BBC plunged into BNP election row - Telegraph

BBC plunged into BNP election row: "Senior BBC journalists furious that Nick Griffin is being guaranteed prime
time election interview slots."

Classic BBC Cringe - Biased BBC

Classic BBC Cringe: "The BBC's Wendy Urquhart enters the realms of 'beyond parody' in this butt-clenchingly PC report about the anniversary of the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands (or 'the Falkland Islands or Las Malvinas' as it is apparently known when it isn't simply 'Las Malvinas') :

A solemn day in Argentina. Thousands gather to pay their respects, but the issue of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, or Las Malvinas, is clearly one that's far from settled. President Cristina Kirchner told the crowds that it was a time to remember those they'd lost but it was most definitely not a time to forget about Las Malvinas and vowed to keep pushing for ownership of the islands...

Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, or Las Malvinas, on April 2nd 1982...

The Falklands, or Las Malvinas, lie just 300 miles form the coast of Argentina and have been claimed at one time or another by Britain, France, Spain and Argentina...

The two nations appear to agree that war is not the answer, but Argentina wants Las Malvinas back and President Kirchner is determined to make that happen.

This week's From Our Own Correspondent also included an Argentinian perspective on the Falklands War. Nothing from our brethren islanders with their unpleasantly positive views about Margaret Thatcher, though. Funny, that.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

Labour revolt as Peter Mandelson's pal Tristram Hunt gets a safe seat - Daily Mail

Labour revolt as Peter Mandelson's pal Tristram Hunt gets a safe seat: "
Television historian Tristram Hunt, 35, has been selected for rock-solid Stoke-on-Trent Central in what insiders claim is a Blairite stitch-up to ensure David Miliband becomes party leader."

Keep Trying - Biased BBC

Keep Trying: "Instead of blogging the emotive language used in the BBC’s report of the Israeli retaliation to heightened attacks from Gaza, I’m going to discuss the embarrassing exposure of Jeremy 'I'll have to take your first answer' Paxman’s pissmronouncing stumbling incompetence as per the Telegraph. Well, not discuss, just mention. Hats off to Alexander Guttenplan.

The many fascinating ways the news about Gaza has been phrased this morning shows how difficult it is to get it right. Keep trying.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

BLACKWASH.... - Biased BBC

BLACKWASH....: "Richard Black has filed his take on the Parliamentary 'investigation' into the Climategate emails. Naturally, he thinks it's a wonderful outcome showing the integrity of the climate change community. As a sop, he mentions a couple of important sceptics and that they are not happy with the 'whitewash' conclusion. But there's no doubt who's side he's on:

in parts of the opinion spectrum, anything that did not result in mass resignations and a conclusion that man-made climate change is a myth and a fraud would be so regarded.

This can only be construed as a contemptuous dismissal of those whom he sees are against him. The men he quotes, Steve McIntyre and Benny Peiser, actually want something very different from what Mr Black claims. They are simply seeking an honest and open debate about the science involved and a proper re-appraisal of the data that has been twisted by those at East Anglia and elsewhere to support political theories. And that is what MPs are so disgracefully busting a gut to block.

If you question me, take a look at this astonishing story of how important research doubting the UEA temperature record, by Steve McIntyre's colleague Ross McKitrick, was kept out of peer-reviewed journals by the academic climate change community. Those will be the so-called scientists that the House of Commons committee so cravenly backed.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

BBC chief apologises for salaries cover-up - Telegraph

BBC chief apologises for salaries cover-up: "A senior BBC executive has been forced to apologise after it was revealed that
he had tried to 'deliberately disguise' the number of BBC staff who earn
more than £100,000."

Question Time 1st April 2010 - Biased BBC

Question Time 1st April 2010: "

Question Time this week comes from Stevenage, which is twinned with Shymkent in Kazakhstan, and location of The Pied Piper which is the only pub in the world to be opened by Her Majesty the Queen. Stevenage is represented for Labour by Daphne Barbara Follett, who is standing down at this election after overclaiming the highest amount of expenses of any MP in the country.



On the panel is ex-postman and soon to be ex-Home Secretary Alan Johnson, shadow Business Secretary Ken Clarke, broadcaster Richard Littlejohn and poker-playing Grauniad columnist Victoria Coren.



For those who wish to take part in the Biased-BBC Buzzword Bingo, we will be playing by the 'April Fool Rules' meaning that anyone with enthusiastic references to 'Capitalism', 'Thatcher' and 'Ashcroft' on a diagonal line will be disqualified for watching a spoof show.



Once again TheEye and David Mosque will be scanning the small text for dodgy Labour statistics, and we look forward to the pleasure of your company at 10:30pm UK time.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

Dogma - Biased BBC

Dogma: "The economics editor of BBC TV's flagship news programme:



And if he ever gets a budgie he can call it Venceremos.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

REWARDING GUILE? - Biased BBC

REWARDING GUILE?: "I note that The Time has exposed more BBC duplicity...

A BBC executive who is paid almost £200,000 a year to award bonuses to senior managers tried to manipulate salary information to hide the number of staff earning more than £100,000.

Robert Johnston, who is “reward director”, asked staff responsible for releasing the data to the public to “deliberately disguise” the number of managers on six-figure salaries, according to e-mails seen by The Times.

Have they no shame? And yet, day in day out, they talk about the 'fat cat' bankers????

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

Jeremy Paxman 'regularly mispronounces questions on University Challenge' - Telegraph

Jeremy Paxman 'regularly mispronounces questions on University Challenge': "Jeremy Paxman's image as the all-knowing host of University Challenge has been
dealt an embarrassing blow after it emerged that he regularly mispronounces
the questions."

BBC's £196,0000 'reward director' forced to apologise over attempts to cover up staff pay - Daily Mail

BBC's £196,0000 'reward director' forced to apologise over attempts to cover up staff pay: "
Robert Johnston suggested in emails that staff should 'deliberately disguise' the number of bosses on six-figure salaries."

Why women are tough enough for Today - Telegraph

Why women are tough enough for Today: "As the editor of Radio 4's Today programme says women are not tough enough for
the top jobs, veteran presenter Sue MacGregor disagrees"

BBC 'meeting culture' stopping people doing jobs, says boss - Telegraph

BBC 'meeting culture' stopping people doing jobs, says boss: "A 'meeting culture' at the BBC is stopping people doing the jobs they were
hired to do, according to one of the Corporation's senior executives."

David Cameron on the Politics Show. Interesting crop - Guardian

David Cameron on the Politics Show. Interesting crop: "

What happens when the camera operator misses out all the letters from 'Politics Show' except for P, O, S and H

I don't think I need to write anything here. Comment away.

• General election 2010
• BBC
• David Cameron

Simon Jeffery

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

"

A reminder… - Biased BBC

A reminder…: "...for all those BBC hacks, with their selective memories, who are currently pushing the 'Angry American Right' narrative:



Frei, Webb, Mardell, Mason et al - a bit of balance and perspective would be nice.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

BBC resigned to losing Masters - Independent

BBC resigned to losing Masters: "

Augusta might not just be witnessing Tiger Woods' competitive comeback next week but also Peter Alliss's farewell from the Masters. Barbara Slater, the BBC's new director of sport, will travel to the season's first major to try to persuade the green-jackets to remain with the corporation. But one industry insider last night claimed that the BBC is 'almost resigned' to losing the rights to Sky.

"

BBC should spend more on compliance, says report - Independent

BBC should spend more on compliance, says report: "

More cash should be spent on ensuring radio programmes meet editorial standards in the wake of the Sachsgate furore, a report into the aftermath of the scandal said today.

"

Women do not have a thick enough skin to present Today, says BBC editor - Telegraph

Women do not have a thick enough skin to present Today, says BBC editor: "Ceri Thomas, the editor of the BBC radio programme Today, has said that women
do not have a thick enough skin to deal with the programme's 'incredibly
difficult' environment."

Women do not have a thick enough skin to present Today, says BBC editor - Telegraph

Women do not have a thick enough skin to present Today, says BBC editor: "Ceri Thomas, the editor of the BBC radio programme Today, has said that women
do not have a thick enough skin to deal with the programme's 'incredibly
difficult' environment."

Jonathan Ross taunts 'ugly' Bruce Forsyth in new comedy show - Telegraph

Jonathan Ross taunts 'ugly' Bruce Forsyth in new comedy show: "Jonathan Ross is to insult Bruce Forsyth in a new TV comedy programme, telling
him he's '------- ugly' and has 'done a lot of ----' in his career."

The old comedians are the best, says survey - Telegraph

The old comedians are the best, says survey: "Billy Connolly voted Britain's favourite comic followed by Victoria Wood."

No BBC presenter should be paid more than £5 million a year, say MPs - Telegrpaph

No BBC presenter should be paid more than £5 million a year, say MPs: "No BBC presenter should be paid more than £5 million a year, according to a
group of influential MPs, who have called for greater transparency about
salaries at the corporation."

Why won't the BBC give independent producers their due?, radio review - Telegraph

Why won't the BBC give independent producers their due?, radio review: "Gillian Reynolds reviews the last week in radio, including a biography of Ian
Dury on Radio 2, the play No Place Like Home (Radio 4), a documentary-style
play Crime and Trial: Rage on the Road (Radio 4) and The Glasgow Boys (Radio
3)."

Digital radio confusion could prompt backlash - Telegraph

Digital radio confusion could prompt backlash: "The confusion over the switch to digital radio could prompt a major public
backlash against the Government, an influential House of Lords committee has
said."

The future of BBC radio - Telegraph

The future of BBC radio: "Jeremy Hunt is absolutely right to question the role of the BBC Trust, the size of the present Director-General's salary and whether the Corporation's stated aim to do fewer things better stands up to scrutiny."

Radio One and Two must not damage commercial rivals, say Conservatives - Telegraph

Radio One and Two must not damage commercial rivals, say Conservatives: "The BBC will need to show that Radios 1 and 2 are not damaging their commercial rivals under a Tory government, shadow culture, Jeremy Hunt, signalled yesterday."

Cherie Lunghi: BBC has axed popular drama Casualty 1909 - Telegraph

Cherie Lunghi: BBC has axed popular drama Casualty 1909: "Cherie Lunghi says the BBC has axed Casualty 1909 because it no longer values period drama."

Mossad expulsion: Michael White still doesn’t get it - CiF Watch

Mossad expulsion: Michael White still doesn’t get it: "

This is a guest post by AKUS

Michael White, he of the infamous comment about Israel during an interview that had nothing to do with Israel:

“In Israel they murder each other a great deal. The Israeli Defence Forces murder people because they don’t like their political style and what they’ve got to say. And it only means that people more extreme come in and take their place”

Apparently glued to his laptop while waiting for a new episode in the Peter Pan series to begin in the House on March 24th – “waiting for Alistair Darling to deliver his budget”– what better way for an “assistant editor [who] has been writing for the Guardian for over 30 years, as a reporter, foreign correspondent and columnist” to pass the time than to condemn the Mossad’s assumed evil-doings: Mossad expulsion: they still don’t get it and explain how this excuses his comment.

(Before continuing, let me say that the expulsion of an Israeli “diplomat” or whatever status that person really had represents a new low in Britain’s descent from its once much-admired standing as an example of democracy, law, and order. Whatever the suspicions, there is no proof whatsoever that Israel was involved in the Dubai assassination of Mabhouh. The clownish nature of the operation makes me believe it was very unlikely to have been the Mossad. Nevertheless, a precedent has been set in Britain now. On the basis of suspicion alone, without proof, the British government will act against those against whom it feels represent some kind of threat. Of course, that does not mean the new rule will be applied equally – there are a number of notorious Hamas supporters at large in Britain, and it is clear that Mabhouh travelled on more than one false passport – yet no action has been taken against his terrorist colleagues happily sipping teas and eating scones in posh cafes in London while whipping up enthusiasm for the supposedly starving masses of Gaza. But now the door is open to this abuse of power and what starts with the Jews and Israel will not end with them).

The real point of White’s article was apparently to respond to criticism of his comment: “they murder each other a great deal” which was, weirdly enough, made during a BBC interview when he was supposed to be commenting on the attack on Berlusconi by a deranged (or not?) Italian. He makes no bones about having said it – after all it’s on tape, and available freely on the Internet – go to 3:30min in this replay. Almost as bad was the BBC’s Jo Good agreeing with him: ‘Mmm…hmmm…” she hummed. “Everyone knows that”, she seemed to be indicating – “I understand what you’re saying”.

Despite his comment, or in justification of it, oddly enough, White claims no special expertise about Israel other than his knowledge of Israelis having a jolly good old time murdering each other or their enemies a great deal and a vague understanding of the Israeli electoral system:

“Where do I fit into this jigsaw? Nowhere. I have no expertise in the generally grim politics of the Middle East and avoid writing or talking about it, except to tease electoral-reform-as-a-panacea liberals by pointing out that Israelis use a PR-voting system, which does them few favours.”

(I do agree with him about the voting system, however).

Having admitted ignorance, White then treats us to a few reasons why, in fact, we should not be upset about his comment:

“I’ve occasionally made versions of that point in print or on radio for years. I sometimes add (though not on this occasion): “The trouble is with killing political opponents, you never know when you’ve just killed Nelson Mandela. Apartheid South Africa was wise in that respect.””

Of course, the problem he does not acknowledge is that far from throwing up a Palestinian Mandela, the best the Palestinians have been able to come up with after about 100 years is a set of corrupt terrorists such as Yasser Arafat and Ismail Haniyah, or a corrupt and impotent nebbish like Mahmud Abbas, or a Hitlerite like the Mufti. But again, he would excuse himself by claiming that his knowledge of the situation doesn’t stretch that far.

White was surprised to find that some good friends seemed to be concerned about his comment or the effect it had on his credential as someone who does not relentlessly denigrate Israel (unlike some I could name whose articles appear with monotonous regularity in Mr. White’s paper):

“Wow! A hail of abuse came down on my head. Jewish friends got in touch to ask what I’d said or to assure me they’d told their outraged contacts that I “wasn’t one of those” – the kind of European liberal who relentlessly denigrates Israel and applies double-standards elsewhere.’

In response White claims that he’s “not one of those” – in fact, he seems to be claiming to be a closet Bushie to make sure we understand that he is really, if not a supporter of Israel, at least not a foe, nor is he always opposed to people murdering other people a great deal, if they are not Israelis:

“Indeed not. I suspect I am regarded as very suspect by serious Israel-baiters, certainly beyond redemption among my many friends who want to have Bush ‘n’ Blair tried as war criminals for invading Iraq with such dire consequences (so far)”.

White also believes the fix is in – unnamed “monitors” picked up his unfortunate phrase, wresting it out of context, when clearly, in his mind it had everything to do with a lunatic hitting Berlusconi on the nose with a statue:

“That detail confirms my suspicion that this was a monitoring job; a phrase picked up, wrenched from context and circulated among supporters eager to give anyone a hard time for being “unfair” to Israel. Even BBC London’s audience reach isn’t that impressive.”

Who, I wonder could he be referring to? Surely not a certain website …. Or a huge conspiracy?

Actually, yes – although he can’t name any “monitors” – should we give him a clue? – he is aware of something fishy going on:

“I’m aware that there is a vast hinterland behind all this, probably several websites devoted to monitoring what is deemed to be antisemitism, real or imagined. I tend not to go near such sites myself. Best to stay clear, I usually feel”.

So how does this tie back to the Mossad, Mabhouh, and Israelis murdering each other a great deal?

“Unfortunately, the Palestinian people have been the primary victims of the wider impasse and many innocents have suffered or died as a result of Israeli policy in the occupied territories. Everyone knows that, don’t they? ….

But only this week I read – again – of blameless families losing their homes to “settlers”. And I remain of the view that murdering Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in that hotel was both a crime and a mistake.” [emphasis added]

Note that even here he is so imbued with the accepted Guardian anti-Israeli bias that he cannot refrain from using the phrase: Everyone knows that, don’t they? In two paragraphs White managed to demonstrate the full range of the Guardian’s twisted view of what is happening between Israel and the Palestinians.

The link in his paragraph (suffered or died) goes directly to a year-old column by another “good friend” of Israel, Chris McGreal, that all but accuses Israel of war crimes, noting that that beacon of light and humanity, “The UN’s senior human rights body” – aka the UNHRC, comprised largely of representatives of the worst HR violators on the planet – “approved a resolution yesterday condemning the Israeli offensive for “massive violations of human rights”. That has been the Guardian’s standard position since – well, about 1967, I suspect.

Then there’s the issue of “victims”. Presumably, since the Palestinians, via intifadas, suicide bombers, plane kidnappings, Olympic massacres, bus bombings, school bombings, nightclub bombings, Passover Seder bombings, stabbings, sniping, hurling rocks on Jews praying at the Western Wall, firing thousands of mortars and rockets have not managed to kill as many Israelis as Israel has done in response, there is a “disproportionate” imbalance that make them the primary victims. Not because Israel has spent billions to protect its citizens, or because their leaders have never managed to bring themselves to sign an agreement with Israel, or, as is happening right now, the Arab League and notably Jordan is urging them not to enter negotiations with Israel.

There’s no recognition from White that Israel is offering these “victims” what no Arab country ever offered them if they could only bring themselves to say “Yes” – the chance to create their own state. Jordan and Egypt simply sat in the WB and Gaza till 1967, and, were it not for the 6 Day War, would be sitting there still, and the word “Palestinian” would not be in the dictionary.

Next, it’s time for White to worry about evicting people illegally occupying a dozen or so houses in Sheikh Jarrah, something that passes unnoticed on a daily basis in England, I’m sure. The “blameless [Arab] families” in Jerusalem were actually found after protracted legal proceedings to be squatters occupying houses to which they had no legal right – they simply occupied them during the Jordanian occupation of Jerusalem after the Jordanians killed and expelled the Jewish occupants in 1948 assuming correctly that the Jordanians would never allow the Jews to reclaim their property.

Although there are many things about which I disagree with Netanyahu, and the timing of the various recent announcements about building in Jerusalem was catastrophic (and may yet bring down his government), on one matter I am in full agreement – Jerusalem is not a settlement, Jews living there are not settlers, and the new-found Arab enthusiasm for Jerusalem after neglecting the city for centuries and more recently during the Jordanian occupation is nothing more than a dog-in-the-manger hankering after something they resent others having. Sheikh Jarrah, Ramat Shlomo, Har Homah are no more “settlements” than French Hill, Pisgat Ze’ev, and half a dozen other suburbs built since 1967. Now the world is agog at the prospect of 20 (!!) apartments to be built on the site of a dilapidated hotel which was purchased by a Jew 25 years ago. Of course, if an Arab were to do the same that would be seen as a triumph of Palestinian revival – only Jews should not be allowed to replace this disused hotel even after they bought it.

Finally, of course – “murdering Mahmoud al-Mabhouh” suggests that Israel may have killed the next Nelson Mandela.

Not bloody likely, old chap. To paraphrase a famous comment about Dan Quayle and John Kennedy, I’ve never known Mabhouh or Mandela, but I’m confident that Mabhouh was no Mandela. Despite trying to justify himself, White’s statement about Jews murdering each other a great deal had nothing to do with Mabhouh, Ramat Shlomo, or Sheikh Jarrah, and has not prevented the next Mandela from arising.

No – what Mr. White still doesn’t get is that his comment is a lie. The truth is that we objected to his statement because it’s simply not true. Israelis do not murder each other a great deal, nor do they murder their enemies a great deal. Israel makes efforts no other country does to take out only the worst of its enemies with as little collateral damage as possible, and only after every other method has failed. It took 8,000 rockets from Gaza to get Israel to finally retaliate in force.

Where do people murder each other a great deal?

Iraq, Afghanistan, and, despite what you said on the BBC… Northern Ireland. That’s the truth. The people doing it are not Israelis, and those doing the murdering – a great deal, I might point out – seem to be British. Perhaps not on forged Israeli passports, but still doing it a great deal. And have been for centuries.

“Everyone knows that, don’t they”, Mr. White?

Indeed they do –in fact, Jo Good might have to respond in agreement … “mm…hmm…”

Chag Pesach Sameach – Happy Passover. “Next year in Jerusalem”.

Tagged: Comment is Free, Guardian, Michael White "

AN OBJECTIVE OBSERVER? - Biased BBC

AN OBJECTIVE OBSERVER?: "
Have you ever wondered why Roger Harrabin, the BBC's environmental analyst, is such a fanatical warmist, to the extent that he faithfully reports every utterance of warmist zealots? Could part of the reason be financial? He is registered with this speaker agency and demands fees of between £5,000 and £10,000 to chair sessions at plush conferences on climate change themes. He modestly describes himself as follows:

Roger Harrabin, the BBC's Environment Analyst, is one of the world's leading journalists and broadcasters on the environment and energy, and a distinguished speaker, host and moderator. Roger Harrabin is a distinguished and influential figure in the British media who has won many awards for broadcasting on issues related to sustainable development.

Recent events that he has chaired include a conference organised by the Royal Society of Arts and the Soil Association on this theme:

The politics of food and farming are on the agenda as never before. Up to 30% of the average consumer’s carbon footprint can be put down to our current, intensive food and farming systems. The UK Government has signed up to a target to reduce our emissions by 80% by 2050 – but has so far resisted tackling the ‘elephant in the room’ of food and farming.

Also on the panel was (Lord) Peter Melchett, a former director of Greenpeace in the UK who once faced criminal charges for allegedly tearing up GM crops. Mr Harrabin has thus chaired a panel in which at least one participant may fairly be described as a greenie extremist and activist.

The pattern continues. Mr Harrabin has been a very busy boy on the conference circuit. He chaired this event in Prague (an EU climate change-fest); this one in February (the World Sustainability Conference); the annual conference of the Combined Heat and Power Association(another group trying to make as much cash as possible from global warming subsidies); a session in Milan at the Power-Gen Europe conference; this conference in London on Green Strategy; and finally, is due at this one, to be held held by the Economist in June.

Thus the BBC's 'environmental analyst' is making oodles of cash - tens of thousands of pounds - by using his privileged BBC position to persuade conference organisers to hire him. All of the events he chairs have a common thread in that they are greenies or warmists trying to foist their views on the rest of us or make as much money as they can out of the massive subsidies that the EU and our government spray about for anyone on the right bandwagon. Put another way, Mr Harrabin makes bucketloads of cash out of the alarmism he spreads and has a therefore a major vested interest in it. His actions stink.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

LAPDOG HARRABIN - Biased BBC

LAPDOG HARRABIN: "Roger Harrabin, like the lackey he is, faithfully reports the House of Commons whitewash about the University of East Anglia leaked emails. Not a whisper of a challenge or alternative view to that the committee involved has laughingly claimed that the science behind climate change is intact - even though it did not have the competence or remit to do so. One day, politicians will wake up with a revolution on their hands because they are so drastically out of touch with public opinion and are treating with malicious contempt their constituents. For genuine opinion about what people think of the House of Commons report, you have to look elsewhere, for example, the comments here. In the meantime, the BBC will be making no efforts to report the true picture on climate change, or anything else that's outside their liberal-lefty worldview.

Update: for an excellent assessment of why Harrabin's account is so dishonest and disingenuous see Frank Furedi here at Spiked.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

B-BBC DIGEST - Biased BBC

B-BBC DIGEST: "I wanted to update you on a very recent Biased BBC innovation, namely a Weekly Digest of the 'Best of B-BBC' and this is being sent to 650 prominent MP's and MEP's. This is the result of the creativity and hard work of B-BBC contributor Graeme and we have already had some great feedback such as this...

Tory PPC for Lincoln Karl McCartney sent back:- "Thankyou for your email. I've previously visited your
site and indeed have the BBC's telephone number on speed dial... I also
attended a gathering hosted by the BBC Corporate Affairs section for PPCs and
was not reassured at all.

Others such as Nigel Farage have also responded favourable. We continue to get positive responses. The only Conservative MP's who have asked NOT to receive the weekly digest are Alan Duncan, Simon Burns, and Michael Mates. What a shocker!

Bearing in mind the hundreds of prominent political eyes reading B-BBC, please do your best to ensure that comment here is civil at all times. We're making an impact and we want to make sure everyone feels comfortable reading the blog. My sincere thanks to Graeme and I think this will help us further the mission to hold the BBC to account.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

THE CHANCELLORS CLASH. - Biased BBC

THE CHANCELLORS CLASH.: "BBC reviews that Channel 4 debate between Darling, Osborne and Cable. No guesses who is determined as the winner. Arise Sir Vince.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

GAIA WORSHIP - Biased BBC

GAIA WORSHIP: "Anyone catch this interview on Today this morning with Professor James Lovelock - he of the Gaia theory? The learned Professor casually opined that 7 out of 8 billion people will die because of climate change. Nothing beats some AGW hysteria over the breakfast table!

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

TODAY EDITOR IS CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVIST - Biased BBC

TODAY EDITOR IS CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVIST: "In Mongolia, it's sadly been so cold this winter that a million animals have died, and many of the nomadic herders and farmers are said to be in desperate need of aid. The Today programme reported this story this morning, but guess what was missing from the equation? Any mention of that dreaded phrase 'climate change'. This fits a pattern. Today reporters grind on about AGW every time there is a claim - however tenuous - that temperatures are getting hotter; but never when the reverse applies. Of course, one extremely bad winter does not prove cooling, but on Radio 4's co-called flagship news programme, the topic is never discussed properly.

Could this be because Ceri Thomas, the editor of Today, is yet another BBC executive who is a climate change activist? Mr Thomas, it transpires, is on the board of a body called the Science Media Centre, another shadowy outfit that has been created, according to its own blurb, to act as:

first and foremost a press office for science when science hits the headlines. We provide journalists with what they need in the form and time-frame they need it when science is in the news - whether this be accurate information, a scientist to interview or a feature article.

An admirable objective, if - but only if - the Centre was properly neutral on matters of scientific controversy. But it it isn't. It's yet another collection of warming fanatics. It runs a number of briefings for journalists which show the reverse is true; everything they do on the climate front is geared towards the AGW perspective. So when Copenhagen was looming, who did the centre choose as its speaker to make sure journalists were properly in the picture? Why, none other than Vicky Pope, of the Met Office, who might be described as one of the UK's warmists-in-chief. Others of these briefings follow exactly the same pattern and format, for example this one on so-called carbon sinks, which assumes as the start point that AGW is happening:

Efforts to control climate change require the stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, which in turn depends on the balance between our own emissions and natural carbon sinks. The Global Carbon Project has evaluated all the available evidence on carbon sinks and sources, the results of which have been published in Nature Geoscience. Two of the authors of the paper briefed journalists in their findings at the SMC.

I could go on, there's tons more, but I have made the main point. Mr Thomas deems it acceptable that he is an active member of a body which is grafting away behind the scenes to prejudice the debate about climate science towards the warmist viewpoint.I know from other sources that he also responds to complaints about the programme's climate change coverage by using sweeping warmist statements such as that there is a 'great consensus' about climate change science, therefore there is only the need for him to afford 'due impartiality' to sceptics - which means in practice that they rarely, if ever, appear on Today. And, in turn, that the programme is totally biased in its approach to the topic.

I submit that because of his activism, Mr Thomas is not fit to edit Today - or any other BBC programme. He should resign immediately.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

The Curious Incident of Joe Biden in the Daytime - Biased BBC

The Curious Incident of Joe Biden in the Daytime: "The tidal wave of disapproval over Israel’s recent misadventures has taken on a life of its own.

The Joe Biden incident was interpreted as an insult, both to him personally and to the whole United States. People have noticed that the language used by the Obama administration inflates the degree of offence taken, mimicking Arab-style rhetoric where pride and honour take precedence over common sense. The unfortunate timing of what was primarily a formality over an internal matter was blown up out of all proportion so it could be misrepresented as Israel’s deliberately planned symbol of defiance, and exploited to camouflage / justify Obama’s emerging strategy of siding with Israel’s enemies.

If the BBC was interested in reporting the full story they would have explained that Obama has reneged on previous agreements between Israel and the US over Jerusalem and ‘houses for Jews’ and is making new demands for concessions from Israel while letting the Palestinians off the hook altogether. He has not asked them for any concessions at all and it is feared that they are thinking up new preconditions for talks about talks while the going is good.

The BBC’S expansionist attitude to the concept of ‘illegally occupied territory’ means it now encompasses everything captured in Israel’s 1967 defensive war, and they’ve got their beady colonialist eye on Israel as a whole. All’s fair in love and war, and in the BBC’s eyes, in war, the winner loses all. (this concept is exclusive to Israel)

While the press made an almighty fuss about the height of the Turkish Ambassador’s seat, the BBC is less keen to trumpet the snubs that Obama dishes out so rudely to those he regards as unworthy, like our own dear leader, and of course Binyamin Netanyahu, who seems to have been left alone in the White House to mull over a list of new demands from Obama while he went off to dine with Michelle and the girls. And would only come back if Israel’s prime minister said sorry for being a naughty boy.

David Miliband’s speech about the expulsion of the Israeli diplomat received a chorus of approval from MPs of all shades, and though he stressed that the issue in question was the cloning of passports rather than the assassination, the BBC doesn’t make that distinction.

Time after time people have been allowed to assert, unchallenged on the BBC, that the ‘victims’ of the cloning, the ‘British’ citizens who have been so wronged, risked being mistaken for terrorists. The final question on Thursdays QT was phrased strangely. Something like: “Is expulsion the appropriate penalty for an act of terrorism?” Dimbleby seemed happy enough with that.

In the eyes of the BBC and consequently, the public, Israel is a terrorist state, therefore Mossad, the IDF and whoever assassinated a ‘senior Hamas Commander’ are terrorists. Unless it transpires that it wasn’t Israel, in which case they’d be militants or freedom fighters.

David Miliband said the victims of the cloning woke up to find themselves ‘wanted terrorists.’ Denis MacShane on the Today programme bemoaned the fact that they had had their pictures splashed all over the papers.

Well, a) I thought the passport pictures were of the actual assassins, not the genuine passport holders, and, b) when the word terrorist is avoided like the plague by the BBC, why is it suddenly applied with gay abandon to assassins who targeted a scoundrel, doing what many other countries, including Great Britain, allegedly get away with all the time without a ripple. Is it coz they is (possibly) Joos?

See Robin Shepherd on the odious Richard Ingrams who has written more bile on this topic. Famous for:
“I have developed a habit, when confronted by letters to the editor in support of the Israeli government, to look at the signature to see if the writer has a Jewish name. If so, I tend not to read it.”

I have developed a habit, when confronted by articles in the Guardian or the Independent, to look at the signature to see if the writer is Richard Ingrams. If so, I tend not to read them.”

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

GREEN WASTE... - Biased BBC

GREEN WASTE...: "Here's the BBC's Richard Black at his best, positively beside himself with glee because China is now wasting more money on 'renewables' than that nasty place of over-production and excess, the USA. His tone throughout is one of adulation for what China (and Britain - alarmingly for us now in third place) have achieved in tipping money down the drain. Note, too, that there is no mention in his report of the most crucial factor, namely that Spain's policy over eight years of busting a gut to invest in green projects was a national disaster. A survey - the most detailed of its kind - by Spanish academics found:

Optimistically treating European Commission partially funded data, we find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the US should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about nine jobs lost for every four created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

Earth Hour vs Human Achievement Hour - Biased BBC

Earth Hour vs Human Achievement Hour: "On Radio Five Live's Morning Reports today Nick Bryant ended a piece about Earth Hour with a quick reference to the Competitive Enterprise Institute counter campaign, Human Achievement Hour. The response from the newsreader in the studio (Vicki Sperrey?) amused me. Just in case listeners were in any doubt whose side the BBC is on...

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

ON TOUR WITH GORDON.. - Biased BBC

ON TOUR WITH GORDON..: "Is it true that Gordon Brown is charging £13,000 for any journalist wishing to join his bus tour of the Kingdom? I hope the BBC are not funding Labour by facilitating this? Perhaps a passing BBC journalist can confirm that the BBC is not lavishing OUR cash on Gordon?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

Small Icicle in Hades - Biased BBC

Small Icicle in Hades: "On this week's Now Show Jon Holmes took advantage of Marcus Brigstocke's absence and actually did a segment mocking climate change alarmism. Hard to believe, I know. A sop to the show's critics, perhaps?

Another interesting little point. Brigstocke's replacement for the week was Paul Sinha whose routine was based - with stunning originality - on a Daily Mail article. However, he referred to it only as 'a major national newspaper'. Has criticism of lazy right-on comedians using the words 'Daily Mail' also hit home?

The story in the Mail was about a naughty word nearly appearing on Channel 4's Countdown. For Sinha it was an opportunity to use another tiresome comedy cliché, namely the 'Have you seen those crazy comments under right-wing newspaper articles?' bit. He riffed off a comment on the Mail's website from Doreen in Dorset who had written of the near-scandal: 'More evidence of how moral standards have fallen in Brown's Broken Britain.' If you look up the post by 'Doreen' you'll see she also adds: 'When will they scrap the awful licence fee TAX?' This is clearly someone taking the piss out of Daily Mail readers. There are other comments like it, such as 'Dave' in Maidstone: 'Another idiotic waste of taxpayers' money by Jonathan Ross and the BBC.' One wonders what percentage of comments on the Daily Mail website are actually written by crappy comedians stuck for things to joke about.

A better comedian might have questioned why so many newspapers covered this non-story (Guardian, Telegraph, Sun, Mirror) rather than take the all too familiar - and clearly fake - Daily Mail readers' comments route.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

Fun With Immigration Figures - Biased BBC

Fun With Immigration Figures: "

From the Let's Compare Headlines Dept, we have another example of counter-spin in action. Via Channel4s FactCheck we hear that:

'Gordon Brown has done it again. The statistics he used for 2009 are an under-estimate, because they don’t include all migrants. The figures he used for 2007 and 2008, however, do. So he’s misled the public by comparing the most flattering data for the latest year with the most unflattering data in the previous years.'

That gives us a stark insight into the subject of a surprisingly wide spread of headlines:



'How Gordon Brown's podcast turned an immigration rise into a fall' - Daily Mail



'Gordon Brown accused of fiddling immigration figures' - Daily Telegraph



...a wide spread, because BBC doesn't seem to think it's that big a deal...



'Row over Gordon Brown immigration figures podcast'



A 'row' sounds so much less interesting, eh? Move along, nothing to see.



Hat-tip to GeorgeR in the Comments

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

"We No Longer Own It" - Biased BBC

"We No Longer Own It": "The following, by BBC presenter Dotun Adebayo, was, according to 'Damon', a commenter at the Pickled Politics site, printed in the Voice newspaper in September 2008.

Damon's view of it : 'It seems all kinds of people can feel this ”loss of hegemony”. When it’s articulated by the white working class (in places like East London) it’s usually called racism.'

I'll let it speak for itself, but I wonder - what would have been the career trajectory of a white BBC presenter writing such a piece, lamenting the loss of an earlier (John Major's ?) Brixton or White City and complaining that 'all the shops are now owned by'? Would they still be at the BBC ?

WAVE BRIXTON GOODBYE.

There used to be a time when everyone knew that Brixton belonged to us.
We fought for it, and made love for it.
Some of us even died in that corner of the landscape that would ever be black.

It didn’t mean that white folks weren’t welcome, all that it meant is that they KNEW it was ours, the same way as when I go to Norfolk or Suffolk, or any of the shires, I know that it’s NOT ours.
I’m on my ‘p’s and ‘q’s when I go up country, because I don’t have the backative to claim it as mine. And all the youts know this, so they’ve got the bottle to shout out ”N*****!” from across the road when they see you walking down one of their village streets or quiet country lanes.

I don’t have a problem with that because I KNOW when I venture out there I’m in a white mans country and the white man makes the rules.
Brixton was different though. Babylon THOUGHT he made the rules until Brixton made a stand against the so-called Operation ‘Swamp 81′. As the late Bernie Grant MP would say, the police got a ”bloody good hiding” that time.

There were of course casualties on both sides. But at least the message was clear all around the country that Brixton belonged to us. And so did Tottenham. And so did Hackney and Stonebridge and Peckham and Handsworth and Moss Side and Cheetham Hill and St Paul’s, so on and so forth.

ROOTS

Where ever you had an inner city, you had a corner of England that would be forever Jamaican or Nigerian or Bajan or St Kittian. We didn’t just put down roots, we put down down-payments on those areas, or at least our parents did. And like the law states, if you own a piece of this green and pleasant land, it’s yours.
Nobody can take it away from you (unless you divert the mortgage payments to buy a Ferrari).
But 27 years on, Brixton no longer belongs to us. I went down there the other day and discovered another country. Oh, we were still evident. It wasn’t like ‘’spot the black man” but we no longer own it.
The bars, the clubs, the resturants and shops no longer belong to us. With the exception of a pattie shop or two, Brixton belongs to everybody but us. It’s the same in Tottenham and Hackney. We spend most of the money, but virtually the only things we own are barbershops and hairdressers.
We’ve got ourselves to blame. Look at the Asian community. They came here at more or less the same time we did. They didn’t just put downpayments on the areas they claimed, they bought them outright.
Often jointly, communally, together as one family. So when you go to Southall, Alperton, Ealing, Whitechapel, and the other London areas they own, it’s all about Indiashire, Londonistan and Bangla-Brick Lane. They own the houses, the businesses AND the councils.
So who do you think makes the rules in those areas? It’s not the Women’s Institute and the Rotary Club and the Freemasons, I can tell you. Forget the local parish church and the sound of Bow Bells, it’s the Hindu temples and the mosques that call the shots, and if the Imam wants to call the belivers to worship at five in the morning, that’s up to him.

Like I said, we’ve got ourselves to blame. We had it all in the palm of our hands and we threw it away. We could have been contenders. We could have controlled entire neighbourhoods, businesswise and otherwise.
We should be in control of our local councils in those areas where we are/were the majority.

VICTORIES

But after the street battles that won us our victories of the past (and not just us, because let’s face it – Asian communities benefited from the blood we shed in the eighties (the two Asian people burned to death in Handsworth Post Office didn't - LT)) we rested on our laurels. Like ex-slaves, we indulged our new found freedoms far too long and partied until it was 1999. By then of course it was too late.

During the eighties and nineties more drugs were pumped into the black communities of Britain than ever before. I lived in and worked in Brixton at the time. Previously it had been all about the good sensi (or collie or lamb’s bread, as it used to be known). After the riots of 1981 and 1985, we began to see the emergence of hard drugs – heroin, speed, then cocaine, and then, of course, crack.

The drugs did their job, They subdued our people into submission. Those very same crack addicts that you see in ‘black’ neighbourhoods are the same guys who used to live on the frontline ready to protest at the injustices we suffered. Those injustices are still here, but if you ask the warriors of old to come out and demonstrate, they’ll fall prostrate, begging for one more hit.

You see, in winning the streets we really didn’t win anything. The streets belong to everybody, whatever your local gang might think. Real power and real wealth is all about who controls the means of production, the judiciary and executive.

The Nigerians of Peckham know this. They are the new Jamaicans. It remains to be seen whether they will be seduced into not buying the freehold of that corner of south east London that will forever be ‘Lagos’.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"