Dan Hodges has a good go at the BBC, which he says has had its day under the current structure and is dying at the hands of its friends such as Dimbo. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8032869/DAN-HODGES-Coogan-Dimbleby-weep-wail-BBC-licence-fee-scrapped.html
Yes, this article shows how far the BBC have fallen when Dan Hodges, a former Labour government special advisor, spells out the need for fundamental change. It is important the Conservatives under Boris act quickly on this; there needs to be a sea change in editorial philosophy and, taking away the license fee will help cut down the ridiculous overmanning at the BBC. Most telling of all in recent times, in my humble opinion, was the Julian Fellows quote in the Times the other day which showed how the editorial policy / world view in the newsroom had seeped into every pore of the organisation including Drama.
People on the other channel are pointing out that the BBC is censoring all mention of a racial incident related to the current coronavirus outbreak (couldn't be more newsworthy - race and corona!). The Mail does have the story:
I nearly fell of my chair because out of the 185 pages of PC verbiage they do have three references to immigration - which is something of a breakthrough for the BBC. This is a change from the Newsnight Special approach where they devoted a whole hour to the housing crisis without once mentioning immigration! I guess they realise they are under more scrutiny these days...
One of the references was irrelevant really but the other two accept that immigration has had some effect on "urban population" levels. Typical sleight of hand there - I can guarantee it's had a huge impact on suburban population as well! But they do at least label the most recent population surge in the UK as the "immigration boom"...have you ever heard our population described like that before by the BBC? I haven't for sure!
But you would think that having labelled the huge population increase in the UK since 1993 as the "immigration boom", you might have thought the BBC would put two and two together and realise that mass immigration is perhaps rather relevant to housing policy. For instance, would controls on migration to the UK help avoid the UK housing crisis become even more serious in future...
Nope, the BBC prefer to use the other 182 pages for a load of PC virtue signalling nonsense.
Reminds me - Mark Easton was out and about on BBC TV News this evening engaged in some diversionary tactis on the housing crisis. He delivered a very confused (but lengthy) piece on affordable housing which I found difficult to follow despite I reckon being conversant with the basic elements of housing policy. Intentional confuse-a-cat tactics I think...avoiding the elephant sat on all of us in the room. Easton's prognostication: let the Government find a magical solution.
I detect the hand of Mark 'there's bags of room' Easton in the direction of this briefing. The elephant in the room is the housing crisis in London. The document switches to general UK statistics rather than refer to London.
The population of London will have increased by over 250,000 since 2016 - ie four years. To house population increase at this rate, a city the size of Milton Keynes would be needed every two years, just to stand still. With it must go the schools, hospitals, municipal services, town hall admin etc. But, a high proportion of the increased numbers require affordable housing. Who - which developer will contemplate this economic absurdity?
The briefing refers to housebuilding in abstract terms. Most new houses are being built at the edges of towns and villages where car ownership is essential - though the developments make insufficient facility for this. Again, a high proportion of the increased numbers whilst needing affordable accommodation are not necessarily car owners (in London). The houses being built are not suitable for the demographic. Also, developers have introduced a viability strategy which decreases the number of affordable homes per development.
The BBC briefing document glosses over the London housing crisis by spreading the complexities across the UK.
The individual featured is Olivia Hill - a woman, who is described as the driving force for better housing in London. There is no mention of Ebenezer Howard, or Port Sunlight etc where housing issues were addressed and solved. Neither any mention of the mainly successful post WWII housebuilding initiative which used technological methods to increase the numbers of houses available. Nor, any mention of 'green' issues. Where are the charging points for all these electric cars to be positioned in high density housing development, and where are the power stations to power the battery-charging?
All in all, the BBC briefing is a long document which skirts around almost every critical issue - as we might expect.
... The population of London will have increased by over 250,000 since 2016 - ie four years. ... sorry, that should read: over 500,000, indicating an increase of 250.000 every two years. That is the population of MK.
Arthur, the impact on the price of property (either purchase or rent) is one of those things that all the analyses of the impact of mass immigration leave out. We are already building 250,000 properties per annum and are aiming to get to 300,000 per annum. That will mean we're investing probably something like £90 billion in new housing every year, just to keep still. That's £90 billion not available for other investment. It's difficult to say how much of that is directly attributable to mass immigration, but I'd guess probably 70%, so £63 billion per annum or about £2500 per household.
Not only do we have to build huge numbers of housing units - 3 million a decade, but we also have to bear the cost of house price and rental inflation, resulting from the housing shortage caused by mass immigration.
Once again we can see that mass immigration has negative economic consequences on a crowded island like Britain. If all migrants were heading for the Highlands and Islands and earning enough to pay for their housing this wouldn't be a real issue (apart from the environmental impact) but of course they are not - they are heading for the parts of Britain that are already overcrowded (as can be see in the stress put on infrastructure) and over half of them will never earn enough to cover their housing costs (and so have to be subsidised one way or another by the state).
Wage levels having only just crawled back to pre 2008 levels in real terms but the amount of their wage that people have to devote to housing continues to increase in London and and other areas of high immigration.
The Easton approach is to make more of the UK 'more like London'. I believe that the housing crisis in London should be solved, at least in part, by Londoners themselves before the issues of overcrowding, congestion and lawlessness are expanded to other parts of the UK. Under SK's Mayorship, promises to built plenty of affordable houses have fallen woefully short of the number required to stand still. Houses built throughout the UK will not solve these London-specific problems. For this BBC briefing document to quote UK-wide numbers is to obfuscate the true extent of the problem London faces.
Easton the Deceiver uses that bogus figure about only 2% of the UK being "built upon", as though that means you can build on the other 98%...but of course you can't. Probably 10% of it is National Parks. Large parts are mountains or bog - totally unsuited to construction of homes. Another large proportion is in flood plains, and we all know how stupid it would be to build there. The rest is either good farm land (which it would be folly to destroy, as that only makes us more depedent on food imports) or land taken up by woods (helping extract carbon from the atmosphere), private gardens, allotments, parks, school playing fields, riverside paths, football pitches and the like.
Easton is one of the worst ideologues working at the BBC.
What part of the BBC's remit allows it to spend license fee payers money on "policy" documents and briefings like this? For me just shows how far the BBC has morphed itself, due to loose accountability, into a political party and, in it's hive mind, an alternative Government.
This headline makes my blood boil. They always do it now. It’s a deliberate tactic to depersonalise any attack and to misdirect.
Once the motive is known, they can bury it deep in any subsequent reporting or shout it from they rooftops depending on the type of perpetrator.
I don’t suppose any of this is just sloppy journalism and done on the hoof. It’s all very carefully choreographed to ensure we are educated in the right type of thinking.
No, it can't possibly be sloppy or accidental. We see so many examples. The use of "Asian" (a term covering some 4 billion people!) to reference a much narrower section of the world population with a religious identity. The use of "man" in certain types of terror attack.
The injury toll is now 52, not that anyone reading the BBC website would know because the story has been hidden deep in the recesses of the website. Tomorrow it will be in the memory hole.
They've finally got it on their Europe page but nothing on the home page. How many children would have to be maimed before the BBC puts it on their home page?
The authorities in Germany use all their tried and tested methods.
Firstly the claim is made that the motive was not "political", then that it was "unclear". And there the motive remains in limbo, until we begin to hear about the perpetrator's "mental health issues" no doubt. This idea that mental health issues cancel out political or religious motives is untenable. Many leading soldiers and politicians (e.g. Winston Churchill) in the West have had serious mental health issues. History doesn't absolve them from responsibility for their actions.
Another classic bit of misdirection is the early release of the information that the person concerned was a "German citizen". That tells us nothing about motive.
It is already clear this was a murderous attack (the driver powered his car through plastic barriers). But motive is being left floating in the air so some people will be lulled into thinking - "Well it could have been an accident...such things do happen."
Also, while it must have been evident from the beginning that children were targetted, that information is released only gradually.
Remember, finally, when it comes to Middle East wars, the BBC is only too happy to show images of the suffering of children caught up in the conflict. But when it comes to Europe - no, all such images are censored (same was true in Nice).
It is difficult to think of Germany as a free society. At this very moment the name of the perpetrator will be known to hundreds of thousands of politicians and their associates, people working in the media, police and security agencies. But the people at large are not allowed to know. Why? Because controlling information access is an absolute imperative in a PC society.
North Hessen Police have warned against the spread of unconfirmed information. The force has asked witnesses who may have videos or photos from the scene to submit them through a special police portal, urging them not to share the images on social media.
As I said, not a free society! The Police are trying to prevent honest citizens sharing honest information about a horrendous terrorist attack on their fellow citizens.
I think Germany is pretty much lost. I could well imagine someone like Merkel or a successor of hers introducing a state of emergency to create a completely directed society where there is no opportunity for self-expression and people are arrested off the streets for opposing the dictatorship.
Fanciful? Think of what appeared fanciful a few years ago here! The Police now want full monitoring of all our movements everywhere 24/7 second-by-second via facial recognition and other data.
The only places on the planet that seem to retain some understanding of what freedom means are the USA, Australia and Hong Kong!
Although I was critical of Margaret Thatcher for saying she was ready to set her two children up in foreign countries if Labour had won in 1979 (rightly critical I would still maintain because at that point there was still a fight to be had), I think I would now advise any young person in the UK to consider emigrating to Australia. We may well be past a tipping point already. Boris is doing well but he is up against some formidable social, political, global and technological forces. Even if he wants to do the right thing, it may be impossible for him.
From ‘The Telegraph’; The BBC’s head of drama has insisted that ‘woke’ is not a dirty word, as he argued that the corporation must “repurpose” classic novels by giving them female, black and Asian characters.
Period dramas based on stories written 100 or more years ago have to be made more diverse for a 21st century British audience, said Piers Wenger, otherwise the BBC would be “in dereliction of our duty”.
There is no internal consistency here. I would say that black and mixed race actors are hugely over-represented in TV drama. People categorised as such represent about 5% of the population in total - one in 20. There are few dramas on TV now where that proportion is not exceeded...and as for TV ads...lol. But very few actors of Chinese heritage get a break in our period dramas.
Woke is most definitely a dirty word. It signifies commitment to PC ideology and that ideology in turn signifies commitment to the destruction of our borders, continued mass immigration in the tens of millions and privileging other people's cultures over our own. Being woke is being opposed to the very concept of Britain and a "British Broadcasting Corporation" in receipt of public funds should not be "woke".
As the BBC continually remind us to justify their social engineering - Britain is and has always been a mixed race society. Early in our history we were invaded by Romans, Saxons , Vikings and Normans.
They omit to say that these invaders were close neighbours with compatible cultures who wanted to fully assimilate (and did, quickly).
This is a difficult one. I do think that there can be a degree of poetic license in the casting of period dramas, as all drama is to some extent, fiction, and thus a lie. But when these lies feed into a wider narrative of untruths, e.g. 'We are a nation of immigrants', 'Britain has always been a diverse country', that's an issue.
Interestingly, I just looked at the cast of 'A Knight's Tale', from 2001, which is obviously anachronistic and so perhaps the casting wouldn't be so important. But anyway, they'll all white. Probably wouldn't get away with that now.
Express is reporting 5 Christian Churches burned down in Nigeria by Islamic Jihad group. Innocent civilians fired on and people abudcted, no doubt to be used as slaves:
Would that be the same Jeremy Vine that had man on who converted to the religion of bad drivers because some bearded footballer scored a few goals when he's not eating at Alan's Snack Bar?
- Confused of Coventry (Where JV learned his journalism?)
Regarding the health and mortality story...the BBC yet again is completely ignoring the influence of mass immigration on a matter of social policy: birth defects resulting from cousin marriage, not exposing the skin to the sun, FGM, early malnutrition in home countries, cultural biases against exercise (especially for women) and very high rates of diabetes in genetically at-risk populations will all tend to reduce longevity compared with people not carrying these risk factors. Of course these aren't the only factors - obesity, drug addiction, damage in the womb and other factors are also exerting downard pressure on longevity.
But of course the BBC hardly touches on any of this - for them it is all down to "austerity" and "the effing Tories".
There was an all woman panel on Politics Live today, but that's beside the point. There was discussion about Jimmy Savile and his 'hiding in plain view' - but Jo Coburn went to considerable lengths to tell us that this was due to hospitals giving him free rein. The BBC's part in the scandal was not mentioned. That part of their history, by promoting Savile, has been airbrushed out.
Yes, no surprise there. The journalists who exposed Savile on Newsnight were forced out.
Merion Jones said the way he and other journalists who complained about the way the BBC handled the scandal were pressured to leave. He said: “We were told at the time that you won’t be sacked, but over a year or two years you’ll realise you are being treated as an outsider, that you will never be trusted because you blew the whistle, and you will find yourself leaving. Jones earlier told Press Gazette that those who tried to expose the handling of the case were seen as “traitors” while executives who tried to suppress the scandal had continued their careers unhindered.” “Everyone involved on the right side of the Savile argument has been forced out of the BBC,” he said. “There is still sadly a small group of people at the BBC who think that the only problem with Savile was that it was exposed and if it had stayed hushed up, everything would be fine.”
Still nothing on the identity of the Carnival Killer in Germany. Looks like Charlie was right and this one is going down the memory hole despite it being a deliberate murderous attack focussed on children with over 30 children and adults still in hospital. The German media are so supine they just aid this misinforming of the public.
Why do rubbish media connive in this as well. I can;t believe the name of the driver isn't known to the UK media. Their journalists in the UK are not subject to German law. Why can't they publish the name? We had the same thing in the recent impeachment hearings - our UK media not publishing the name of the so called "Whistleblower" (intelligence operative who had worked for John Brennan, what a surprise) even though the name was freely availble on the internet.
If the man is found to be mentally ill I believe they can keep his name hidden forever in Germany - how very, very convenient. All the young people maimed in the attack will be told they cannot show anger, they must be strong and say this has brought them together with other people and how that makes the whole country stronger. Anyone who does direct anger against the perpetrator will never appear on the MSM.
While checking out recent comment columns in the Evening Standard, I came across one by Matthew D'Ancona about the BBC licence etc, in which he made this surprising disclosure:
'(Full disclosure: I have contributed to a number of BBC programmes in recent years, and have acted as an occasional adviser to Lord Hall, the outgoing Director-General . Needless to say, I write in a personal capacity).'
What would be advising Sir about, I wonder. He's a political journalist. Strange are the ways of the BBC. Who else advises him, that we don't hear about?
Patronage is how you wield power. Lord Hall clearly understands that. Take the top 50 columnists in the land (by general consent if not mine) and offer each of them an "advisory role" to the DG of the BBC at £10,000 a time...
How many would refuse as a point of principle?
Even if only 25 accept, for the small price of £250,000 you have neutralised half of the most influential commentators in the country.
Interesting. When he "advises" Lord Hall, who pays? Lord Hall or the BBC License Payers? I will guess the latter. How do we find out what advice we paid for? I will guess we can't. The shield of unaccountability has many layers.
Today on Radio 5 Live Nihal the Idiot was interviewing Eleanor Conway a so-called "comedian" but some-time-quite-a-long-time prostitute...
Nihal being Nihal, while seeming more than a little interested in his guest was also putting a very positive spin on prostitution.
Is that what we expect from our public service broadcaster? Prostitution for women or men is one of the riskiest life choices you can make - the health outcomes (physical and mental) are almost invariably bad and more often than not selecting that option indicates a personal history of neglect, abuse, addiction or exploitation. BBC Reality Check can check that as much as they like, they will find it to rock hard scientific truth. So it was highly irresponsible for Nihal to witter on as though he was interviewing some actress about her interest in yoga or I Ching.
Time to close down the BBC playground methinks...and put up "Danger" signs around it - because it is dangerous.
It's weird isn't it how the Guardianista types at Newsnight who would all claim to be anti-American are obsessed with the USA and force Americana down our throats.
For the last two nights on Newsnight it's been Weinstein, Weinstein, Weinstein all the way...why? #
We can all see that the USA is about 20 years behind the UK in how they deal with such allegations. So this is not a landmark for us...it's a landmark for them. But the BBC are pretending it is a landmark for us.
The USA is a foreign country with a different legal system. Yes, there's some interest because Weinstein was big in Hollywood and we consume Hollywood output but the amount of coverage has been excessive while other interesting news issues like the coronavirus outbreak have been skimmed over just as it is becoming a pandemic in Europe. They also haven't bothered covering the burning of 5 Christian churches in Nigeria, the outbreak of Hindu-Muslim violence in India, the Carnival Jihadi Attack in Germany, the continuing crisis in Idlib in Syria...and so on.
And if a white American sportsman we haven't heard of had passed away would the mourning have lasted even 3 minutes? Or if Weinsten were black would Newsnight be so interested?
There wasn't so much of relish that we seen on display with HW, when it came to the BBC's reporting of Bill Cosby's offences - and there was far less coverage.
Also relevant - the BBC has avoided mention of Kobe Bryant's attack on a woman for which he escaped prosecution by reaching a civil settlement whereby he paid the victim a large sum and accepted she did not view the act as consensual. Just the sort of settlement that HW is notorious for.
Jussie Smollett is another US actor generally unknown to the UK who the BBC is giving the benefit of doubt. The evidence against him is stacking up but the BBC are firmly on his side.
A gay black actor, beaten up by racist homophobes is a narrative the BBC just won’t let go of, even if it is likely to be untrue.
Greta looks ill, very ill. Malala (despite the assassination attempt) looks healthy and normal. But Greta, a young woman, looks sick, wizened and under extreme stress.
How can the BBC justify exploiting this sick young woman? It's outrageous.
Greta will become lost, rudderless in a stormy sea. She backs XR, making excuses for their unlawful activities.The Anglican Church also back XR, encouraging unlawful behaviour to save the planet. Malala can point to solid achievement in her fight to get education for Muslim girls and women. I see no common bond between the two, other than an ideologically spawned lawlessness - Malala's inherent, Greta's created.
The BBC are 'keeping up appearances' with this story on the BBC News website:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-51641177
... 'Sport Relief: Nick Grimshaw back after break due to heat exhaustion'. ...
Forget carbon footprints, the BBC must mount a 'charity spectacular' regardless of their current non-stop support of Greta and XR. If we add the alarming news about the spread of the coronavirus, it's clear that the lack of accountability is truly staggering. There is even mention of the reason why the event was switched from Mongolia to the Sahara late in the day (Ibelieve the reason lay elsewhere):
... 'It was originally supposed to be in the freezing temperatures of Mongolia, but was moved to Namibia because of Coronavirus fears.' ...
The tone of the article seeks to promote Grimshaw as having battled the elements like a true hero. Doctors, bicycles, provisions, SUV s, back-up teams, flights to and fro, snazzy gear to wear etc. etc. - at what cost to the Licence payer?
There are comments galore on this site about the teams of reporters Atlantic-hopping at the drop of a hat, and no doubt to and fro to other global hubs as well. At what point does the music stop? Never if the BBC has its way.
On the same theme - Dan Johnson was flown to Tenerife today to report from outside the quarantined hotel. He was filmed speaking to a holidaymaker on his mobile phone with the hotel as a backdrop. Which he could have done from the studio - so no, the music never stops for the BBC. Yet they lecture everyone else on green issues and unnecessary air travel.
BBC Two are trailering 'Race across the world'. Whereas the competitors might rely partly on Shank's pony, what about the programme makers? - camera crew, travel specialists, producers, back-up staff, doctors - Oh, and don't forget the drone pilots. How many long haul flights for all of this?
What is the purpose of the programme on BBC News presented by Katty Kay in the USA and a subservient male in the UK (identity not important) bearing the idiotic title of "Beyond 100 Days"? The only purpose I can see for it is to support the Democrats and their efforts to remove Trump from office by hook or by crook. In particular, judging by tonight, it's to sanitise Sanders. Tonight in her tight-jawed sneering manner Kay berated Americans for thinking socialism sinister. What fools they are - especially as they nevertheless ask for government spending on all manner of things.
Hmm...well I think we can see Kay is not impartial on socialism.
An American might well reply that socialists have been directly responsible for over 100 million deaths since 1917. Socialists oppose free speech. Socialists want to control how you bring up your family. Socailist support mass immigration and illegal immigration. Socialists want to minimise the importance of religion. Socialists want to bring in a state-funded, state-directed medical system and destroy private medical insurance schemes. Socialists want to take your guns away. Socialists want a world republic and effectively destroy the USA in the process.
All these things many, most or a sizeable proportion of Americans care deeply about. But Kay thinks she has a licence to sneer at them.
By the way Kay is so thick that she equated free national education (which the USA has)with socialism. Free national education was first introduced in Imperial Germany under the Kaiser. Free national education has never been the preserve of socialists.
Katty Kay: another good reason to end the licence fee.
This is a disappointing outcome for David Keighley in his attempt to challenge BBC bias. Maybe the crowdfunding approach has been an obstacle to obtaining Judicial Review. Crowdfunding has a whiff of populism - the dastardly enemy of the BBC and the Establishment, including the Judiciary. Long ago, I remember an ageing solicitor who when weighing up a prospective case would always start with: "Who is this man?". The subtext was 'what sort of money does this person have behind him?' We all know that in the Justice system, you only get the justice you can afford.
Yep, and if you are subsidised by the state - as are illegal migrants and various grievance-bearers - you can afford a lot!
That said, I am not sure Judicial Reviews are the way to go about reforming the BBC. It needs reducing, reforming and refinancing. Only a populist government will do that. We have a semi-populist government, so not sure to what extent those policies will be followed through.
Some very interesting info about the BBC in this anonymous account by a BBC insider. This bit stands out but there are other nuggets as well;
A handful of MPs, deeply entrenched in London’s literary and intellectual circles, treat the BBC like a university common room. By default these individuals are remainers. To continue booking them (drinking with them), the production staff must then secure the presence of their leave-voting, far-right opposition. Off-camera, a highly influential Westminster social circle revolves around trips to various holiday homes in continental Europe, where various MPs and the journalists who are supposed to report on them have long been playing just as hard as they work. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/27/tv-debates-brexit-bbc-centre-ground-leavers-remainers
It's clearly written by a Remainiac trying to justify the comprehensive rout they suffered. As for the revelation that journos and politicians mix socially, including on holiday...well, knock me down with a feather. In this case, I suspect it's much more likely to be the Remainiacs getting together with their media mates, since we know nearly all prominent media folk were pro-Remain.
As I recall there was no shortage of politicians representing all shades of opinion from all parts of the country in the run up to Brexit appearing on TV (though it was those who were pro-Leave who were subjected to hostile interviewing techniques) but - think about it - what is the "centre ground" when you have a binary choice? Of course, the BBC and other MSM were keen to present the BRINO option as a centrist one, whereas of course it wasn't: it was Remain by other means. There were certainly plenty of BRINOists around, notably Rory Stewart and the Tory Traitors who claimed they wanted to implement the Referendum result (Grieve etc).
So complete balls.
And take some of this:
"One female producer told me that when she reported rape threats shouted at her by far-right activists outside parliament, she was simply told it was “part of her job”.
Why didn't the person concerned go immediately to one of the many police officers you will find around Parliament? Why should anyone believe this hearsay?
"...staff must then secure the presence of their leave-voting, far-right opposition"
So to vote leave is to be equated to being "far-right"?
The only interesting revelation with the ring of truth about it is the grid thing:
"The grid would revolve around a set of key identities such as “woman”, “northern” or “poc” (person of colour). "
The BBC is always reluctant to admit it is practising positive discrimination in panel selection, preferring to maintain the pretence everyone is on their panels through merit. It would be interesting to see the Apartheid style inhouse BBC guidance on who qualifies as a "person of colour". Perhaps you get points for a darker shade.
The full version of this has a few interesting bits that have been left out the cut version linked above. For instance, the Northern-toned man turned out to be 'a Tommy Robinson-supporting reactionary'. Shock horror! The dismissive attitude to the producer threatened with rape by yellow vests is contrasted with the earnest discussions broadcast a week later when Soubry and Jones also suffered their attentions. And we learn that 'Certain politicians can only be reached via the phones of certain senior journalists and their interviews are given as friendly favours, which almost inevitably means that those same politicians are in for a chatty and gentle time on camera.' Hah. How often have we commented here about cosy chats! A bit about the boss: ' The sudden announcement that Tony Hall would be stepping down has understandably filled the BBC with anxiety about its future. The common theme of the office rumour mill is that this was a tactical martyrdom, carried out to make room for a more Tory-friendly candidate to renegotiate with Cummings et al. ...'
And the final two paragraphs, on the subject of bias are caustic and illuminating, apart from the leave / remain point:
'Criticisms of the BBC began to flood in almost immediately after the election. Mainly there were accusations of bias – specifically of a left-leaning favouritism that had unfairly targeted Tory views. However, the truth of the matter, seen in production meetings and panicked late night broadcasts, is that the BBC currently possesses very little idea of how to present politics at all.
My colleagues love pointing out that the BBC is accused of bias by both left and right – as if this is proof that such accusations are baseless. But these criticisms simply reflect a total dissatisfaction with the news. A handful of MPs, deeply enshrined in London’s literary and intellectual circles, treat the BBC like a university common room. By default these individuals are Remainers. To continue booking them (drinking with them), the production staff must then secure the presence of their leave voting, far right opposition. Then a meeting must be held about the fact that both guests are white (they almost always are). That’s where we’re at right now.'
That final point shows the craziness of the BBC at its worst.
The BBC are flying reporters and presenters based in the UK to cover European outbreaks of coronavirus.
Why do this when the BBC have at least 16 reporters based in Europe? Katya Adler, Kevin Connolly, Andrew Plant, Hugh Schofield, Lucy Williamson, Jenny Hill, Damien McGuinness, James Reynolds, David Willey, Nick Thorpe, Rob Cameron, Anna Holligan, Steve Rosenberg, Sarah Rainsford, Jonah Fisher and Adam Fleming.
That's quite a list - I had no idea there were so many - but do we ever hear any news about what's going on in, say Denmark or Czech or France? Loads more countries to pick from, too!
Anon - a v good point. We never hear about Hungary's huge economic success under Orban do we? Well we wouldn't because it completely undermines the Easton Doctrine - that mass immigration is vital to economic success in the 21st century.
Likewise, we never hear about the Philippines these days from the BBC, after the initial interest...because Duarte's rule has not proved calamitous as predicted by the BBC...quite the reverse - they posted over 6% growth in 2018.
The BBC is very, very selective in what it reports!
Interesting story here; https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-51659270 Portly,pointless but in-offensive welsh radio "celebrity" has faced calls for his sacking for not being a labour or welsh nationalist supporter whilst having a radio programme on Radio Wales. Another nail in the coffin of the licence fee one would hope..
BBC News is least trusted by the 'right', but well trusted by the 'left'. Yet the 'left' claim that the BBC is 'right biased'. Strange world in which we live.
Thanks for the link Craig. Your posts are from 2014 and 2015 before, but not so long, I found ITBBCB? Has she been on the BBC books during the intervening years?
"Henry Ford doubled salaries in 1914. Why? To sell more cars. For the same reason ten years later he reduced working hours, to give people more time to be consumers."
I think that's what we call an urban myth. Because if you could really operate a firm like that, then why not quintuple the salary of your staff - they can buy even more cars then!
I suspect Wiley Old Ford was simply cornering the labour market in Detroit making sure he had the pick of the strongest men and the best engineers thanks to the super-profits his novel factory line production system was generating.
Yes, she went on to become a BBC Africa correspondent. She occasionally popped up on 'From Our Own Correspondent'. 'Population correspondent' is an interesting sideways move. Apparently she got the job in 2018. Can't say I've seen or heard her doing it yet, until now.
I came across this trailer for the new BBC presentation. The plot showcases “an alternative history in which African people had gained a technological and organisational advantage over the European people, rather than the other way around.”
In the narrative, slavery has been legally abolished but segregation remains in place, with crosses (dark-skinned people) being forbidden from having romantic relationships with noughts (lighter-skinned people).
White characters are subservient to and serve black characters, white characters have their names mispronounced and band aids are all brown colored.
A new BBC drama series set in London depicts a “dystopian” alternate society where blacks are slavemasters and whites are slaves.
“Why don’t Netflix and the BBC and all the other leftist media outlets simply make a film or series called ” we hate white people”. It would be so much more honest,” one person commented on YouTube.
This for me is becoming a typical event on the BBC :
I have the radio on. The treacle laden Saturday Live oozes onto the air waves. The programme will have a theme centred around the leap year. They introduce Jason Watkins who states that there were riots when the Gregorian calendar was introduced because people were afraid their lives would be shortened.
People are soooo stupid.
I thought "I've never heard that, and it doesn't sound likely", so I Googled it. I found this :
After a description of the riots, the article states this :
"However, most historians now believe that these protests never happened. You could say that the calendar rioters were the late Georgian equivalent of an urban myth."
I am about to turn off the radio, but I have a feeling that the 'Leap Year riots' theme will return, and it won't be challenged. I'm banking on that theme being linked to Brexit during the programme, because people are soooo stupid.
I’ll make a prediction that Andrew ‘I can’t see why are you laughing’ Marr goes for the Priti Patel jugular tomorrow. He may even interview Philip Rutnam but if not will have another attack dog on to assist with the maul. Let’s see if I am right, Marr is very predictable.
This Rutnam guy is definitely a fully paid up member of the Swamp Dwellers' Union. Off the internetL
"Sir Philip was at Ofcom where he helped to establish the organisation and then to lead its work on competition, economic regulation and use of the radio spectrum. He was a partner at Ofcom from 2003 and a member of the Ofcom Board from 2007 to 2009."
I didn't even know that the Ofcom Board had Civil Servants on it, but we know Ofcom is one of the prime agencies of PC culture in the UK. This means Rutnam is going to get full support above the board from powerful PC interests. Patel should be supported 100% even if she threw a hole punch at him and called him a c***! :)
We have seen how politicised, how pro Remain and how obstructionist ex senior civil servants like Kerslake, O'Donnell and others have been. It is clear that the higher echelons of the Civil Service in recent years became committed Blairites determined to frustrated all other varieties of poltiician. We can't surrender to them - they have created these tensions in our system of governance. I have no doubt Rutnam was specifically obstructing Patel's important work.
And right on cue, up popped G O D aka O'Donnell on the BBC the other day to tell us the ideal relationship between minister and permanent secretary is one of creative tension. Pretty hollow, coming from him, given that he was working for ministers of like mind and like politics.
Then ol' Kerslake was wheeled out today - can't remember whether it was on SKY or BBC - to tell us he knew the Sir P from the department of transport and what a good chap he was. It's a bloody awful dept anyway. Nothing good has ever come out of it!
Dan Hodges has a good go at the BBC, which he says has had its day under the current structure and is dying at the hands of its friends such as Dimbo. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8032869/DAN-HODGES-Coogan-Dimbleby-weep-wail-BBC-licence-fee-scrapped.html
ReplyDeleteThat's a powerful article.
DeleteYes, this article shows how far the BBC have fallen when Dan Hodges, a former Labour government special advisor, spells out the need for fundamental change.
DeleteIt is important the Conservatives under Boris act quickly on this; there needs to be a sea change in editorial philosophy and, taking away the license fee will help cut down the ridiculous overmanning at the BBC.
Most telling of all in recent times, in my humble opinion, was the Julian Fellows quote in the Times the other day which showed how the editorial policy / world view in the newsroom had seeped into every pore of the organisation including Drama.
People on the other channel are pointing out that the BBC is censoring all mention of a racial incident related to the current coronavirus outbreak (couldn't be more newsworthy - race and corona!). The Mail does have the story:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8034545/Woman-savagely-beaten-Birmingham-coronavirus-rage-attack.html
Could the BBC's reluctance to feature the story - even in its regional news section - relate to the identity of the perpetrators (South Asian males)?
Just downloaded 11.2 MB of BBC BS aka the "BBC Briefing" on Housing.
ReplyDeletehttp://news.files.bbci.co.uk/include/newsspec/pdfs/bbc-briefing-housing-newsspec-26534.pdf
I nearly fell of my chair because out of the 185 pages of PC verbiage they do have three references to immigration - which is something of a breakthrough for the BBC. This is a change from the Newsnight Special approach where they devoted a whole hour to the housing crisis without once mentioning immigration! I guess they realise they are under more scrutiny these days...
One of the references was irrelevant really but the other two accept that immigration has had some effect on "urban population" levels. Typical sleight of hand there - I can guarantee it's had a huge impact on suburban population as well! But they do at least label the most recent population surge in the UK as the "immigration boom"...have you ever heard our population described like that before by the BBC? I haven't for sure!
But you would think that having labelled the huge population increase in the UK since 1993 as the "immigration boom", you might have thought the BBC would put two and two together and realise that mass immigration is perhaps rather relevant to housing policy. For instance, would controls on migration to the UK help avoid the UK housing crisis become even more serious in future...
Nope, the BBC prefer to use the other 182 pages for a load of PC virtue signalling nonsense.
Reminds me - Mark Easton was out and about on BBC TV News this evening engaged in some diversionary tactis on the housing crisis. He delivered a very confused (but lengthy) piece on affordable housing which I found difficult to follow despite I reckon being conversant with the basic elements of housing policy. Intentional confuse-a-cat tactics I think...avoiding the elephant sat on all of us in the room. Easton's prognostication: let the Government find a magical solution.
I detect the hand of Mark 'there's bags of room' Easton in the direction of this briefing. The elephant in the room is the housing crisis in London. The document switches to general UK statistics rather than refer to London.
DeleteThe population of London will have increased by over 250,000 since 2016 - ie four years. To house population increase at this rate, a city the size of Milton Keynes would be needed every two years, just to stand still. With it must go the schools, hospitals, municipal services, town hall admin etc. But, a high proportion of the increased numbers require affordable housing. Who - which developer will contemplate this economic absurdity?
The briefing refers to housebuilding in abstract terms. Most new houses are being built at the edges of towns and villages where car ownership is essential - though the developments make insufficient facility for this. Again, a high proportion of the increased numbers whilst needing affordable accommodation are not necessarily car owners (in London). The houses being built are not suitable for the demographic. Also, developers have introduced a viability strategy which decreases the number of affordable homes per development.
The BBC briefing document glosses over the London housing crisis by spreading the complexities across the UK.
The individual featured is Olivia Hill - a woman, who is described as the driving force for better housing in London. There is no mention of Ebenezer Howard, or Port Sunlight etc where housing issues were addressed and solved. Neither any mention of the mainly successful post WWII housebuilding initiative which used technological methods to increase the numbers of houses available. Nor, any mention of 'green' issues. Where are the charging points for all these electric cars to be positioned in high density housing development, and where are the power stations to power the battery-charging?
All in all, the BBC briefing is a long document which skirts around almost every critical issue - as we might expect.
... The population of London will have increased by over 250,000 since 2016 - ie four years. ... sorry, that should read: over 500,000, indicating an increase of 250.000 every two years. That is the population of MK.
DeleteArthur, the impact on the price of property (either purchase or rent) is one of those things that all the analyses of the impact of mass immigration leave out. We are already building 250,000 properties per annum and are aiming to get to 300,000 per annum. That will mean we're investing probably something like £90 billion in new housing every year, just to keep still. That's £90 billion not available for other investment. It's difficult to say how much of that is directly attributable to mass immigration, but I'd guess probably 70%, so £63 billion per annum or about £2500 per household.
DeleteNot only do we have to build huge numbers of housing units - 3 million a decade, but we also have to bear the cost of house price and rental inflation, resulting from the housing shortage caused by mass immigration.
Once again we can see that mass immigration has negative economic consequences on a crowded island like Britain. If all migrants were heading for the Highlands and Islands and earning enough to pay for their housing this wouldn't be a real issue (apart from the environmental impact) but of course they are not - they are heading for the parts of Britain that are already overcrowded (as can be see in the stress put on infrastructure) and over half of them will never earn enough to cover their housing costs (and so have to be subsidised one way or another by the state).
Wage levels having only just crawled back to pre 2008 levels in real terms but the amount of their wage that people have to devote to housing continues to increase in London and and other areas of high immigration.
The Easton approach is to make more of the UK 'more like London'. I believe that the housing crisis in London should be solved, at least in part, by Londoners themselves before the issues of overcrowding, congestion and lawlessness are expanded to other parts of the UK. Under SK's Mayorship, promises to built plenty of affordable houses have fallen woefully short of the number required to stand still. Houses built throughout the UK will not solve these London-specific problems. For this BBC briefing document to quote UK-wide numbers is to obfuscate the true extent of the problem London faces.
DeleteEaston the Deceiver uses that bogus figure about only 2% of the UK being "built upon", as though that means you can build on the other 98%...but of course you can't. Probably 10% of it is National Parks. Large parts are mountains or bog - totally unsuited to construction of homes. Another large proportion is in flood plains, and we all know how stupid it would be to build there. The rest is either good farm land (which it would be folly to destroy, as that only makes us more depedent on food imports) or land taken up by woods (helping extract carbon from the atmosphere), private gardens, allotments, parks, school playing fields, riverside paths, football pitches and the like.
DeleteEaston is one of the worst ideologues working at the BBC.
What part of the BBC's remit allows it to spend license fee payers money on "policy" documents and briefings like this? For me just shows how far the BBC has morphed itself, due to loose accountability, into a political party and, in it's hive mind, an alternative Government.
DeleteStuff you'll never hear on the BBC about the impeachment of Trump:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Lkl2p2JX4M
Nor on YouTube either, apparently!
DeleteUnbelievable! How did it violate Youtube terms???
DeleteH/T to StewGreen...another overpaid Beeboid crawls from under the rock to protest Boris's cruel persecution of the BBC (aka "my gravy train")...
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/ThisisDavina/status/1231371779635060737
As Stew remarks CCdefinitelyBGB!!! lol
BBC Headline:
ReplyDelete... 'Car drives into carnival crowd in German town Volkmarsen'. ...
Was this a driverless car, or was it that 'man' again driving?
This headline makes my blood boil. They always do it now. It’s a deliberate tactic to depersonalise any attack and to misdirect.
DeleteOnce the motive is known, they can bury it deep in any subsequent reporting or shout it from they rooftops depending on the type of perpetrator.
I don’t suppose any of this is just sloppy journalism and done on the hoof. It’s all very carefully choreographed to ensure we are educated in the right type of thinking.
No, it can't possibly be sloppy or accidental. We see so many examples. The use of "Asian" (a term covering some 4 billion people!) to reference a much narrower section of the world population with a religious identity. The use of "man" in certain types of terror attack.
DeleteIt comes down to a single letter:
Delete... 'Car driven into carnival crowd in German town Volkmarsen'. ...
would report the news impartially. As you say, someone in the BBC newsroom must have followed BBC 'rules' in order to write this nonsense.
The injury toll is now 52, not that anyone reading the BBC website would know because the story has been hidden deep in the recesses of the website. Tomorrow it will be in the memory hole.
ReplyDeleteThey've finally got it on their Europe page but nothing on the home page. How many children would have to be maimed before the BBC puts it on their home page?
DeleteThe authorities in Germany use all their tried and tested methods.
Firstly the claim is made that the motive was not "political", then that it was "unclear". And there the motive remains in limbo, until we begin to hear about the perpetrator's "mental health issues" no doubt. This idea that mental health issues cancel out political or religious motives is untenable. Many leading soldiers and politicians (e.g. Winston Churchill) in the West have had serious mental health issues. History doesn't absolve them from responsibility for their actions.
Another classic bit of misdirection is the early release of the information that the person concerned was a "German citizen". That tells us nothing about motive.
It is already clear this was a murderous attack (the driver powered his car through plastic barriers). But motive is being left floating in the air so some people will be lulled into thinking - "Well it could have been an accident...such things do happen."
Also, while it must have been evident from the beginning that children were targetted, that information is released only gradually.
Remember, finally, when it comes to Middle East wars, the BBC is only too happy to show images of the suffering of children caught up in the conflict. But when it comes to Europe - no, all such images are censored (same was true in Nice).
It is difficult to think of Germany as a free society. At this very moment the name of the perpetrator will be known to hundreds of thousands of politicians and their associates, people working in the media, police and security agencies. But the people at large are not allowed to know. Why? Because controlling information access is an absolute imperative in a PC society.
North Hessen Police have warned against the spread of unconfirmed information. The force has asked witnesses who may have videos or photos from the scene to submit them through a special police portal, urging them not to share the images on social media.
DeleteAs I said, not a free society! The Police are trying to prevent honest citizens sharing honest information about a horrendous terrorist attack on their fellow citizens.
DeleteI think Germany is pretty much lost. I could well imagine someone like Merkel or a successor of hers introducing a state of emergency to create a completely directed society where there is no opportunity for self-expression and people are arrested off the streets for opposing the dictatorship.
Fanciful? Think of what appeared fanciful a few years ago here! The Police now want full monitoring of all our movements everywhere 24/7 second-by-second via facial recognition and other data.
The only places on the planet that seem to retain some understanding of what freedom means are the USA, Australia and Hong Kong!
Although I was critical of Margaret Thatcher for saying she was ready to set her two children up in foreign countries if Labour had won in 1979 (rightly critical I would still maintain because at that point there was still a fight to be had), I think I would now advise any young person in the UK to consider emigrating to Australia. We may well be past a tipping point already. Boris is doing well but he is up against some formidable social, political, global and technological forces. Even if he wants to do the right thing, it may be impossible for him.
From ‘The Telegraph’;
ReplyDeleteThe BBC’s head of drama has insisted that ‘woke’ is not a dirty word, as he argued that the corporation must “repurpose” classic novels by giving them female, black and Asian characters.
Period dramas based on stories written 100 or more years ago have to be made more diverse for a 21st century British audience, said Piers Wenger, otherwise the BBC would be “in dereliction of our duty”.
There is no internal consistency here. I would say that black and mixed race actors are hugely over-represented in TV drama. People categorised as such represent about 5% of the population in total - one in 20. There are few dramas on TV now where that proportion is not exceeded...and as for TV ads...lol. But very few actors of Chinese heritage get a break in our period dramas.
DeleteWoke is most definitely a dirty word. It signifies commitment to PC ideology and that ideology in turn signifies commitment to the destruction of our borders, continued mass immigration in the tens of millions and privileging other people's cultures over our own. Being woke is being opposed to the very concept of Britain and a "British Broadcasting Corporation" in receipt of public funds should not be "woke".
As the BBC continually remind us to justify their social engineering - Britain is and has always been a mixed race society. Early in our history we were invaded by Romans, Saxons , Vikings and Normans.
DeleteThey omit to say that these invaders were close neighbours with compatible cultures who wanted to fully assimilate (and did, quickly).
The feminists are onto this too, as part of their open borders rhetoric. I read this blog when I'm feeling masochistic:
Deletehttps://thefword.org.uk/2020/02/unexciting-casting-but-fabulous-clothes/
This is a difficult one. I do think that there can be a degree of poetic license in the casting of period dramas, as all drama is to some extent, fiction, and thus a lie. But when these lies feed into a wider narrative of untruths, e.g. 'We are a nation of immigrants', 'Britain has always been a diverse country', that's an issue.
Interestingly, I just looked at the cast of 'A Knight's Tale', from 2001, which is obviously anachronistic and so perhaps the casting wouldn't be so important. But anyway, they'll all white. Probably wouldn't get away with that now.
From Guido - The BBC continually promotes left-wing campaigners as if they are impartial academic experts.
ReplyDeletehttps://order-order.com/2020/02/25/life-expectancy-report-written-far-left-activist/
First on Toady - now on Jeremy Vine with Poly Tonybee.
DeleteExpress is reporting 5 Christian Churches burned down in Nigeria by Islamic Jihad group. Innocent civilians fired on and people abudcted, no doubt to be used as slaves:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1246963/Christianity-crackdown-Boko-haram-terrorist-attack-Nigeria-churches-burned-garkida-latest
And the BBC has on its Africa page...er, nothing about this horrendous attack.
Jeremy Vine was mocking Christianity and Tyson Fury yesterday on his phone in.
DeleteUnfortunately for them, neither are compatible with BBC liberal PC groupthink and are seen to be legitimate targets.
Would that be the same Jeremy Vine that had man on who converted to the religion of bad drivers because some bearded footballer scored a few goals when he's not eating at Alan's Snack Bar?
Delete- Confused of Coventry (Where JV learned his journalism?)
Regarding the health and mortality story...the BBC yet again is completely ignoring the influence of mass immigration on a matter of social policy: birth defects resulting from cousin marriage, not exposing the skin to the sun, FGM, early malnutrition in home countries, cultural biases against exercise (especially for women) and very high rates of diabetes in genetically at-risk populations will all tend to reduce longevity compared with people not carrying these risk factors. Of course these aren't the only factors - obesity, drug addiction, damage in the womb and other factors are also exerting downard pressure on longevity.
ReplyDeleteBut of course the BBC hardly touches on any of this - for them it is all down to "austerity" and "the effing Tories".
There was an all woman panel on Politics Live today, but that's beside the point. There was discussion about Jimmy Savile and his 'hiding in plain view' - but Jo Coburn went to considerable lengths to tell us that this was due to hospitals giving him free rein. The BBC's part in the scandal was not mentioned. That part of their history, by promoting Savile, has been airbrushed out.
ReplyDeleteYes, no surprise there. The journalists who exposed Savile on Newsnight were forced out.
DeleteMerion Jones said the way he and other journalists who complained about the way the BBC handled the scandal were pressured to leave.
He said: “We were told at the time that you won’t be sacked, but over a year or two years you’ll realise you are being treated as an outsider, that you will never be trusted because you blew the whistle, and you will find yourself leaving.
Jones earlier told Press Gazette that those who tried to expose the handling of the case were seen as “traitors” while executives who tried to suppress the scandal had continued their careers unhindered.”
“Everyone involved on the right side of the Savile argument has been forced out of the BBC,” he said.
“There is still sadly a small group of people at the BBC who think that the only problem with Savile was that it was exposed and if it had stayed hushed up, everything would be fine.”
Still nothing on the identity of the Carnival Killer in Germany. Looks like Charlie was right and this one is going down the memory hole despite it being a deliberate murderous attack focussed on children with over 30 children and adults still in hospital. The German media are so supine they just aid this
ReplyDeletemisinforming of the public.
Why do rubbish media connive in this as well. I can;t believe the name of the driver isn't known to the UK media. Their journalists in the UK are not subject to German law. Why can't they publish the name? We had the same thing in the recent impeachment hearings - our UK media not publishing the name of the so called "Whistleblower" (intelligence operative who had worked for John Brennan, what a surprise) even though the name was freely availble on the internet.
If the man is found to be mentally ill I believe they can keep his name hidden forever in Germany - how very, very convenient. All the young people maimed in the attack will be told they cannot show anger, they must be strong and say this has brought them together with other people and how that makes the whole country stronger. Anyone who does direct anger against the perpetrator will never appear on the MSM.
Sickening.
While checking out recent comment columns in the Evening Standard, I came across one by Matthew D'Ancona about the BBC licence etc, in which he made this surprising disclosure:
ReplyDelete'(Full disclosure: I have contributed to a number of BBC programmes in recent years, and have acted as an occasional adviser to Lord Hall, the outgoing Director-General . Needless to say, I write in a personal capacity).'
What would be advising Sir about, I wonder. He's a political journalist. Strange are the ways of the BBC. Who else advises him, that we don't hear about?
Interesting!
DeleteAnd presumably he got paid...
Patronage is how you wield power. Lord Hall clearly understands that. Take the top 50 columnists in the land (by general consent if not mine) and offer each of them an "advisory role" to the DG of the BBC at £10,000 a time...
How many would refuse as a point of principle?
Even if only 25 accept, for the small price of £250,000 you have neutralised half of the most influential commentators in the country.
Interesting. When he "advises" Lord Hall, who pays? Lord Hall or the BBC License Payers? I will guess the latter.
DeleteHow do we find out what advice we paid for? I will guess we can't. The shield of unaccountability has many layers.
Today on Radio 5 Live Nihal the Idiot was interviewing Eleanor Conway a so-called "comedian" but some-time-quite-a-long-time prostitute...
ReplyDeleteNihal being Nihal, while seeming more than a little interested in his guest was also putting a very positive spin on prostitution.
Is that what we expect from our public service broadcaster? Prostitution for women or men is one of the riskiest life choices you can make - the health outcomes (physical and mental) are almost invariably bad and more often than not selecting that option indicates a personal history of neglect, abuse, addiction or exploitation. BBC Reality Check can check that as much as they like, they will find it to rock hard scientific truth. So it was highly irresponsible for Nihal to witter on as though he was interviewing some actress about her interest in yoga or I Ching.
Time to close down the BBC playground methinks...and put up "Danger" signs around it - because it is dangerous.
:::NEWSNIGHT WATCH:::
ReplyDeleteIt's weird isn't it how the Guardianista types at Newsnight who would all claim to be anti-American are obsessed with the USA and force Americana down our throats.
For the last two nights on Newsnight it's been Weinstein, Weinstein, Weinstein all the way...why? #
We can all see that the USA is about 20 years behind the UK in how they deal with such allegations. So this is not a landmark for us...it's a landmark for them. But the BBC are pretending it is a landmark for us.
The USA is a foreign country with a different legal system. Yes, there's some interest because Weinstein was big in Hollywood and we consume Hollywood output but the amount of coverage has been excessive while other interesting news issues like the coronavirus outbreak have been skimmed over just as it is becoming a pandemic in Europe. They also haven't bothered covering the burning of 5 Christian churches in Nigeria, the outbreak of Hindu-Muslim violence in India, the Carnival Jihadi Attack in Germany, the continuing crisis in Idlib in Syria...and so on.
I could have added cf Kobe Bryant - three days of mourning in the UK media for a guy probably 95% of the UK population had never heard of!
DeleteAnd if a white American sportsman we haven't heard of had passed away would the mourning have lasted even 3 minutes? Or if Weinsten were black would Newsnight be so interested?
DeleteWe know the answers.
There wasn't so much of relish that we seen on display with HW, when it came to the BBC's reporting of Bill Cosby's offences - and there was far less coverage.
DeleteAlso relevant - the BBC has avoided mention of Kobe Bryant's attack on a woman for which he escaped prosecution by reaching a civil settlement whereby he paid the victim a large sum and accepted she did not view the act as consensual. Just the sort of settlement that HW is notorious for.
Jussie Smollett is another US actor generally unknown to the UK who the BBC is giving the benefit of doubt. The evidence against him is stacking up but the BBC are firmly on his side.
DeleteA gay black actor, beaten up by racist homophobes is a narrative the BBC just won’t let go of, even if it is likely to be untrue.
Is the BBC telling the British people about Bernie Sanders' weird interests?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ardAz2CwW1o
Malala and Greta...
ReplyDeleteGreta looks ill, very ill. Malala (despite the assassination attempt) looks healthy and normal. But Greta, a young woman, looks sick, wizened and under extreme stress.
How can the BBC justify exploiting this sick young woman? It's outrageous.
Here's the link:
Deletehttps://twitter.com/BBCEngland/status/1232356805700919299
Greta will become lost, rudderless in a stormy sea. She backs XR, making excuses for their unlawful activities.The Anglican Church also back XR, encouraging unlawful behaviour to save the planet. Malala can point to solid achievement in her fight to get education for Muslim girls and women. I see no common bond between the two, other than an ideologically spawned lawlessness - Malala's inherent, Greta's created.
DeleteThe BBC are 'keeping up appearances' with this story on the BBC News website:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-51641177
... 'Sport Relief: Nick Grimshaw back after break due to heat exhaustion'. ...
Forget carbon footprints, the BBC must mount a 'charity spectacular' regardless of their current non-stop support of Greta and XR. If we add the alarming news about the spread of the coronavirus, it's clear that the lack of accountability is truly staggering. There is even mention of the reason why the event was switched from Mongolia to the Sahara late in the day (Ibelieve the reason lay elsewhere):
... 'It was originally supposed to be in the freezing temperatures of Mongolia, but was moved to Namibia because of Coronavirus fears.' ...
The tone of the article seeks to promote Grimshaw as having battled the elements like a true hero. Doctors, bicycles, provisions, SUV s, back-up teams, flights to and fro, snazzy gear to wear etc. etc. - at what cost to the Licence payer?
There are comments galore on this site about the teams of reporters Atlantic-hopping at the drop of a hat, and no doubt to and fro to other global hubs as well. At what point does the music stop? Never if the BBC has its way.
On the same theme - Dan Johnson was flown to Tenerife today to report from outside the quarantined hotel. He was filmed speaking to a holidaymaker on his mobile phone with the hotel as a backdrop. Which he could have done from the studio - so no, the music never stops for the BBC. Yet they lecture everyone else on green issues and unnecessary air travel.
DeleteBBC Two are trailering 'Race across the world'. Whereas the competitors might rely partly on Shank's pony, what about the programme makers? - camera crew, travel specialists, producers, back-up staff, doctors - Oh, and don't forget the drone pilots. How many long haul flights for all of this?
DeleteWhat is the purpose of the programme on BBC News presented by Katty Kay in the USA and a subservient male in the UK (identity not important) bearing the idiotic title of "Beyond 100 Days"? The only purpose I can see for it is to support the Democrats and their efforts to remove Trump from office by hook or by crook. In particular, judging by tonight, it's to sanitise Sanders. Tonight in her tight-jawed sneering manner Kay berated Americans for thinking socialism sinister. What fools they are - especially as they nevertheless ask for government spending on all manner of things.
ReplyDeleteHmm...well I think we can see Kay is not impartial on socialism.
An American might well reply that socialists have been directly responsible for over 100 million deaths since 1917. Socialists oppose free speech. Socialists want to control how you bring up your family. Socailist support mass immigration and illegal immigration. Socialists want to minimise the importance of religion. Socialists want to bring in a state-funded, state-directed medical system and destroy private medical insurance schemes. Socialists want to take your guns away. Socialists want a world republic and effectively destroy the USA in the process.
All these things many, most or a sizeable proportion of Americans care deeply about. But Kay thinks she has a licence to sneer at them.
By the way Kay is so thick that she equated free national education (which the USA has)with socialism. Free national education was first introduced in Imperial Germany under the Kaiser. Free national education has never been the preserve of socialists.
Katty Kay: another good reason to end the licence fee.
Is the judiciary biased (when it comes to the BBC)?
ReplyDeletehttps://conservativewoman.co.uk/justice-closes-its-eyes-to-bbc-bias/
This is a disappointing outcome for David Keighley in his attempt to challenge BBC bias. Maybe the crowdfunding approach has been an obstacle to obtaining Judicial Review. Crowdfunding has a whiff of populism - the dastardly enemy of the BBC and the Establishment, including the Judiciary. Long ago, I remember an ageing solicitor who when weighing up a prospective case would always start with: "Who is this man?". The subtext was 'what sort of money does this person have behind him?' We all know that in the Justice system, you only get the justice you can afford.
DeleteYep, and if you are subsidised by the state - as are illegal migrants and various grievance-bearers - you can afford a lot!
DeleteThat said, I am not sure Judicial Reviews are the way to go about reforming the BBC. It needs reducing, reforming and refinancing. Only a populist government will do that. We have a semi-populist government, so not sure to what extent those policies will be followed through.
Some very interesting info about the BBC in this anonymous account by a BBC insider. This bit stands out but there are other nuggets as well;
ReplyDeleteA handful of MPs, deeply entrenched in London’s literary and intellectual circles, treat the BBC like a university common room. By default these individuals are remainers. To continue booking them (drinking with them), the production staff must then secure the presence of their leave-voting, far-right opposition. Off-camera, a highly influential Westminster social circle revolves around trips to various holiday homes in continental Europe, where various MPs and the journalists who are supposed to report on them have long been playing just as hard as they work.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/27/tv-debates-brexit-bbc-centre-ground-leavers-remainers
That article is in my view complete balls.
DeleteIt's clearly written by a Remainiac trying to justify the comprehensive rout they suffered. As for the revelation that journos and politicians mix socially, including on holiday...well, knock me down with a feather. In this case, I suspect it's much more likely to be the Remainiacs getting together with their media mates, since we know nearly all prominent media folk were pro-Remain.
As I recall there was no shortage of politicians representing all shades of opinion from all parts of the country in the run up to Brexit appearing on TV (though it was those who were pro-Leave who were subjected to hostile interviewing techniques) but - think about it - what is the "centre ground" when you have a binary choice? Of course, the BBC and other MSM were keen to present the BRINO option as a centrist one, whereas of course it wasn't: it was Remain by other means. There were certainly plenty of BRINOists around, notably Rory Stewart and the Tory Traitors who claimed they wanted to implement the Referendum result (Grieve etc).
So complete balls.
And take some of this:
"One female producer told me that when she reported rape threats shouted at her by far-right activists outside parliament, she was simply told it was “part of her job”.
Why didn't the person concerned go immediately to one of the many police officers you will find around Parliament? Why should anyone believe this hearsay?
"...staff must then secure the presence of their leave-voting, far-right opposition"
So to vote leave is to be equated to being "far-right"?
The only interesting revelation with the ring of truth about it is the grid thing:
"The grid would revolve around a set of key identities such as “woman”, “northern” or “poc” (person of colour). "
The BBC is always reluctant to admit it is practising positive discrimination in panel selection, preferring to maintain the pretence everyone is on their panels through merit. It would be interesting to see the Apartheid style inhouse BBC guidance on who qualifies as a "person of colour". Perhaps you get points for a darker shade.
The full version of this has a few interesting bits that have been left out the cut version linked above. For instance, the Northern-toned man turned out to be 'a Tommy Robinson-supporting reactionary'. Shock horror! The dismissive attitude to the producer threatened with rape by yellow vests is contrasted with the earnest discussions broadcast a week later when Soubry and Jones also suffered their attentions. And we learn that 'Certain politicians can only be reached via the phones of certain senior journalists and their interviews are given as friendly favours, which almost inevitably means that those same politicians are in for a chatty and gentle time on camera.' Hah. How often have we commented here about cosy chats!
DeleteA bit about the boss: ' The sudden announcement that Tony Hall would be stepping down has understandably filled the BBC with anxiety about its future. The common theme of the office rumour mill is that this was a tactical martyrdom, carried out to make room for a more Tory-friendly candidate to renegotiate with Cummings et al. ...'
And the final two paragraphs, on the subject of bias are caustic and illuminating, apart from the leave / remain point:
'Criticisms of the BBC began to flood in almost immediately after the election. Mainly there were accusations of bias – specifically of a left-leaning favouritism that had unfairly targeted Tory views. However, the truth of the matter, seen in production meetings and panicked late night broadcasts, is that the BBC currently possesses very little idea of how to present politics at all.
My colleagues love pointing out that the BBC is accused of bias by both left and right – as if this is proof that such accusations are baseless. But these criticisms simply reflect a total dissatisfaction with the news. A handful of MPs, deeply enshrined in London’s literary and intellectual circles, treat the BBC like a university common room. By default these individuals are Remainers. To continue booking them (drinking with them), the production staff must then secure the presence of their leave voting, far right opposition. Then a meeting must be held about the fact that both guests are white (they almost always are). That’s where we’re at right now.'
That final point shows the craziness of the BBC at its worst.
Very good spot Anon. I didn’t look for the full version on The Fence. Here is the link
Deletehttps://www.the-fence.com/issues/issue-3/politics-off-grid
The BBC are flying reporters and presenters based in the UK to cover European outbreaks of coronavirus.
ReplyDeleteWhy do this when the BBC have at least 16 reporters based in Europe? Katya Adler, Kevin Connolly, Andrew Plant, Hugh Schofield, Lucy Williamson, Jenny Hill, Damien McGuinness, James Reynolds, David Willey, Nick Thorpe, Rob Cameron, Anna Holligan, Steve Rosenberg, Sarah Rainsford, Jonah Fisher and Adam Fleming.
That's quite a list - I had no idea there were so many - but do we ever hear any news about what's going on in, say Denmark or Czech or France? Loads more countries to pick from, too!
DeleteAnon - a v good point. We never hear about Hungary's huge economic success under Orban do we? Well we wouldn't because it completely undermines the Easton Doctrine - that mass immigration is vital to economic success in the 21st century.
DeleteLikewise, we never hear about the Philippines these days from the BBC, after the initial interest...because Duarte's rule has not proved calamitous as predicted by the BBC...quite the reverse - they posted over 6% growth in 2018.
The BBC is very, very selective in what it reports!
Interesting story here;
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-51659270
Portly,pointless but in-offensive welsh radio "celebrity" has faced calls for his sacking for not being a labour or welsh nationalist supporter whilst having a radio programme on Radio Wales.
Another nail in the coffin of the licence fee one would hope..
There is an interesting post by Guido about the trust of the people in the various news channels.
ReplyDeletehttps://order-order.com/2020/02/28/channel-4-newsleast-trusted-right-trusted-left/
BBC News is least trusted by the 'right', but well trusted by the 'left'. Yet the 'left' claim that the BBC is 'right biased'. Strange world in which we live.
The BBC appear to have created another slot for a newly appointed reporter:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-51332811
... 'The boss who put everyone on 70K By Stephanie Hegarty Population correspondent'. ...
This headline fails to mention that the story concerns an American firm, and that the 70k is measured in $s.
That aside, a look at Stephanie Hegarty's output lists this story and Coronavirus stories only in her last dozen or so.
The BBC's appointment of 'Population correspondent' must be a step along the way towards a loosely defined Simpsonesque 'World Affairs Correspondent'.
Ah, Arthur, so that's where Our Steph has gone. She used to be a blog favourite:
Deletehttps://isthebbcbiased.blogspot.com/search/label/Steph%20Hegarty
Thanks for the link Craig. Your posts are from 2014 and 2015 before, but not so long, I found ITBBCB? Has she been on the BBC books during the intervening years?
DeleteThen there's "Stephanomics":
Delete"Henry Ford doubled salaries in 1914. Why? To sell more cars. For the same reason ten years later he reduced working hours, to give people more time to be consumers."
https://twitter.com/stephhegarty/status/1233359381728808961
I think that's what we call an urban myth. Because if you could really operate a firm like that, then why not quintuple the salary of your staff - they can buy even more cars then!
I suspect Wiley Old Ford was simply cornering the labour market in Detroit making sure he had the pick of the strongest men and the best engineers thanks to the super-profits his novel factory line production system was generating.
Yes, she went on to become a BBC Africa correspondent. She occasionally popped up on 'From Our Own Correspondent'. 'Population correspondent' is an interesting sideways move. Apparently she got the job in 2018. Can't say I've seen or heard her doing it yet, until now.
DeleteI came across this trailer for the new BBC presentation. The plot showcases “an alternative history in which African people had gained a technological and organisational advantage over the European people, rather than the other way around.”
ReplyDeleteIn the narrative, slavery has been legally abolished but segregation remains in place, with crosses (dark-skinned people) being forbidden from having romantic relationships with noughts (lighter-skinned people).
White characters are subservient to and serve black characters, white characters have their names mispronounced and band aids are all brown colored.
https://summit.news/2020/02/28/new-bbc-drama-depicts-blacks-as-slavemasters-whites-as-slaves/
A new BBC drama series set in London depicts a “dystopian” alternate society where blacks are slavemasters and whites are slaves.
“Why don’t Netflix and the BBC and all the other leftist media outlets simply make a film or series called ” we hate white people”. It would be so much more honest,” one person commented on YouTube.
Very BBC.
DeleteThis for me is becoming a typical event on the BBC :
ReplyDeleteI have the radio on. The treacle laden Saturday Live oozes onto the air waves. The programme will have a theme centred around the leap year. They introduce Jason Watkins who states that there were riots when the Gregorian calendar was introduced because people were afraid their lives would be shortened.
People are soooo stupid.
I thought "I've never heard that, and it doesn't sound likely", so I Googled it. I found this :
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Give-us-our-eleven-days/
After a description of the riots, the article states this :
"However, most historians now believe that these protests never happened. You could say that the calendar rioters were the late Georgian equivalent of an urban myth."
I am about to turn off the radio, but I have a feeling that the 'Leap Year riots' theme will return, and it won't be challenged. I'm banking on that theme being linked to Brexit during the programme, because people are soooo stupid.
"treacle laden" is a very good description and why I avoid it like a treacle plague!
DeleteIt’s an alternative fact which the BBC are so good at. Say it with conviction and just put it out there.
ReplyDeleteThe BBC bleat on about fake news and push Reality Check yet they allow more opinionated rubbish to be broadcast than anyone else.
They're quite happy for Greta to tell us that humanity will be extinct within 10, 20, 15, 5 years or whatever it is this week.
DeleteI’ll make a prediction that Andrew ‘I can’t see why are you laughing’ Marr goes for the Priti Patel jugular tomorrow. He may even interview Philip Rutnam but if not will have another attack dog on to assist with the maul. Let’s see if I am right, Marr is very predictable.
ReplyDeleteSounds right!
DeleteOn this morning's BBC news channel: "and what do you think is the cause of all this extreme weather...???"
ReplyDeleteResponse: "It's just the jetstream moving differently from normal..."
The sense of disappointment that he didn't say "CLIMATE CHANGE!" was palpable...
This Rutnam guy is definitely a fully paid up member of the Swamp Dwellers' Union. Off the internetL
ReplyDelete"Sir Philip was at Ofcom where he helped to establish the organisation and then to lead its work on competition, economic regulation and use of the radio spectrum. He was a partner at Ofcom from 2003 and a member of the Ofcom Board from 2007 to 2009."
I didn't even know that the Ofcom Board had Civil Servants on it, but we know Ofcom is one of the prime agencies of PC culture in the UK. This means Rutnam is going to get full support above the board from powerful PC interests. Patel should be supported 100% even if she threw a hole punch at him and called him a c***! :)
We have seen how politicised, how pro Remain and how obstructionist ex senior civil servants like Kerslake, O'Donnell and others have been. It is clear that the higher echelons of the Civil Service in recent years became committed Blairites determined to frustrated all other varieties of poltiician. We can't surrender to them - they have created these tensions in our system of governance. I have no doubt Rutnam was specifically obstructing Patel's important work.
And right on cue, up popped G O D aka O'Donnell on the BBC the other day to tell us the ideal relationship between minister and permanent secretary is one of creative tension. Pretty hollow, coming from him, given that he was working for ministers of like mind and like politics.
DeleteThen ol' Kerslake was wheeled out today - can't remember whether it was on SKY or BBC - to tell us he knew the Sir P from the department of transport and what a good chap he was.
It's a bloody awful dept anyway. Nothing good has ever come out of it!