The BBC has appointed arch Tory Sarah Sands as editor of the flagship Radio 4 Today programme. She is best known to the public for a leaked policy memo she wrote while at the Telegraph, including memorably advocating
“Play on people’s fears… stop just short of distortion”.
The extraordinary thing is that if Sands does “stop just short of distortion” she will actually be improving the performance of BBC News. The BBC Trust has upheld a decision against Laura Kuenssberg for a most disgraceful piece of lying, a breach of every journalistic ethic. At the time of the Paris attacks, Kuenssberg had this interview with Jeremy Corbyn.
Kuenssberg “If you were prime minister, would you be happy to order people – police or military – to shoot to kill on Britain’s streets?”
Corbyn “I am not happy with a shoot to kill policy in general. I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counter-productive.”
Kuenssberg deliberately distorted this to make it appear a response to the Paris attacks, and what was broadcast was the following:
Kuenssberg “I asked Mr Corbyn if he were the resident here at number 10 whether he would be happy for British officers to pull the trigger in the event of a Paris-style attack.”
Corbyn “I am not happy with a shoot to kill policy in general. I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counter-productive.”
What makes the malice in Kuenssberg’s dealings still more evident is that she had in fact asked Corbyn a question specifically about Paris, and received a very different answer from Corbyn: “Of course you’d bring people onto the streets to prevent and ensure there is safety within our society.”
But she broadcast neither the actual question nor the actual answer about Paris.
The deceit, malice and deliberate bias could not be more obvious. The BBC Trust really had no choice in its finding, and it specifically noted that Kuenssberg “had not achieved due impartiality.” That is an extremely important word – it was not just a lapse in judgement, it was a clear indication that Kuenssberg is partial in her political affiliations.
That of course has been blindingly obvious to a great many people for a long time. You may recall the petition against Kuenssberg’s bias that was signed by 35,000 people before 38 Degrees took it down on the complete lie that it had attracted a significant number of sexist comments.
My personal favourite remains Kuenssberg’s frenetic anti-Corbyn broadcast of 28 June 2016 in which she prophesied that Corbyn’s confidence of winning a second leadership election was misplaced. I cannot imagine a more blatant example of gleeful bias. The piece is headlined “Jeremy Corbyn’s Support Begins to Show Signs of Fraying” and was, as a matter of provable fact, gloriously wrong about everything.
Being a completely biased charlatan will do no harm at all to Kuenssberg in the modern BBC. I leave you with the Head of BBC news, extreme Zionist James Harding, and his reaction to the decision of the BBC Trust, the body which “ensures” the BBC’s impartiality, about Kuenssberg’s blatant lack of impartiality. “We disagree with this finding” says Harding, adding that BBC News “formally notes it.” It could not be plainer said – the BBC no longer has any intention of not reflecting political bias. Mr Harding is no doubt delighted to welcome his new colleague, Sarah Sands, ex Daily Mail, ex Telegraph, and who as editor moved the Evening Standard way to the right.
” I would die in a ditch for the impartiality of the BBC”
Said Kuenssberg, after she was voted journalist of year in 2016.
Reading this interview by her, I almost had to reach for the sick bucket. She’s a real BBC brown noser.
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/interview-with-journalist-of-the-year-laura-kuenssberg-i-would-die-in-a-ditch-for-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc/
Revealing aside on R4’s Feedback offering yesterday (one of no doubt 35 repeats*) by faceless BBC suit to the effect that the BBC was set up to promote a single viewpoint, but,er…(suit realises what she’s just said)…times have changed.
RoS, the probability of Kuenssberg dying in a ditch is remote. I doubt if she’s ever seen one.
*There seems to be a progressive move on R4 to increse the number of repeats until its audience is listening to a single episode of The Archers on a loop.
Ex Barclay Bros and Lebedev and scribe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Sands
No expose of BBC bias against Jermy corbyn is complete without this excellent blog post from Mark Doran in which he documents three examples from a single day.
1) An animation superimposes a red star on Corbyn’s cap.
2) An interview of Corbyn by Kuenssberg is analysed
3) A graphic of Corbyn ‘wearing’ a Donald Trump-type hat is left on screen while Newsnight discusses him.
https://markdoran.wordpress.com/2017/01/15/pannell-beaters/
Gosh how awful.
Do you think it is acceptable for the BBC to behave like that?
Another tory organ fit only for a dead pig’s mouth.
The BBC beggars belief. I complained about LK in light of the Trust’s findings, but got the usual ‘we don’t agree, LK is an excellent journalist’ etc response. The sooner she buggers off to Fox News – a much better outlet for her style – the better. But to recruit Sarah Sands now too…words fail me
Not Fox News. Not now. They don’t want to antagonize Trump to that extent.
Kuenssberg is an utter disgrace and so transparent that it’s hard to know where to start with her.
She has just commended Theresa May for ‘leaving behind’ the failed policies of regime change in her description of May’s speech to the Republican Party. What the speech actually did was to WIDEN the ‘acceptable’ reasons for western military intervention from ‘remaking the world in our image’ to the much more slippery ‘out interests’. Unbelievable doublespeak.
Since Kuenssberg so offended Trump, I wonder how long she will last at the BBC.
The BBC is part of the neo-liberal consensus, like CNN, hence anti-Trump, so LK is as usual just towing the party line and quite safe.
The BBC is a propaganda arm of the UK state and shares the same London bubble as the core of that state’s government. Kuenssberg is the epitome of the posh, wealthy, privately educated Scottish upper class person, who disparages Scotland and sees advancement and like minds in the London neo-con right wing.
Thus her distortion and lies about anything genuinely left of centre, and about anything positive to do with Scotland, especially the idea that it could do better with independence than thrilled to this increasingly awful UK state.
I’m not Jeremy Corbyn’s biggest fan, particularly because he is completely and wilfully ignorant about Scotland, but he should be fairly reported, which he is not by the BBC, with LK a main culprit.
The appointment of Ms Sands, an obvious way out there Tory and panderer to the worst of right wing press barons, to be Editor of the Today programme is just another step along the way. the independence movement in Scotland has known, and has been saying, for years that the BBC is a well of lies and poison, and the left in England are learning this too. Shout it out loud and clear.
It also so worries that the BBC has made so much use of the right-wingers Anna Soubry, Anne McElvoy and Nick Robinson.
That Anna Soubry is the most distasteful of m.p.’s
and that takes the biscuit.
She is a scumbag
Would that be the English Anna?
Nick Robinson? Didn’t he use to be the bear from Bo’ Selecta!
Try again: it also worries me that the BBC has made so much use of the right-wingers Anna Soubry, Anne McElvoy and Nick Robinson.
As well as Nigel Farage being invited on Question Time way more than any other politician.
Yes because the BBC secretly supports UKIP.
I believe you’re right there, Anon1. Well done.
Of course it does, Node. Now go and take some more acid.
I think they keep invitying Nigel Farage because he is the most honest politician in the United Kingdom and so interesting.
Would that be the English Nigel?
People will tell you that the BBC is renowned throughout the world for an impeccable devotion to accurate and impartial news reporting.
Trouble is it’s only really BBC people that are doing the telling.
As an institution the BBC surpasses even the Hollywood movie industry when it comes to self-congratulation.
Craig is becoming dafter and more mendacious by the day:
“Kuenssberg deliberately distorted this to make it appear a response to the Paris attacks, and what was broadcast was the following:
Kuenssberg “I asked Mr Corbyn if he were the resident here at number 10 whether he would be happy for British officers to pull the trigger in the event of a Paris-style attack.”
Corbyn “I am not happy with a shoot to kill policy in general. I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counter-productive.””
No : there is no distortion because the expression “a Paris-style attack” makes it clear that a response to the Paris slayings was not being elicited.
There is a clear difference between “a Paris-style attack” and “the Paris attacks”.
The clue in in the word “style”.
Let us leave aside for the time being the question of whether the police, faced with the Paris attacks or a “Paris-style attack”, should take time out to shoot the terrorists in the leg or arm rather than neutralising them definitively.
But then it is easy to criticise the police action when one is sitting comfortably on one’s sofa, whisky in hand and a long way away from where innocent people are being slaughtered.
Ah, the ‘Paris attacks’, where we’re told that a heavily pregnant woman hung by her fingertips from a window sill of the Bataclan Theatre for more than five minutes; this on a very cold November evening.
It’s like trying to deal with children.
And basically, I give up.
The ‘Paris attacks’ took place on Friday 13th November. Likewise the ‘Nice terror truck attack’ took place on 14th July, Bastille Day, the biggest holiday in France. Anyone would think that this was all staged…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjPprQd6HF8
(Yes, Jeremy Irons really did star in Play Away)
Rob, I lost a number of colleagues and friends in the Paris bataclan shootings I can assure you it wasn’t staged – paid for by a Saudi prince possibly, over some dispute that Hollande wanted to keep away from the press – very probably – but not staged.
Shatnersrug, I’m very sad to hear that. Can you give some links, so that we can pay our respects?
“Cheese-eating surrender monkeys”, do you remember how that phrase about the French was bandied around when they refused to take part in the invasion of Iraq in 2003? Do you remember ‘freedom fries’ and all that?
France, which used to have an independent foreign policy, is now totally on-board with the American empire, following all these ‘terror attacks’.
Two years on, Hamon has supplanted the Hapless Hollande as the Socialist nominee for the presidency, trouncing his rivals in a two-round primary contest – with the incumbent too unpopular to even take part. On Sunday, the 49-year-old Breton, who wants to legalise cannabis, tax robots and give everyone in France a €750 living wage, picked up around 59 percent of votes cast in the run-off, defeating Manuel Valls, a pro-business former prime minister and the primary’s nominal favourite. In the process, he breathed new life into a battered ruling party that is struggling to stay alive in the shifting sands of French politics.
http://www.france24.com/en/20170130-benoit-hamon-socialist-party-france-presidential-election-environment-universal-income
He should come to England, he could take over from J.C.
he couldn’t be any more stupid.
Benoit Hamon hasn’t got a hope in hell of winning the presidency, and neither has Marine Le Pen (sorry to disappoint you).
What’s happening with Fillon, his wife and expenses.
It’s hard to think of a senior French politician who hasn’t fallen foul of some financial shenanigans.
Seems to be their equivalent of a sex scandal.
But anyway.
Isn’t this supposed to help Le Pen?
@ Shatnersrug January 30, 2017 at 19:06
There can be real victims in a ‘staged’ attack…
@ Shatnersrug January 30, 2017 at 19:06
There can be real victims in a ‘staged’ attack.
I think you should re-read the post, the question that was asked was different to the one that was broadcast, in the actual interview, LK asked JC ““If you were prime minister, would you be happy to order people – police or military – to shoot to kill on Britain’s streets?” to which Corbyn answered “I am not happy with a shoot to kill policy in general. I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counter-productive”
The question that was broadcast was “I asked Mr Corbyn if he were the resident here at number 10 whether he would be happy for British officers to pull the trigger in the event of a Paris-style attack.”
Note that the actual question asked of Corbyn made no mention of Paris and was, in my reading, a question about Shoot to kill policies in general (Jean Charles de Menezes was possibly in Corbyns mind as he answered)
Gulliver
If you can make sense of Craig’s post then you’re a better man than I, Gunga Din.
Here’s what we read : (emphasis added):
“.. WHAT WAS BROADCAST was the following:
Kuenssberg “I asked Mr Corbyn if he were the resident here at number 10 whether he would be happy for British officers to pull the trigger in the event of a Paris-style attack.”
Corbyn “I am not happy with a shoot to kill policy in general. I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counter-productive.” ”
but then, some lines later, we read this :
“But she broadcast neither the actual question nor the actual answer about Paris.”
??????????????????
You can’t be bothered to read what Craig wrote or can’t be bothered to quote the original question as compared to the broadcast question?
“At the time of the Paris attacks, Kuenssberg had this interview with Jeremy Corbyn.
Kuenssberg “If you were prime minister, would you be happy to order people – police or military – to shoot to kill on Britain’s streets?”
Corbyn “I am not happy with a shoot to kill policy in general. I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counter-productive.”
Kuenssberg deliberately distorted this to make it appear a response to the Paris attacks, and what was broadcast was the following:
Kuenssberg “I asked Mr Corbyn if he were the resident here at number 10 whether he would be happy for British officers to pull the trigger in the event of a Paris-style attack.”
Corbyn “I am not happy with a shoot to kill policy in general. I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counter-productive.”
See how easy that was? Copy and paste
I see no distortion whether deliberate or otherwise: it is clear that the context of the first “shoot to kill” question was that of a future “Paris-style” attack (as Craig says, “At the time of the Paris attacks, Kuenssberg had this interview with Jeremy Corbyn”) and all that happened later was that that context was made explicit.
++++++++++++++++++
I will however withdraw the charge of mendaciousness from my original post and replace it with “paranoia”. Craig is getting increasingly paranoid about the BBC and certain newspapers. The reason might be that he has been infected by some of the commenters.
It is quite possible that Habbabkuk really cannot understand that Laura was cleverly misrepresenting Corbyn’s view, in the example you cite.
After a lifetime of believing what authority tells him his vestigial critical faculties have atrophied, and dropped off.
The post was pretty clear to me, and I don’t think it’s either paranoia or indeed asking too much of our impartial state broadcaster to ensure their correspondents go about their work with a reasonable degree of integrity.
It’s also worth re-iterating that LK did actually ask a question on the Paris attacks, to which Corbyn responded – “But she broadcast neither the actual question nor the actual answer about Paris”.
Lest we forget, the complaint against this aspect of LK’s report was upheld by the BBC trust – “The Committee believed that the formulation in the report did not reflect a conflation of two questions and two answers but rather presented Mr Corbyn’s answer to a specific question about “shoot to kill” as an answer to a different question which he had not in fact been asked.”
It might benefit your understanding if you were to read the report unadulterated: –
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2017/jan.pdf
You could say Laura, interpreted, the answer J.C. gave to her question.
That is quite like spinning, yes?
“Craig is becoming dafter and more mendacious by the day”
I suppose the same could be said of you Habbabkuk – however, many of us witness the daily biases exhibited by the BBC, be it news, documentaries or current affairs, so its best avoided if you desire unbiased and critical reportage, even Channel Four News is preferable to the BBC’s output, which is like a ‘faux progressives’ version of Fox News in the USA, which is awful.
Hab. are you TRYING to be stupid?
“There is a clear difference between “a Paris-style attack” and “the Paris attacks”.”
A “Paris-style attack” means an attack LIKE the “Paris attacks”. The more dissimilar a “Paris-style attack” is from the Paris attacks, the less justifiably can it be called a “Paris style attack”.
“The more dissimilar a “Paris-style attack” is from the Paris attacks, the less justifiably can it be called a “Paris style attack”.”
_________________
I agree. So your point is…. ?
My point is that when anyone else says, “Paris style attack” they are, in fact envisioning the actual Paris attacks. When you say “Paris-style attack” you mean “Oh – something or other.”
Hab doesn’t need to try.
This survey is a few years old but, in all probability, the result would be obtained now. Hollow laughter.
The UK’s national news brands rated in order of trust: from the BBC down to the Daily Star
BBC News (6.5 for impartiality, 7.4 for trust), ITV News (6 and 6.6) and Channel 4 News (6 and 6.2) make up the top three spots in both categories.
The Sun (3.5), the Daily Star (3.6) and Mail newspapers (4.1) made up the bottom five for impartiality along with Facebook and Twitter (both 3.9).
Along with the other tabloids, websites Huffington Post, MSN News (both 4.6) and Yahoo (4.7) made up the lower scale of impartiality.
Aside from the Telegraph newspapers (4.9), the broadsheet newspapers all scored between 5.7 and 5.3.
They were closely followed by Google News and the Metro (both 5.2). Sky News, Five News (both 5.5) and Al Jazeera (4.7) were judged to be less impartial than the other broadcasters.
Tabloid newspapers, the websites mentioned above and Al Jazeera all scored below 5 in terms of trustworthiness, with the Daily Star and Twitter (both 3.3) trailing Facebook (3.4) in last place.
Aside from the i (5), all broadsheets scored between 5.7 and 5.9, trailing the top three broadcasters and Sky News (equal with Channel 4 News on 6.2).
The survey, cited in today’s BBC annual report, showed that despite the BBC scoring higher than its rivals for impartiality and trust, it has not yet fully recovered the level of public trust it enjoyed prior to the Jimmy Savile scandal.
Full survey here.
Related Stories
.Survey: 96 per cent of broadcast journalists enjoy jobs – but ‘inept management’ and bullying are concerns
.RTS announces shortlist for Television Journalism Awards 2016
.Torin Douglas on covering Savile crisis from inside the BBC: ‘How can an organisation that works so badly work so well?’
,Channel 4 leads RTS Journalism Awards shortlist with 13 nominations
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/facebook-more-trusted-news-daily-star-according-bbc-commissioned-survey/
Where’s RT?
The Corbynistas and the Nat Scots really can’t stand Kuenssberg’s tough questioning. They can’t accept their views being challenged. It doesn’t matter that Kuenssberg gives the same treatment to everyone else, it’s still seen as a conspiracy against them.
It was Kuenssberg who started the BBC practice of referring to Blairite Labour people as ‘moderates’ in the Labour civil war. Thereby attempting to steer viewers perceptions of the Corbyn supporters towards negativity. Other BBC news reporters followed her lead. She does this kind of thing all the time.
We are not talking about tough questioning here. We are talking about lies and misrepresentation, distortion through editing and cutting, and the deliberate falsification of information.
Your statement that the likes of Kuenssberg and Nick Robinson treat everyone the same is also just untrue, and I don’t think you could find the evidence to back it up.
In a Scottish context, Kuenssberg often comes out with stuff to camera, intended for uk audiences, that those on the ground we know to be untrue. The BBC trust has found her guilty of such lies and misrepresentation, but the management brush it off.
Just as an aside, can you really support an argument that the likes of Sturgeon and Salmond don’t deal with tough questioning well? Even Jeremy Paxman said that Salmond was the among the most formidable of subjects for a face to face interview.
The fact is that Harding, Robinson, Kuenssberg, Neill, Montague and many more are drawn from known and verifiable right wing Tory backgrounds, and to add the furiously right wing Sarah Sands to that as Editor of Today is a clear confirmation of that bias, just as your comment is a clear confirmation of yours.
It’s funny, because when I watch or listen to the BBC, I detect a bias against the right. This is in keeping with what the majority of people feel about the BBC’s impartiality – that it has an inherent soft-left bias. Even some of its own presenters admit so. It’s only on a few loony left blogs that you read that the BBC is some sort of far-right organisation.
I have no doubt that a BBC that conforms with your world view would be deemed “objective”, while anything less is “right-wing”.
“Just as an aside, can you really support an argument that the likes of Sturgeon and Salmond don’t deal with tough questioning well?”
I didn’t say they can’t deal with it well. I said their supporters can’t deal with it.
By ‘soft left’ you mean Blairite, I take it. Or centrist. Few will disagree.
That old BBC bias left/right bollocks again.
The way it works is this:
1. BBC supports corporates, finance and globalisation.
2. They’re anti real Labour interests every time.
3. They’re pro identity politics and green issues
So if you think that No 3 is Leftist then that’s why you think they’re pro-Left.
But surely No 2 which they’re against if more important to a real Left, and their support for No 1 is anti Left anyway.
So yeah, they’re big on the snowflake stuff, but when it comes to the real meat and potatoes they’re with the elites, all the way.
Well put, Herbie. I pretty much agree with that.
It’s an old con. Substitue a tame version of the opposition and then froth about how this tame version is so horribly radical and subversive. That way you distract and divert from the real opposition who, if they are allowed to emerge at all, are described as total loonies and, worse still, out of date loonies.
Hmmm, yes, you would say that, wouldn’t you?
If you want a serious long view of BBC bias you could do worse than listen to a recent Novara broadcast (1hr) interviewing Tom Mills about his book: The BBC: Myth of a Public Service?
http://novaramedia.com/2016/12/16/the-bbc-myth-of-a-public-service/
The things people say:
“…Former British diplomat Craig Murray now goes round the world saying that all the wars being fought are about which energy company controls the resources that country has, rather than any political issue, and that lives should not be sacrificed to make a few big energy corporations richer. ..”
http://journal-neo.org/2017/01/30/rex-tillerson-and-his-friends-the-end-game-of-america/
Here is another article worth reading today
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/30/the-resistance-and-its-double/
With respect, I would submit that no “article” appearing in Counterpunch is worth reading,
It, like the pretentiously-named “globalresearch” and “voltairenet”, is of interestt only to seriously deluded, self-important malcontents and conspiracy-theorists.
Habb.
I often have to remind you old chap, that you do not include links, and the one link that you did include was called “Stopfake” that if I recall right, had very little credibility nor any commentors, yet, you urge commentors in here to sign up.
By the way, did the site collect many e-mail addresses?
Your critique of Counterpunch tells us much more about your shallowness than it does about the site in question.
And this is something that anyone-right, left or centre- can confirm in a minute or two by following the link and comparing the work with your rather idiotic assessment of it.
“Habbabkuk is becoming dafter and more mendacious by the day”.
Fixed it for you and says it all, particularly given CounterPunch is well respected in academic circles and provides a ‘fix’ for where The Guardian once dared to tread – no doubt Habs prefers The Torygraph, its where all the ‘faux Labourites’ go to whinge!
This was habby’s effort at a Fake News “critique”.
Counterpunch is actually quite a moderate affair, like Democracy Now, attempting to save the system from itself.
Just the usual lazy smears from habby.
Rogers
“CounterPunch is well respected in academic circles…”
______________________
That one made my day 🙂
BTW I should have added “informationclearinghouse” to the little list of the favorite websites of the “Lost Ones”.
Where do they get those pretentious titles from, I wonder?
Seem that the loopier the content, the more extravagant the titles.
“Seem that the loopier the content, the more extravagant the titles.”
This from someone who uses the name Habbabkuk.
Sands’ predecessor.
Jamie Angus
@grvlx001
Deputy Director, BBC World Service Group & Editorial Director BBC Global News Ltd
https://twitter.com/grvlx001
and her new boss in the ridiculous management structure, Gwynneth Williams. She is on £191k pa
Gwyneth Williams, Controller, Radio 4 and Radio 4 Extra
http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/managementstructure/biographies/williams_gwyneth
Craig, you probably saw your favourite Henry Jackson Society in trouble for putting Malcolm Rifkind’s name on an anti Chinese article., it transpires they are being paid £10,000 a month to denigrate the Chinese on behalf of the Japanese all according to yesterday’s Sunday Times.
Maybe LK really believes her bias, in which case it is not BBC bias at all. I am very fixed in my own biases. Biases don’t come along like buses, you just hop on the next one that comes along. I think I’ve blotted my reputation here by admitting I can’t stand unionised politics, small u, small p, but that’s because I can’t stand anyone looking down the wrong end of the telescope to fit dogma.
The radio has an off button. I often switch it off after a while if someone talks American, Christianity, sport, party politics or music at me. I don’t let my brains be distorted by TV or Radio. If we had 2-way interactive radio on the Today programme they’d soon close it down because they couldn’t put up with some of the things I shout at the radio. Is it my age? It wouldn’t be therapeutic or entertaining if there was more than 20% of output with which I could agree.
LK probably believes quite a lot of what she says, it’s in her cultural DNA as a rich Tory girl, but she is also complicit with obvious deceit and falsification, possibly because she believes the end justifies the means, and as she is a right wing Tory we know what that means.
However, it is still BBC bias because at the very least they are letting her do it, and more than that, supporting het technically and editorially to do it.
If you doubt me on the list of BBC Tories I gave earlier, just do a little bit of digging into their backgrounds.
In the case of their latest recruit, Sands, you don’t even have to dig.
Sarah Sands even edited the British edition of the Readers Digest for a while. Enough said.
It’s a sad day when Tory puppets are allowed to take over the news media. Democracy is distorted and as a consequence referendum and elections will not accurately reflect the countries wishes.
That must be it : your cause or party loses at the bar of public opinion and it’s all the fault of the media.
Facile 🙂
On what basis do you think the public form their opinions? In many cases the opinions are based on lies and distortions promoted by the media, and unless people are willing and able to look deeper that is what they will believe… So yes, it can be the fault of the media. If what is supposed to be a fair and unbiased national broadcaster is actually a propaganda machine, it makes a huge difference.
I think it’s clear who is being facile here (daft emoji – no, can’t be bothered with that, or you)
Facile, indeed.
Of course. There’s no such thing as fake news, mainstream media bias, or political appointments to the supposedly unbiased BBC, is there? One wonders why the BBC has not bothered to open the can of worms surrounding the parachuting into place of T. May straight after Cameron’s departure. But no. It couldn’t be rsed, probably. Move along, please-nothing to see here.
Six people, including two former Halifax bank of SCOTLAND bankers, have been found guilty of bribery and fraud that cost the bank’s business customers and shareholders hundreds of millions of pounds.
Lynden Scourfield, a former manager with HBOS, pleaded guilty to six counts including corruption.
Ministry of Truth
despicable
Halifax is in ENGLAND last time I looked so what’s with capitalised Scotland? Why Not both? What is the point of your post? Despicable behaviour by bankers (in England) punished – good. What’s this Ministry of Truth stuff about? Inane post.
Let’s take it a step further – the whole despicable affair took place in London, the participants were English, and their immediate management was English. HBOS is an Anglo-Scottish bank. I can only assume that either your shift key got stuck or you are trying to make some sort of snidey, offensive, but ultimately meaningless point.
correct
Maybe if people stopped calling Mrs. May,
Islamaphobic Theresa May or Frau May
or suggesting that she is not a legitimate Prime minister
we could return to being polite
@Michael Norton,
Although it would seem we are polar opposites as far as our political viewpoints are concerned, the fact remains that here in the UK no one has ever elected a Prime Minister, with the exception of the electorate that the PM represents within their constituency. As such, Ms May is the legitimate PM as she commands a majority of MPs within Parliament. It is Parliamentarians who choose the PM, which is then endorsed by the Queen when she gets the favoured one to form a government. Since the 1975 EEC Referendum the UK has had 8 PM’s, of which 4 – Callaghan, Major, Brown & May – were not leaders of their respective Parties at the time of the preceding General Election, be it 1974, 1987, 2005 or 2015. This lack of understanding of the Parliamentary system of governance is annoying to me, as are denials that Donald trump is the legitimate elected President of the USA, a President elected via an Electoral College as set out in the US Federal Constitution.
Thank you Chris
I have no idea if Theresa May will be any good as the Prime minister of the United Kingdom, as is normal, she has taken the job at a difficult time – but when is not a difficult time.
Prime ministers burn out, I did not like Dave Cameron, I do not much care for Theresa may but she is now the leader of her party and until an election is held, they form the government.
She has only been in the job a few months, she was for Remain, both Dave Cameron and Theresa May have accepted they were on the opposite side of the discussion to the majority of the voters, so either they accept Brexit and make it happen or step away from government.
This needs time to play out or what was the point of the Referendum?
“The Scottish Donald”
You’ve got lots of form. So wise up.
I think the “May is not a legitimate PM” meme springs form an long-running attempt by the media and other commentators on politics to reduce every general election to a gladiatorial contest between the respective party leaders. The idea of people voting for Cameron, Clegg or Milliband appeared to be aired more often than the idea of voting Tory, Lib Dem or Labour. So since Theresa May didn’t take part in this contest of champions, she somehow wasn’t voted for.
“I think the “May is not a legitimate PM” meme springs form an long-running attempt by the media and other commentators on politics to reduce every general election to a gladiatorial contest between the respective party leaders. The idea of people voting for Cameron, Clegg or Milliband appeared to be aired more often than the idea of voting Tory, Lib Dem or Labour. So since Theresa May didn’t take part in this contest of champions, she somehow wasn’t voted for.”
I don’t agree at any level. When you can reduce public distaste for May to a beauty contest, corrupt polls aside (they represent the ongoing public relations strategy of ‘social proof – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_proof ) by calling it a meme, you devalue democracy as much as the BBC, Times, Guardian, Mail, Telegraph etc.
None of the policies May is putting forward from the privatisation of the NHS to her plans for a post brexit UK have been put before the British public. In fact, the Tories promised they would not privatise the NHS. Get them out, they have no legitimacy whatsoever.
The idea that they do, which you and others subscribe to is part of the faulty nature of politics and why so many do not vote at all. They quite rightly understand that they have no voice and remain unrepresented at any level.
Sorry Bayard, I re-read what you wrote and realised that not only did I put words into your mouth, I mis-characterised your argument and as if that wasn’t enough badly mauled my own. Too little sleep.
Apologies.
The Resolution Foundation think tank (yet another warning that Brexit is bad for the people of the UK) has said that a rise in inflation to 1.6% (expected to climb) coupled with low wages, will see people with less disposable income in 2017.
Throw in the EU making an example of the UK, (because you can’t leave and expect a better deal than a EU member) and Trump pillaging the NHS, and the future looks bleak for the Home nations.
Still I’m sure we can all feel secure knowing we possess faulty nukes, and a unelected upper chamber known as the House of Lords with almost 900 troughers, only China’s politburo has more people, and they run a country of 1.35 billion people.
Indyref2 here we come.
China’s politburo? Surely not.
It’s not a warning that Brexit is bad for the people of the UK, it’s a prediction that if certain things happen, which may or may not take place and may or may not have a connection with Brexit, then some people will be worse off. Just another possibility presented as a certainty. Project Fear marches on.
Indy has story that Charles Koch earlier slammed Muslim travel restrictions as reminiscent of Nazi Germany, although his criticism today is toned down.
Looks Like yet Another Trip to Glasgow Pacific Quay to Call out bbC bias is in Order – And Arranged – For March…
Whilst I have to Agree with Paul Barbara
January 29, 2017 at 18:21
That Although a million and a half people marched to try to prevent the Iraq war..it made not a blind bit of difference… And doubly correct Paul is, as Another Million and a Half sign the Trump Petition.. Treeza’s gang ” the state Visit will go ahead regardless ”
But.. As Node once Said, ” Doing something, is usually better than doing nothing “..
And thus, No matter the Weather, I shall be at bbC Scotland on the 26th March –
http://independencelive.net/event/975
P.S I hope some of the Very well informed participants from ‘ London Calling ‘ can be among the speakers.
You need to vote for your own independence and then you won’t have to stand outside in the rain waving a placard while no one listens or cares.
That meeting in Montreal? It was not very good according to my daughter: the GR Professor seems to have frightened her and the translation procedure made everything very tedious.
Just look at the state of these bedwetters protesting the travel restrictions first proposed by Obama and supported by Clinton.
It’s quite clear that Trump won’t be able to carry out any of the policies he was elected to carry out without the liberal media and the placard junkies and other snowflakes trying to thwart him. We can’t even have a state visit from an elected American president without them bursting into tears and firing off one of their ridiculous petitions that end up straight in the bin anyway.
These losers simply aren’t cut out for life. They can’t cope when they don’t get their way. Compare them to the generation that actually did fight fascism. It’s pathetic.
Anon1 you one of those national socialists like Trump or a libertarians like Charles and David Koch? Come on make your mind up.
C4 News tonight:
Trump racist
Racist Trump
Xenophobic, misogynistic, homophobic, racist Trump
LGBT rights
Micro-aggressions against black Muslim feminists
Mhairi Black calling Trump a racist
The weather
And meanwhile in the UK – NHS privatisation continues uninterrupted.
So the Socialists have ended up nominating someone that a reasonable number of French people might vote for. Valls was a sure loser, given Hollande’s unpopularity.
In view of Penelopegate, the runoff election may well be between Hamon and Marine. It would certainly be an interesting race, and, whoever won, neoliberalism would be the loser.
Hamon is a laugh.
32-hour week and €700 per month “free” pay for all from the magic money tree. Yup, another socialist idiot from France.
Oh, and lots of free dope to forget what an idiot you were for voting for him.
” …the magic money tree.”
I’m guessing that the “tree” in question is society and the “magic” involved is nothing more novel than a progressive taxation of wealth and income.
As to the 32 hour week it sounds like a much better idea than unlimited hours and zero hour contracts, without overtime or Unions, in an ocean of unemployment, low consumer demand and falling living standards. Together with the guaranteed income it sounds like a very good foundation on which to re-build the communities which capitalism has demolished (and is demolishing.)
bevin
Re Montreal
My apologies I couldn’t Even Find it..Very Poorly promoted.
Thanks for the info
It’s a funny old world, right enough! Trump is being demonstrated against all over the world because he has banned people from listed countries from entering or transiting the US.
The last two US presidents attacked these same countries without mercy for fifteen years and I can’t remember ever seeing a demo on the telly.
This article is interesting in view of the international cacophony of misinformation:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46340.htm
I’m still trying to find out why the BBC took down a report from its own Russian correspondent Olga Irshina. The report interviews residents who witnessed another plane, a jet, flying alongside MH 17 the day it exploded in the sky. On Saturday I sent a FOI request to try to find out why.
https://johnplatinumgoss.wordpress.com/2017/01/28/bbc-takes-down-its-own-report/
Today I got a response from the BBC thanking me for my request and to say they would address the issues within 20 days.
You had no need for a FOI request I could have told you that. The weather was cloudy and overcast, the plane was at 33,000 feet, it would not have been visible from the ground. Any claims to have seen a jet flying alongside were obviously false.
HTH.
Just as any claim that a Buc missile could have reached it at almost twice the elevation it is designed for. The plot keeps on dissolving, now it turns out that the Dutch investigators have never gone through the Russian radar data which must have had proof of any missile attack.
They are saying that they could not decipher the data- something which curiously enough has not prevented them from leaking interim reports suggesting Russian government collusion in the tragedy. Meanwhile the intrepid investigators have also failed to decipher Elliot Higgins fake videos and other “proofs’ it found on the internet.
The 9M38 can reach an altitude of 46,000 feet, 9M38M1 72,000 feet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system#9M317ME_missile
There was some patchy cloud but mostly blue on a very clear day (not a bit overcast) but very hot and in the middle of summer. The eye-witness accounts should not be discarded. Anyway, if I want to find out why the BBC took down the report, I would not ask someone with your past record.
As many have said before you can see a long way on a clear day. The sun is 93,000,000 miles away, give or take. How far do you want to see?
I can recommend an optician.
HTH
The sun is very big, a plane is very small in comparison and would only be a pin prick at 33,000 ft even if it had been a clear blue sky, which it wasn’t.
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/File:MH17_Weather_2014JUL17-1200.png
How do you know Fred? Were you there? No, you weren’t. Perhaps save your certainties for things you actually know directly. Or find better arguments.
Oh dear, I can see reason and logic isn’t going to influence you at all.
But then I knew when I posted there were some who were going to believe what they wanted to believe as what I said. I post to inform the others, the open minded.