to place the 'settled science' BBC style onto the immigration debate. I carried out a key-word count:Windrush 17Muslim 34Christian 3Sikh 4Buddhist 1Islam 17Sharia 1terrorism 5Jhadis 3cricket 5illegal 34integration 15extremism 3Islamic terrorism 0English Defence League 2National Action 2neo-Nazi 1Islamic State 1Tommy Robinson 1Stephen Yaxley-Lennon 1The whole report as usual is as seen through the golden glow of the BBC worldview prism. Here are a few extracts:... The English Defence League (EDL) began in 2009 as afootball hooligan movement protesting against Islamistextremists in Luton. The idea spread nationwide and itstaged a series of huge marches before the organisation fellapart. One founding member, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, whouses the name Tommy Robinson, left, saying he could nolonger control the EDL, but he continued its campaigningaims under his own name........ The neo-Nazi group National Action, which emerged in2013, was banned under terrorism legislation three yearslater after it applauded the murder of MP Jo Cox. Later, akey member of the outlawed network was jailed forplanning to kill another MP........ The Windrush generation were originally migrant workers who arrived from the Caribbean between 1948 and 1971......They were named after HMT Empire Windrush, the troopshipwhich brought around 800 Caribbean passengers - mainlyJamaican immigrants - to Tilbury, in Essex, on 21 June 1948 ...... The term is now also used to refer to Commonwealth citizens who came before immigration controls in 1973... .... Islamist extremism .... A militant ideology that has been used to justify violent attacks in the name of Islam, in the UK and elsewhere... Perpetrators have often been described as, or call themselves, “jihadis” ... Jihad, commonly, means to “struggle”, either with oneself, or, more broadly, to “do good”and - only in certain limited conditions - to “take up arms” in self-defence ....It's that last bit that should alarm us all. Unfortunately, the authorship of this document is not declared. The mindset of the author is clear though.
Another extract:...A large proportion of the EU foreign-born population are Catholics and Orthodox, so immigration has probably changed the mix of Christian belief... 19% of people resident but not born in the UK are Muslim; whereas Muslims made up 3% ofthose born in the UK ...Only 2% of the UK-born population adhered to the world’s other four main religions (Judaism,Sikhism, Hinduism, and Buddhism). In contrast, 12% of the foreign-born population were adherents of those religions...
Catholics are a 'safe' target for the BBC. It's always useful if they can be dragged in as a means of covering up of some other awkward fact or circumstance. And note that obfuscating technique, in the one case using the vague quantity, 'a large proportion' and in the other, actual percentage figures, so that the two cannot be compared.Right on cue, more on immigration, this time from Laurie Taylor. Just when I'd concluded he must have been 'retired' by the BBC, up he pops with 'Borders: from Calais to Mexico'. 'Laurie Taylor explores the control of national borders. He talks to Nira Yuval Davis, Director of the research centre on Migration, Refugees and Belonging at the University of East London...' https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000dgypI didn't hear it so can't comment on what Nira had to say.
Anonymous, you were probably lucky. Here's what I found online:"In her recent major ESRC research project she used participatory theatre techniques as a research methodology working with refugees in East London. She recently completed a major EU research project on ‘Borderscapes’ in which she was leading an international team (WP9) which examined everyday bordering in metropolitan cities and different European border zones from a situated intersectional gaze perspective.""Nira has written extensively on theoretical and empirical aspects of intersected nationalisms, racisms, fundamentalisms, citizenships, identities, belonging/s and gender relations in Britain & Europe, Israel and other Settler Societies. Among her written and edited books are Woman-Nation-State, 1989, Racialized Boundaries, 1992, Unsettling Settler Societies, 1995, Gender and Nation,1997, Warning Signs of Fundamentalisms, 2004, The Politics of Belonging: Intersectional Contestations, 2011, Women Against Fundamentalism: Stories of Dissent and Solidarity, 2014 and the forthcoming Bordering (2018)."After we have sorted out the BBC and taken away their licence fee, we need to take away the equivalent academic "licence fee" with keeps all these gobby intersectional academics in employment. Let them seek funding for their pathetic "research" (play-pretend with refugees) from someone other than the UK taxpayer.
What a load of gobble. I'm very glad I didn't tune in.
' The BBC Briefing has inspired a collection of special reports, features and analysis from across BBC News throughout the week. The week of coverage draws to a close on Sunday with a Radio 1Xtra Talks episode exploring what it's like to live in the UK without documentation. You can also listen via the BBC Sounds app from 21:00 GMT.'
Without documentation, undocumented.Why will the BBC no longer say illegal immigrants?
Because they want to portray all kinds as poor victims. 'Vulnerable' is the new favoured word, as recently identified by Spiked. You'll hear it a lot from hand-wringing Labour immigration ideologues such as Yvette Cooper and similar advocates all over the media. Just as 35-year-old males - who knows what kind of scammers, criminals, terrorists, or plain opportunist illegal entrants among a possible minority of actual legal asylum seekers - were somehow 'children' and poor vulnerable 'refugees', so all kinds who turn up, legal or not, are rendered harmless genuine souls 'without documentation'.
London has become the "epicentre of the elites" in the UK, making it "off limits" for young people from poorer backgrounds, says a social mobility charity.The first lines on a report on the BBC website today.Fake news and rubbish. Have these people ever travelled around London? It’s stuffed full of millions of young people, many of them not wealthy. Take a look around any of the boroughs, the streets and estates. I don’t see many elites beyond a few enclaves. Quite the reverse in fact.
An interesting snippet at the end of Amol Rajan’s report on the demise of The Victoria Derbyshire Show.‘BBC News is looking to make big savings and re-organise its structure so that digital journalism is prioritised.‘Much of the website reporting is dire and as anon pointed out earlier, they increasingly publish without an author or byline which is a dangerous trend imo.
Yep, the BBC wants to become the equivalent of an opinion-based newspaper. Not sure its buddy, the Guardian will be altogether happy about that.
We can expect more spurious news agency photos and the BBC's custom-made PC graphics (usually depicting genderless achromatic age-indeterminate beings). As you say MB, framed opinion passed off as news.
:::NEWSNIGHT WATCH:::Alert alert!!!When they introduce an item with the tag "sensitive" you know it can only relate to one thing - M People. Finally, finally - after tens of thousands of cases of deaths and horrendous suffering resulting from congenital disability - Newsnight get round to looking at the genetic effects of close cousin marriage. Of course it's dealt with like they are bomb disposal unit trying to extract the fuse...but I suppose we have to award the BBC one point for at least - finally, after ignoring the evidence for 50 years - getting round to looking at the issue. And perhaps it should be noted that Jonathan Portes lyingly left out the huge financial, social and personal cost of this migrant close cousin tradition when providing his bogus "balance sheet" for the "Joys of Immigration".
In the BBC Immigration Briefing (see above), there is no mention of this particular elephant in the room, just this type of extract:..... As a result, immigrants are currently proportionatelyboth less likely to use the NHS, and to be less of a financial burden on the NHS, than the UK population as a whole........Peterborough has one of the highest birth rates in the country... Between 2013 and 2015, the maternity unit at thecity hospital had to close to new admissions temporarily on 41 occasions. According to local hospital authorities at the time, an increasing local population, rising obesity and birth rates were among the reasons ....
Ah! The unmistakable tones of Orla Guerin,reporting from Yad Vashem. Of course, Orla being Orla she just had to mention Palestine. https://twitter.com/SussexFriends/status/1220112911391248385
Just spotted that a new series starts tonight about national identity and the rise of right-wing populism. It is called Travels in Euroland with Ed Balls. Being the BBC, I predict that it it will not be saying anything positive about populism or nationalism but will say lots of nice things about the EU and the liberal attitudes within.
There was a priceless moment in this evening's Richard Osman's House of Games. He gave clues in hashtag form for the contestants to guess the person in question. Crimea, nursing etc prompted a chorus of "Florence Nightingale" - but Richard said firmly "No, Mary Seacole. His answer was met by a silence - followed by a cut and then onto the next question.We have seen Greta Thunberg's name as an answer in Mastermind. How disappointed the BBC Group-thinkers must be that not only the public but also their carefully selected PC-ready contestants don't remember that latest rounds of indoctrination. Mind you, this question from Richard followed another when Michelle Ackerley estimated the distance between the UK and New York as being 300,000 miles!
Mary Seacole- hilarious - but I thought Gove had removed her story from the curriculum?As Rod Liddle wrote;We should tell our children the whole story; it will be an object lesson in the imbecility and absolutism of a certain section of the ethnic left, not least its wish to revel in perpetual victimhood. And a sort of weird inversion of anti-racism; that somebody should be considered important solely as a consequence of the colour of their skin. It is tempting to say that if Mary Seacole had been white then the people at Operation Black Vote wouldn’t have given a monkey’s about her either way. But that ignores the final paradox: she was white. Three quarters white. In her own words, only a little brown. And yet the campaigners will not accept this. Black: the woman was black, definitely, they howl, and to ignore her blackness is redolent of colonialism and prejudice and oppression and drinking taps for whites only and Love Thy Neighbour etc etc.Rarely have we seen exalted a more misplaced, misappropriated god than poor old Seacole. Rarely has a campaign been willing to swallow so much utter tosh in order to advance its cause — and all achieved with the patronising connivance of well-meaning but vacuous white liberalS.
Another priceless moment just occurred - but this time on Sky - when race fanatic Hirsch quoted as authority a statement about race in the prison and justice system from that well-known sage David Lammy.
Interesting piece here about Sir's departure and possible candidates for DG. https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/the-bbc-needs-a-reality-check-that-s-a-priority-for-lord-hall-s-successor-a4340066.html
The MSM including the BBC have had to throw away their "Yes to Jess" badges and put on "I Love Lisa" ones. Lisa Love means never having to tell the public that - just like Miliband - her father was a UK-hating Marxist immigrant. She never mentions her father, and neither do the media. And here's something else Nandy is keeping quiet about with the media's connivance - like Corbyn she is a full on pro-Palestine activist. This is what she wrote very recently as the new Chair of "Friends of Palestine and the Middle East":"I visited Palestine as a new MP and I was struck by the threats facing the next generation, the ferocity of the attacks they endure and the systematic denial of their rights. I met a three-year-old child whose house was surrounded by the Separation Wall and was growing up without daylight. I saw a 15-year-old shackled by the ankles, who had been held in administrative detention for months without any contact with his family, access to school or a lawyer. I saw families humiliated at checkpoints on a daily basis and the denial of basic medical care as a result.Before I was elected to parliament, I worked with refugee children here in Britain. I fought for children in immigration detention and for others made forcibly destitute by their own government. Those children were frequently denied legal advice and we repeatedly had to fight off attempts to subject them to harmful and inaccurate X-ray examinations just to prove their age. "So she was one of those people doing their best to stop the authorities undertaking effective checks on bogus asylum seekers in their 20s and 30s pretending to be children and entering the country illegally. Yes another Labour "moderate" who is nothing of the kind.
Do you recall the way the BBC made a big issue about the Conservative leadership election? The complaint was that Boris was being elected by a few white, middle class men who were Conservative party members. The regulars on here all posted about the way the BBC did nothing but mischief make about the process and it was a lead news item time and time again. I just saw that Unite have backed Rebecca Long-Bailey with their affiliated block vote. Those through to the final ballot face a members vote more or less the same as the Conservatives.Nothing at all from anyone at the BBC about the process. No complaints, concern or anything.
John Humphrys has rather a lot to say about the BBC - much of which I agree with - and a couple of scores to settle with named persons:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7927107/JOHN-HUMPHRYS-went-saint-sinner-BBC.html