...and any other matters that take our fancy
What dishonesty from the BBC. It’s headline is that ‘Zoe Ball adds 335,000 listeners to radio 2 show’.It’s only hidden away in the text that you find out that the show lost 1.12 million listeners over the last year, but in the last quarter it added 335k back.So the headline is misleading at best. I use the story as an example of lies and distortion, deliberately used by the BBC that put a completely a completely different spin on what is very bad news for her viewing figures.I just can’t trust them on anything they say.
My immediate reaction was "Why do they think this is news?", closely followed by "And why do they think I need to know?". Perhaps she is getting better at doing the job for which she is handsomely paid, but I won't be changing my listening choices because of it any time soon.
Listening and viewing figures are extrapolated garbage from an all too small sample. They are used to hoodwink advertisers that their ads are reaching potential customers.The Rajar sample is 2000 people noting every quarter of an hour what they're listening on the radio. Ask yourself who in their right mind has the time or inclination to do this? It's a self selected sample of the willing with nothing to do. All polls depend on these folk, and to be honest, probably another 2000 randomly selected will have declined to take part... and so the sample is statistically unreliable.Getting the number to last 5000 is plain unbelievable as it should say there were an estimated 8.24 million plus/minus a 1 million as the margin of error at the very least.
I had a friend at Uni who volunteered to complete the National Student Survey of Expenditure. He said - as a matter of honour (to support the arguments for increased student grants at the time) - he completely falsified his expenditure record, making out it was nearly all going on academic books rather than alcohol! :)
Soon it will be Breeze Brian, Shower Sandra and Slightly Overcast Sabra-Ogechi. Anything to promote a 'Climate Emergency'.
Well they have suggested that erosion of soft clay cliffs on our coastlines is due to climate change, so why not?
If you have a couple of hours to kill. Maybe a long car journey? This is a great interview:https://www.spiked-online.com/video/wokeness-has-become-a-religious-cult/
Another for the Complaints Blog in waiting: Ok, I was vexed.____YOUR COMPLAINT: Apparent effort to be shut down by the weekend https://twitter.com/cbbc/status/1223170327188058113?s=20There you have it. Not only grotesque BBC bad taste, manipulation of children, but inaccurate. Delete your Charter. VVVVThanks for getting in touch recently with your complaint.Your complaint is quite general and does not raise a very specific issue for us to reply to. We regret that at present we’re not able to reply, unless we receive the following specific information: • More detail about the editorial content to illustrate the issueIf you would kindly provide this in writing, we may then be able to address the issue you raised. If may be helpful to read the BBC Complaints Framework on our website which explains on page 12 the type of information we may need in order to be able to reply.If you can provide this information please contact us as you did before, but also include the case number above so we can pick up where we’ve left off.We can assure you we have added your points on our overnight report of audience feedback, these reports are among the most widely read sources of BBC feedback and ensure your points are seen by senior management.Thanks once again for contacting us.____Actually it was very specific and really did address all required. But she sounds cute, in all senses of the term...The dance continues....
I hope I'm not a week behind everyone here, but I've just watched News Watch with Samira Ahmed (Friday evening 7th Feb) and the main complaints were all to do with the BBC's appalling and misjudged decision not to televise Boris's historic speech from Downing Street marking our exit from the E.U.Remember how the BBC News on that day sandwiched the great news in between several other lesser stories, basically attempting to bury the great News.They also showed a clip of Lord Grade castigating the BBC for not showing the video of Boris announcing that he had officially signed the Agreement papers marking our exit of the E.U from inside No 10.News Watch presenter Samira Ahmed felt it important to remind the viewers that social media is now the way and that's why the Boris speech was not taken by the BBC....nor ITV.Gee! What a getout!A member of the public came on the show and quite rightly said that a political moment as important as this (Leaving the E.U) is not really something to throw on someone's (No10) Facebook page. This was a national event that should have been covered by our national broadcaster. But it wasn't.Some criticism also came in for the appalling coverage of the climatic celebrations in Parliament Square when outside reporter Vicki Young shouted all over Farage and the crowd singing at the top of their voices The National Anthem, virtually drowning out everybody. Disgraceful!And some other complaints mentioned that the BBC's Brexit Night Special studio was adorned in the colours of blue and yellow, the colours of the E.U.How do they get away with it? John..... North London.
It's only when you emerge into the light that you can really understand how long you have been in the tunnel...I think the UK was in a very dark tunnel while the forces of darkness tried to undo the Brexit vote in the 2016 EU Referendum. Three plus years of hell...We've only just emerged from that tunnel, but thank God we have! Let's now strive for more light and honesty in our political discourse! :)
I clicked on a link to Coronavirus article on the BBC website today. It’s headline is - Why are we catching more diseases from animals?In one if the first paragraphs it points the finger of blame at climate change. That’s a pretty serious charge so I searched the long article for any facts to support the claim. There are none of course, just an assertion that environmental and climate change are removing and altering animals' habitat making it easier for us to come into contact with them. It’s another opinion piece with no data or corroborating evidence. And it’s another example of an outside source publishing rubbish under the guise of the BBC. In this case Prof. Tim Benton from Chatham House. Are they impartial? How we they funded? Who knows. But from the article it does appear that they have an axe to grind and are handily accommodated by the BBC who can claim a degree of separation if it is just more climate propaganda.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51237225
What BS from the BBC. It's long been known that the peasant lifestyle - living cheek by jowl with animals (often under the same roof - animals are a cheap form of heating!) and sale of live animals in markets - provides a route for diseases to cross from animals and birds to humans. This has been going on for millennia. It's probably far less of an issue now than it was 50 or a 100 years ago, but China remains a potent source of new diseases because they have both a medieval peasantry and a sophisticated urban population co-existing in the one country. China's corruption and failure to provide decent health services for its poor adds to the problem as laws on animal produce etc are simply ignored and poor people don't have access to medical services. Chatham House I always refer to as a nest of vipers and spies. It is of course a BBC favourite along with the Guardian, Institute for Government (sponsored by Remainiac billionaire Lord Sainsbury), Joseph Rowntree Trust (more money please), the Howard League for Penal Reform (let them out) and the IFS (guaranteed to say all the right things at election time). The "Chatham House Rules" convention is instructive - essentially it is an agreement not to let the public know the real reasoning and thought processes behind the policy proposals that emerge. I seem to recall as well that Chatham House was instrumental in popularising the notion of the "Arab Spring" which led eventually to the disastrous decision to support a civil war in Syria, leading to untold misery for millions and the importation at Merkel's behest of one million undocumented migrants into the EU.
On Tuesday 4th February the BBC put out a rather harrowing documentary (part 1 of 3 ) called 'Universal Credit: Inside the Welfare State.'Of course we learn't earlier this week that there has been a huge u-turn regarding Universal Credit and that it may now not be rolled out until 2024, that's if they do in fact plan to go ahead with it.But my question is why didn't the BBC make some kind of announcement at the end of the show as they sometimes do when they say....since the making of this program there has been changes. But they didn't.I guess because they want us to watch Part 2 and 3.And Part 2 will be shown on Tuesday 11th Feb.John....North London
Universal Credit is a good idea badly implemented. More experts than you might expect in the benefits field don't want it scrapped. It makes a lot of sense because it simplifies the benefits system while at the same time preserving a strong incentive to work. The main problem appears to be the initial processing protocols. We need to ensure people in genuine need aren't left short of money. We need to find a better approach. One way would be to have a Universal Basic Income. It's often associated with the Left but plenty of people from the Right have argued it makes sense especially in a modern economy where ideally people will retrain and upskill at regular intervals. It can provide a good springboard for a more entrepreneurial society. It could be tied to people having worked for a number of years which would also provide a strong incentive for young people not to get trapped in the dole culture.
I've just discovered that the Moral Maze is back - it's repeated at 10 15 tonight - with a discussion about healing the nation after you know what. The first ten minutes, which is all that I've heard, has a truly gobsmacking tale from a woman called Jane. Note also the difference in characterisation of the respective sides in the referendum in the chairman's introduction.
Good interview with Georges Bensoussan at Harry's Place:http://hurryupharry.org/2020/02/08/muslim-anti-semitism-islamism-and-terror/He neatly sums up the PC Globalist approach to anti-semitism:"The dead Jews are honored so that the living can be better forgotten."
I doubt we'll be seeing him interviewed on the BBC.
Peter Hitchens cannot continue to defend the BBC, much though he loves what it used to be...https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/
A telling piece.
Did anyone see Will Gompertz interviewing Spike Lee on the news last night?It’s the eve of the Oscars and Will once again took the opportunity to use if for agenda politics, in this case the lack of diversity with a like minded example of diversity.Will himself is very annoying, an older man trying to be youthful and cool but coming across as a grinning old fool. And what’s with that hairstyle? Shave it off man, you look ridiculous. Like a blond Max Wall. Back to the point. With Will, you never hear about the art, that’s just a device for him to signal his wokeness and the lack of it in Arts. I long to get a proper report informing us and delighting our senses with a particular strand of art, but no chance whatsoever with Will I’m afraid.
Spare a thought for Will. As an ageing, white male presenter, he is in danger of becoming irrelevant - requiring him to work doubly hard as he strives to find acceptability with his BBC peers. When the stakes are so high that his salary/pension is at risk, who cares about the artistic values, Will clearly doesn't.
No I didn't see the hair for the reason that I don't watch the BBC News. Slap on the wrist for me. Ouch. I suspect Max Wall's was a wig, or at least dyed but the arts editor's is put in a hairnet at night.
Did Our Will touch on this subject:"After the 1990 release of Mo' Better Blues, Lee was accused of antisemitism by the Anti-Defamation League and several film critics. They criticized the characters of the club owners Josh and Moe Flatbush, described as "Shylocks". Lee denied the charge, explaining that he wrote those characters in order to depict how black artists struggled against exploitation. Lee said that Lew Wasserman, Sidney Sheinberg, or Tom Pollock, the Jewish heads of MCA and Universal Studios, were unlikely to allow antisemitic content in a film they produced. He said he could not make an antisemitic film because Jews run Hollywood, and "that's a fact"." (from Wikipedia)Er, no - thought not!
I remember seeing “Do the Right Thing” when it first came out and thinking, if the only way to confront racism was the twisted logic that Lee was advocating, there was no hope at all for the future. I was clearly in a very small minority as the film received huge critical acclaim. I had no idea at the time that one day I would be living a world where even the most disadvantaged white person would be required to apologise for his white privilege. That same twisted logic has now become part of everyday life.
Lee appears to be a fan of Malcolm X and his "by all means necessary" code. Although the BBC will never tell you (because he's one of their heroes), Malcolm X once celebrated the death of American children (of a pigmentation different from his own) in an air accident as a just punishment from Allah.
It wasn't a great morning for the BBC, what with Ed Stourton turning into a Marr-like terrier on a mission, Bercow raging at his enemies for far too long on Broadcasting House, Uncle John not being available to Marr and Nicky Campbell getting cut off in the BBC's outpost oop North. The loss of service went on for five minutes at least, with increasingly desperate cries from the continuity lady. 'Please bear with us while we work out what we're going to do.'Before the sudden cut, we were enjoying - well I was amused - a discussion involving a co-founder of Extinction Rebellion who proposed a gathering of world citizens in one room to bring together ideas and figure out how to cope with climate change. Yes, I'm sure that would work. Anyway, I laughed when the Extinction Rebellion lady was cut off and this world citizen lark was extinguished by the gremlins or more likely the inclement weather. Can't you just imagine the world citizens having an orderly discussion and reaching an agreed conclusion? Nicky Campbell can't even maintain order and open-minded discussion in a small studio of a couple of dozen. When they did manage to get the programme back, the topic was religious faith vs one's actions. Phew. That was a lucky deliverance.
It was a bit grim oop North today. Poor Nicky.
Yes I saw that this evening, with photos of flooding in Cumbria. There was a short burst of very heavy rain here about 4pm followed by driving wind and rain, leaving some pools of water in roads but it's minor in comparison.
There's been some discussion of where to go as an alternative to the BBC and indeed the rest of the UK MSM. I think You Tube remains one of the best platforms for getting yourself informed. Yes, there is some censorship but you can, for example, get pretty full coverage from Fox News of American politics - a sorely needed counterbalance to Sopel, Moore and the rest of the anti-Trump UK media. What I particularly like about You Tube are the special interest channels often presented by enthusiasts who seem to have no particulae axe to grind. Currently I'm enjoying: Stefan Moli for hominid evolution, archaeology and ancient history; Paul at the LangFocus channel dealing with all aspects of language and language evolution; and Indy Neidell on the World War Two channel following the course of WW2 week by week. The people at these channels seem far less biased and far more dedicated to truth than the PC Globalist crowd. Of course I have mentioned only a tiny percentage of what is available on You Tube - you can get far better info on economics and the latest technological developments than you can on the BBC.You can also entertain yourself with all the marvellous music available on You Tube.
A slightly technical issue but an important one nonetheless. The BBC claim that their news reporters' individual Twitter accounts are nothing to do with them. So why does the official BBC Victoria Derbyshire Twitter account refer people to "our reporter's" private twitter account? https://twitter.com/ShamaanVioletIt's only after I went there that I found "our reporter" Violet Shamaan is a FORMER BBC News reporter. At least I thought then that was the case, until I found this confirming she was starting a " new position at the BBC's BAFTA award winning @VictoriaLIVE programme". https://twitter.com/shamaanviolet?lang=enSo it seems she is after all a Beeboid...Who can tell? But either way, is it appropriate for the BBC to refer people's to their reporters' private twitter accounts where all manner of "personal opinions may be aired.Doesn't that muddy the pure waters of BBC impartiality?
Talking of storms...expect a storm of anti-subscription "news" on the BBC. These will now replace the "because of Brexit" Fake News. First up today on Radio 4 this morning - an item on how expensive Sports TV subscriptions featuring Premier League football in the UK are. Probably true (for a change) but then the BBC hardly does anything to discourage the childish adulation of football stars which is one of the reasons why they get paid so much, their absurdly high pay then needing to be covered through TV subscriptions. I am sure they are thinking what other similar stories they can shoehorn into their "news" to put us off the idea of requiring the BBC to convert to a subscription basis.
If anyone reading this blog is interested in applying for the DG job. Here is the link. https://careerssearch.bbc.co.uk/jobs/job/DirectorGeneral/48408
Only the BBC could have a job advert where this paragraph is included as the final para in the opening section only for it to be immediately repeated as the opening paragraph to the next section!! I wonder how many were on the Committee that agreed that?"The Director-General is the editorial, operational and creative leader of the BBC, overseeing all of its services within the UK and around the world, both public service and commercial."I was half expecting to see the following statement: "Rod Liddell need not apply. Same goes for you Hitchens."
An interesting piece in the Spectator - The BBC has much to learn from Japan’s national broadcaster"NHK is Japan’s version of the BBC – it was actually modelled after the Beeb way back in the 1920s. It has four terrestrial, two satellite TV stations, and three radio stations. It is advert-free, and funded by a license fee."https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/02/the-bbc-has-much-to-learn-from-japans-national-broadcaster/
Are the BBC backing RLB for the Labour Party leadership? A few weeks ago I counted the number of Google images found for each candidate in the first which showed the potential leader with the red Labour background. I suggested that this was a subliminal message sent out by the BBC as to who in their opinion would sit the most comfortably in the formal setting of a Labour platform.The count was:KS 5RLB 9JP 0LN 3ET 2On repeating the process today, I find:KS 4RLB 14LN 5If you add to this today's Politics Live during which John Pienaar was given a free hand to suggest that Starmer's team were indulging in dirty tricks - without any clear evidence according to Starmer's campaign leader, then you might be led to suppose that it is RLB who the BBC favours. Being the the MP for Salford which will eventually be the BBC's northern outpost when HS2 gives them the speedy link, I wonder if the BBC do have a plan here.If I were RLB, given the BBC's success rate in lending their support, I should be mightily worried.
... in the first 36 images which showed the potential leader....Even in split images showing the three contenders, it is RLB who has the red background - Is this a coincidence?
If you want to try this out, the search was: BBC Kier Stramer, and then in a new search,BBC Rebecca Long Bailey, and then in another new search,BBC Lisa Nandy
I typed into Google images "BBC Labour leadership election 2020" and got the following results for the first 20 images that came up:KS 11RBL 7LN 10ET 9JP 5That accords more with my impressionl. Of course Jess Phillips pulled out early so the BBC had to abandon its "Yes to Jess" campaign. I think Lisa Nandy has been hugely boosted by the BBC. KS was given an unwarranted boost at the start by that fake You Gov poll. I have always thought RLB will win. The BBC did not favour her in my view because they thought she would lose...it's similar to the stance they took in relation to Corbyn - the BBC were quite anti-Corbyn when they thought he could be dislodged. I think it's similar now. They would rather RLB would not win this contest but once she is Leader, you will see her get more of a boost from the BBC - straight on Woman's Hour for a soft interview.
I meant the BBC think RLB is more likely to lead Labour to yet another defeat at the polls in four or five years' time. That's why they've been boosting KS, LN and JP (but not ET because they think she would also lose).
What would it say about progress towards equality in the Labour Party if out of a contest between four women and one man, the man won.? I believe the BBC favour RLB, but as I said above, having the BBC support you is perilous.
Given the Corbynite Left believe or at least pretend to believe that the BBC is a capitalist conspiracy against the horny-handed proletariat I think support from the BBC could be fatal!
From the BBC, lyingly trying to associate the decline in viewers for the Oscars (20% in one year!) with an overall decline in viewership for "linear" TV. Hmmmm..."Roughly 23.6 million viewers tuned into the awards ceremony, according to the US broadcaster ABC, citing Neilsen.The ratings fell sharply from last year when 29.5 million people watched, amid an industry-wide decline in linear TV viewing."I'd say the decline is a lot more to do with the PC fanatics' successful attempt to turn the Oscars in to a PC diversity bore-fest. I've never been a fan of the Oscars, but clearly for a lot of people it was an opporunity for some escapism, associating themselves via their TV screens with the glitz, glamour, success, wealth and excitement of Hollywood, including the follow-up OTT parties. Now, it's being garbed in the grey blanket of idendity politics and diversity discussions, while the women get all "MeTooy" rather than "Ogle-me-please". It's not what the public want - they liked their escapist fantasy. Now the Oscars are like a bad day at the office, where the boss calls a meeting to discuss the importance of responsible behaviour in the workplace.
What do you call it when the white Sports Editor for BBC Africa calls out the Oscars on diversity? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-51441309https://twitter.com/bensutherland?lang=enI'd call it chutzpah!!
And since the BBC encourages us to put on ethnic equality glasses to look at the world...something occurred to me today after a TV commercial segment on ITV where 100% (yes, 100%) of adverts featured someone of apparent African or African-Caribbean ethnic background. Looking at the latest ONS figures, adding up everyone of that background, including mixed race, you'd only get to about 5% of the population, or about one in 20 but every advert features someone from those groups. What do you call that? I'd call it pathological especially because hardly any adverts feature people from South Asian, Chinese or other Asian backgrounds! Taken together they represent something like 8% of the population! But they never get anything like that representation in ads. They are probably scraping 2% at best. So this isn't about equality... We seem to be living in some mad sort of Alice in Wonderland world! Any visiting anthropologists must be scratching their heads trying to make sense of it all...
It’s not just adverts, it’s much of the TV drama output especially at the BBC. Dr Who is a classic example. Positive discrimination or colour blind casting has over compensated and at some point in the future, there will be a reckoning. As someone famous once stated “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”
All heterosexual couples in adverts for the last few years are racially mixed.
Anthony has a bad quarter of an hour...or possibly an epiphany:https://twitter.com/awzurcher/status/1227002474046873600Maybe we'll see Anthony fully recovered from TDS and wearing a "Keep America Great" red baseball cap after all?
This didn't put him in a good mood either:https://twitter.com/awzurcher/status/1227049052916920320
I've often wondered who writes the Radio 4 News. This morning we were told that the Queen's grandson Peter Phillips and his wife Autumn have separated. Then 'He and his former partner' are to divorce.Teenagers again.
The BBC seem very keen to get is into face masks...is there a reason behind this? I believe there is. We've had plenty of pandemics in the past but British people have never resorted to face masks. Their efficacy is very much in doubt.But normalising the masking of the face seems to appeal to BBC folk for some reason, probably not unrelated to their favourite religion and their least favourite politician.
I saw this on Guido. I don’t suppose the BBC will be reporting this anytime soon. I’ve had a look and can find no trace. Plenty of doom and gloom about no growth in the last quarter but nothing on the EU statement.“ EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has confirmed the UK will get a bespoke trade deal with the EU, rather than a carbon copy of another country’s settlement.In a statement to the EU Parliament in Strasbourg, von der Leyen said she was willing to negotiate a zero tariff and zero quota relationship for goods.”
Radio 4 11:00 am this morning, “The Purity Spiral”: In fact a very good documentary on online harassment by the extreme Woke. I would like to think that the BBC has at last seen the light, but the cynic in me says that this is a calculated piece of tokenism. The interview with the Black Studies professor is truly chilling.
When I heard the title of this on the radio this morning, I groaned. Oh no, not another of those phrases like 'Overton window' that people love to throw out rather than say what they mean. Anyway there's an article on UnHerd by this Gavin Haynes, explaining what he means and what the documentary is about. It looks as if it was previously on the radio and today's was a repeat. https://unherd.com/2020/01/cast-out-how-knitting-fell-into-a-purity-spiral/He says he did ask some of the zealots from knitting to participate in the documentary but all refused. The chilling prof wouldn't be that bloke from Birmingham, would it? I can only groan again if so.
Just found an article by Gavin Haynes on Spiked which covers much of the same ground. https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/02/10/the-purity-spiral/
I’ve seen two Will Gompertz reports since I commented on him a couple of days back. The first on Sunday was on the Oscars again, focussed entirely on the #MeToo campaign. There was nothing at all In his report about artistic merit or excellence in film. The second was tonight on Birmingham Ballet and the principals campaign for more diversity in the ballet company, the shows and the audience. And again nothing at all about the artistic performances.Further proof - not that it is needed- that Will and the BBC is only interested in reporting the agenda politics of art rather than art itself.
What's the BBC's editorial director of news been up to? A handy little bit of earning on the side. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7992449/Senior-BBC-manager-apologises-accepting-12-000-appearance-fee-speak-hedge-fund-managers.html"After news of his appearance broke, the BBC said: 'Editorial guidelines allow BBC journalists to carry out external speaking, or chairing, engagements as long as they maintain objectivity and impartiality.'"That's all right then.
I was just going to mention this myself! Kamal Ahmed admits he did wrong. He's repaid it. Now let's see all the other PC Globalist BBC staff return their fees, in the hundreds of thousands of pounds, for hosting such events. This is one of the ridiculous things about BBC pay - the ability to earn extra through TV exposure is NEVER taken into account but they are nearly all at it and the more illustrious celebs can easily earn £200k extra per annum from 20 speaking engagements at £20k a time. Some might say "but it's in their spare time". To which I reply - what is their "spare time". Many of them appear to tweet at length during normal working hours. Many seem to "work" about once every two or three months. Even more seem able to find the time to write very weighty books, which further boost their earnings. If the BBC weren't a complete pushover they would be asking for a cut of the speaking fees and the book royalties.
The question on everyone's lips: is Anthony Zurcher a secret racist? ... "Coons"? How is that acceptable in this day and age?https://twitter.com/awzurcher/status/1225935329040965632
MB, surely you know it is totally acceptable to say and do such things if you are on the left. Hence why Trudeau is unscathed by it as well.
Two of the three top headlines on the website right now are about the US elections. I suspect their is almost zero interest here in the UK about the Democrat primaries but the London media bubble assumes that because they are enthralled by it the rest of us must be as well.
It looks as if Justin Webb is earning himself a few bob writing about the USA election - anti President Trump, naturally. https://unherd.com/2020/02/americas-elite-is-plotting-revenge/
Tonight's Moral Maze: The Moral Purpose of the BBC.'Her 98th year has not started well for Auntie BBC. The Government is consulting on decriminalising the licence fee; 450 jobs are being cut from BBC News to help meet a huge savings target; gender pay disputes are never far from the headlines; and audience figures reveal that the Corporation is struggling to connect with many British people – especially the under-35s and those from poorer socio-economic backgrounds. Meanwhile, the Director-General, Tony Hall, will step down in the summer after seven years in the job. If this is a crossroads, what should be the future direction of the BBC? There are loud voices calling for an end to the licence fee, calling it a poll tax, an outdated funding model overtaken by the streaming giants. Is it fair, they ask, to be forced to pay for a service you don’t want? Supporters point out...The BBC's severest critics believe...What, now, is the moral purpose of the BBC?'https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000f77z
"Instead, of leading us higher, they say, the BBC is sinking ever lower in pursuit of ratings." Who's "they", eh? This is really not the main concern of the BBC critics. If the BBC were simply chasing ratings, it would be doing a lot less damage. The problem is that it is chasing ideology, specifically PC Globalist ideology, the essentials of which are that borders are bad, that mass migration is good, that Islam is the same or possibly better than other religions, that cultural differences between people are of little importance and that equality of outcome is both desirable and achievable.
Clementi finally stirs. He's giving a speech oop North to tell us how dire it would be for us and the UK if the BBC were to go to subscription - no children's programmes. Hail that, I say. No indoctrination of children with fads and fashions in adult preoccupations. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7993417/BBC-boss-David-Clementi-warns-corporation-slash-TV-radio-services-licence-fee-axed.html
There is also a report of his speech on the BBC website. Foolishly they have opened up comments for the article. Needlessly to say, they could be going better for them.
I looks as if Extinction Rebellion Cambridge are truly rebelling. Look at point 2https://tockify.com/xrcambridge.org/detail/191/1581843600000
I made reference to this in 'Not Satire' below. Let's see a way forward XR, we all agree with cutting out wastefulness - obstructive protests such as these proposed in Cambridge are counterproductive.
The snake Bloomberg is a real threat to Donald Trump...he might well be planning to run as a third party candidate if he doesn't get the Dems' nomination and that could be quite serious for Trump. So it's great to see him hoist by the racist petard!https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/11/michael-bloomberg-stop-and-frisk-clip-113902Donald straight in there, no messing! Let's hope this seriously damages Bloomberg.
Post Brexit the BBC are continuing with their pro-EU perspective. This time it’s not Katya Adler, instead it’s Adam Fleming.They are still eager to report everything through the EU lens. Bad for Britain, good for EU is their motto and in their opinion the EU still hold all the cards. It’s as if nothing has changed.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-51474001
John Bercow was given a completely free ride on The One Show tonight. He plugged his book and was given the star treatment. They raised bullying, allowed him to deny at length and point the finger at others. He painted himself as hardworking and an agent of positive change.No question whose side the BBC were on - as has always been the case with the BBCs view of Bercow. He is right thinking (pro-Eu) and one of them. No dount about that.
True, although I rather thought he was given the rope to hang himself, which he did on the bullying issue.
Thinking Allowed with Laurie Taylor today was about water. He had a sociologist on called Sophie Watson, who within five minutes of the start said that she was interested in water for spiritual uses. Ah, I thought: baptism, sacred rivers, holy wells and shrines, miracles of turning water into wine, even walking on water. No. None of that. Muslims have to pray five times a day and to wash beforehand, which is complicated and difficult to do and might mean having to use public bathrooms but if you put your feet in a sink the water could splash about and someone might come in.
Strangely enough this story seems to have been given a miss by the bbc. I can't imagine that would have been the case if it had been a Democrat Party tent that had been attacked. https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/02/attack-on-florida-gop-voter-registration-tent-was-motivated-by-dislike-for-trump/
A typically lazy article from the BBC. The article admits that allergy admissions to hospital have DOUBLED in just 8 years (in Wales). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-51463217Now, I suspect this could well be down to the increased numbers of vaccinations that children are receiving. These are growing at a huge rate - the latest is that flu jabs are now being given to children. The article references the "urban environment" and the "rural environment" gnomically referring to a reduction in the rate of infections in the urban environment. But, really, has that much really changed in 8 years in the "urban environment" to explain this huge rise in food allergies?Children regularly die from food allergy shock. This is a serious issue but no one seems to be looking seriously at what could be causing this gargantuan increase in cases. Remember - the Government and medical establishment are looking to criminalise anti-vax speech. When free speech dies, you can never be sure what is true.
Was that Justin Webb I heard announcing today as Thursday 12 February? I know they have a tradition of getting the time wrong but the date is a new one. I had to check I hadn't got it wrong.It was six o'clock, a bit early for Justin to be fully on the ball I suppose.
Last night's Newsnight Labour Leader debate! OMG!! The OMG isn't for Katie Razzall's conduct of the debate - that was reasonably straightforward, I thought. But the responses!!! All of them were fully in support of no borders mass immigration.
I live in France and go to the BBC website to look at the front pages of the newspapers each morning. I have noticed that, often, the Telegraph is missing. Today is no exceptionhttps://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-the-papers-51498330
More often than not, it is the Guardian that will feature at the top of the list of Papers. This is a subtle form of bias used by the BBC: They highlight views that they agree with ahead of those they don't. The Telegraph rarely accords.
I posted these comments below, but they probably belong here:.... ' a hint of mid-Atlantic' is matched by the use of the word 'zinger' in Nicholas Watt's article:'Labour leadership: Emily Thornberry's zinger to keep her in the game.'The word is the American version of 'blinder' - as in 'Jamie Vardy scored a blinder'.I had thought the BBC were backing RLB but perhaps now they sense that their favourite ET could come through to lead the Labour Party. and,The Americanisation of the English language continued this morning in the report of Banksy's latest Valentine's Day effort:... ' The piece appears to be inspired by Valentine's Day, depicting a stencil of a young girl firing a slingshot of red flowers made with spray painted ivy'. ....In the UK, 99.9% would call the device a catapult - but not the BBC....I don't understand the BBC's fascination with the USA. The story of Kobe Bryant's death remains on the BBC Sports pages - it has two articles today, one of which has been running since the 6th February:''Take the next shot' - the new message from Kobe Bryant's final game'. I had never heard of him, and I suspect I'm not alone. Also, I can't find any convincing depth to the reporting that might reinforce the importance given to him by the BBC.
Not only did hardly anyone know about Kobe Bryant, but for some reason the BBC have given him a free pass on the Weinstein-style offence he committed - prosecution was dropped and woman was paid off, but Bryant had to admit as part of the settlement that is was non-consensual. Why the double standards? Of course we know why.
"Also, I can't find any convincing depth to the reporting that might reinforce the importance given to him by the BBC."Could he be 'black' by any chance?
An important case, but hardly a ringing victory for Free Speech as the pathetic Guido bunch are trying to frame it. If anything it probably further erodes our free speech. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-51501202Essentially this is saying the Police are perfectly within their rights to turn up at your place of work and start interrogating you about your speech, as long as their action is "proportionate". The reason the Police were criticised in this case, is that the Police did not review with sufficient rigour the content of the tweets. So this is further encouragement to the Police to devote huge resources to monitoring free expression. Remember, the tweets don't have to be threatening in any way for you to commit an offence: using humour in a way that could be found to be motivated by "prejudice" would be enough for the Police to be justified in turning up at your workplace and interrogating you about your alleged offence. The only reason the court found in Mr Miller's favour on this occasion was because the judge (this particular judge) didn't consider the tweets to be motivated by prejudice. A more woke judge could easily have decided they were.
It's a curate's egg isn't it and seems to be more about the judge's opinion than actual law - but I haven't read the judgment yet so maybe there's more of a basis than is apparent. It doesn't even have to be an 'offence' - a criminal offence. A 'hate incident'. How is that determined and against what criteria or legal definition?
It always comes down to the judge's opinion in this sort of case, since once you move beyond direct threats and incitement to violence, who's to say one man's poor taste joke isn't another's offence. Frankie Boyle (though now thoroughly down with the PC kids) used to make horrible anti-disabled people jokes, which it seems now could earn him a prison sentence. Jack Dee started his career sneering and laughing at people with asthma who objected to other people smoking. Again, he would possibly receive a jail sentence now. There is absolutely no grounds for logging "hate incidents". They should be recorded as allegations or reports by the public. End of matter. There is no doubt that the definition is politically driven.
Here's another case where free speech didn't fare well. From Spiked: 'Britain’s complicated web of malicious-communications, public-order and incitement-to-hatred laws has made trials of alleged hate-speakers routine. Just today, Kate Scottow, a gender-critical feminist, was convicted under the Communications Act. According to reports, the judge said that her ‘deliberate and persistent use of male pronouns’ to refer to one Stephanie Hayden, a trans activist, had caused ‘needless anxiety’. Scottow’s supporters say this concerns a dozen or so tweets sent over seven months.'
I see that Harry Miller has won his court case against the police who turned up at his place of work 'to check your thinking'. That plod idiocy sounds like something from a satire but it is real. He was also being 'checked' about a BBC 'incident':The Mail report: 'The policeman told Harry that he was in trouble for retweeting a 'transphobic' limerick.He was told that he was also being investigated for tweeting support for BBC Woman's Hour presenter Jenni Murray, who had been criticised by Oxford students after writing a newspaper article questioning whether transgender women are 'real women'Jenni Murray was also censured by the BBC. This is somewhat unusual in itself, considering she is a woman known and feted for being a crusading woman's advocate and feminist for years and considering also the latitude afforded to countless BBC staff's commentary and expressions of opinion all over the place.
Whyyyyy was Dame Jenni censored? Isn't she a woman?
She was given a warning about impartiality on 'controversial' subjects.
Mark Carney, Chief Architect of Project Fear now says Brexit could prove to be a ‘conceptual positive’ and has said there may be a silver lining to Brexit for the UK economy. Nothing at all about his interview with Reuters on the BBC. Yet if it had been a typically negative statement pre-Brexit it would have been made the headline news. “We are already seeing a rebound in confidence, business confidence and to some extent a firming of consumer confidence” he says
This morning I agreed with someone on a twitter thread critical of the EU.I was sloppy in phrasing, and the entire membership of the Florida Bureau of Professional Engineers descended en masse.And are still swarming madly. I gave up lunchtime as one crossed a line that only approved blue ticks can, but my inbox is still filling up. They are seriously nuts. But seem to be connected like a subterranean fungus and just 'know' when a threat must be surrounded.They just RT and like and RT likes by each other by reflex until their minders take them to the feeding hall. I still get notifications of likes of something Femi wrote back to me two years ago.
Blimey Peter, never mind Storm Ciara or Storm Dennis, Storm FBPE is a phenomenon far windier and potentially destructive (in the long run of themselves).
It's the ones with the spider as well as the FBPE you have to watch...not anchored to reality at all.
In case this does not appear in the reply section, this is to Craig and MB on matters FBPE (I knew QC was like oak leaves on a very cross, but does a spider add a full Supreme Hale Baroness?).It has of course escalated now the weak end shift has kicked in. They seem totally unaware they are talking amongst themselves and have been for days. Or that there is now confirmation that certain EU immigration bodies are imposing 'rules' to an excessive degree and failing to take into account respective national attractiveness to visitors.So as they are crowing how they are stuck in a long line to get to visit the firebombing in Paris, as I feel no need to go to a xenophobic continent, and merely note that me and my Commonwealth-born missus will return from our long haul destinations of choice via Air Clive and breeze through the shorter queues now the whole world and their pangolin are lumped together separately.
Is the analysis at the end of this BBC report biased?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51508974'Appeal Court rules Islamic marriages invalid in UK'Towards the end of the article is an analysis from Dan 'call out the helicopter' Johnson:.... 'AnalysisBy Dan Johnson, BBC News CorrespondentThere are thought to be thousands of couples who have gone through an Islamic wedding but haven't necessarily followed it up with a civil ceremony.Lawyers are saying this creates a precedent, where there may be thousands of particularly Muslim women who face a relationship break-up, without any of the protection that they perhaps should have....... But the Attorney General had pursued this appeal, presumably because the government thinks it's important to restrict what is actually regarded formally as a marriage'....It is the last paragraph I find biased. Dan Johnson is second guessing the Attorney General's reasons for the appeal. This might be a welcomed sign that the Judiciary is intending to restrict the creep of Sharia law. Johnson doesn't mention Sharia law in his analysis. Why not?
Yes - incredible! Orwell pointed up the link between contorted syntax and totalitarian thought. We can see it here..."but haven't necessarily followed it up..." Either they have or they haven't. "Necessarily" doesn't come into since, if it is a potential legal match, then there is no reason why a couple would not make the marriage legally valid in this country. If it is not, then there is a clear impediment to them doing so, assuming they wish to avoid bigamy. I find it absolutely incredible that any UK judges could find that, as the High Court (High Court!) did in 2018 "that the couple's Islamic "nikah" ceremony fell within English marriage law." (This from the report above Desperate Dan's "analysis".) Our liberties and our democracy have been placed at huge risk by our nutty judiciary - from Lady Hale all the way down. This case should never have been heard by the High Court, let alone be found in favour of the plaintiffs. The Johnson analysis is appallingly slapdash e.g. "There are thought to be thousands of couples who have gone through an Islamic wedding but haven't necessarily followed it up with a civil ceremony. Lawyers are saying this creates a precedent..."Which lawyers? All lawyers? Some lawyers? The plaintiffs lawyers? Or the government's lawyers? So lazy, robbing the "analysis" of all sense. In any case, how does the fact of something create a precedent (does he mean legal precedent - how can we tell?) ? It's a fact that thousands of people up and down the country think they have the right to break into other people's homes and take away those people's belongings. That doesn't set a precedent for anything. It's still illegal to burgle people's homes. Then there's this:"Now for this particular couple things have worked out fine. They've worked out a settlement between them so this judgement has no bearing on their future."That's got to be rubbish. The judgement means that that settlement is not a divorce settlement cannot be enforced in the same way as a divorce settlement can if one of the parties fails to keep their side of the agreement in future. Furthermore we don't know if the woman would have achieved a better settlement if it was a legal divorce. So from a number of aspects, it clearly does have an effect on the couple. The BBC is totes rubbish!
Has anyone done a Google BBC Editorial Guidelines to Reality translate yet?Because 'analysis' is surely 'hive-pleasing opinion that ignores facts in favour of bubble opinon at best'.
ps: If anyone not an ITiot can figure this out, beyond using publish and then the comment as window to post, I have discovered if I clear the last few days Safari cache on my PC I can often post where meant and without rigamarole. iPhone and iPad still lost causes.