Friday 21 January 2011

https://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4503674/greenpeace-founder-questions-global-warming/

'..there are two big stories which are set to dominate tonight's programme,

One supposes. For some reason I am minded of the other day when our postie really didn't feel like being around to chat even when I was at home, so popped a note through the door saying 'sorry you were in' before scampering off.

Better all round if some things are quietly dropped, at least in some quarters.

Leaves the playing field clear for all those 'calling judgement in question' cliches so beloved of spotlight-deflecting pols and some of their media colleagues, especially if there is only one target remaining in the crossh... er... [can't use such a term any more for fear of being inflammatory if deemed from a political corner not exempt]... spotlight.

And, of course, Mr. Cameron.

re, Blair enquiry...had to switch off after half an hour, could see where it was going, the mad smile, the 'wot me guv' look and actually baiting Iran. You would think that after all the soul searching over the WMD's, the phoney dossiers, the 45 minute warnings....some lessons would have been learned, not a bit of it, it was the same old mantra, 'I did what I believe to be right' the messianic mad grin, the not to be reasoned with 'certainty' no words of regret or remorse, has he ever visited a dead soldiers parents? Does he know the death toll in Iraq from 2003 to the present day? After the mauling of Alistair Campbell on Question Time last night by George Galloway in which the studio audience applauded Galloway and hooted in derision the contribution of Campbell who constantly talked over other contributors, it was an excercise of merciless examination of the two main protagonists of an ill fated and illegal enterprise.....

Why do these "stories" dominate?

We know from his own mouth that Blair took the country to war because he "believed it was right". Nothing that could possibly be uncovered by this tame inquiry will change that.

It was clearly very much in the balance whether it was legal or not, probably tipping towards illegality.

Blair's motives? An opportunity to occupy the world stage at the shoulder of then, the most powerful political figure in the world; in his own mind, not bad for a waster from Fettes.

For everyone else, Brits, Iraqis it was a disaster.

The flitting from dodgy dossier, to WMD,to regime change, resulting in the petulant stance taken by the majority of nulab, viz. "Is anyone really saying that Iraq is not a better place without Saddam?" shows the snaky nature of the whole enterprise.

Coulson was always a "dead man walking."

i wonder what position in the Murdochracy Coulson will be given?

no doubt to start the 'boosting' of Tory promises and lies throughout the Murdoch press. Or will they now 'switch' to back-up plan flopp'Ed?

its definitely a Good Riddance to him, anyway.


as for Blair and Chilcott, we shall see.

4...Kashi..these stories dominate because we live in an era of distraction politics....where our politicians are more like escapologists and professional magicians....leading us away from the truth and mesmerising us with irrelevances.

We all know what the Blairs and Coulsons represent...and it`s not UK interests of any sort...it`s the unacceptable face of America`s secret empire ...which involves selling British people short ...and down the river.

Time to confront this head on.... while we still have the price of a cup of tea and the education to chuck out "our" present political class of public school psychopaths and confidence tricksters and their cronies!

In a few year`s time the present "youth of Britain" will be running things .....(NOT!)....and if you listen to them speaking you will soon realise why we have ..like...no...like time `n stuff to lose ...going forward in this ...like...age of change!

so tony uses the iraq inquiry as a platform 'to make the case against' iran? he says they are against out way of life. Unlike the King's Torah?

i see on QT the idea Tony should be on war crimes trial got a big round of applause. The public have condemned him even if the establishment won't.

The iraq inquiry team must have been humiliated to find out from wikileaks they were chosen on the basis of a promise that the 'iraq inquiry' will not investigate too deeply?

..''Marry a Muslim or you die!'' ..

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/8273984/Brother-of-Harry-Potter-star-jailed-for-attacking-her.html

i can hear the crushing of eggshells as people tiptoe around this one?

5..I suppose "we" could do what Private Eye have been suggesting for years ...and get the Murdoch`s empire to pay British taxes Mork?

In fact we could take a lot more interest in who owns our media and funds our politicians and democracy generally.....unless we want to be like the USA ?

REMEMBER!....it's Murdoch who chooses our government, not you.

The PM, the mogul and the secret agenda
https://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/jul/23/newscorporation.rupertmurdoch

The article specifically states that Murdoch actively supported Blair on the Iraq War.

Now why might that have been ?

(hint: Murdoch is one of Israel's biggest supporters).

Murdoch's hunger for power is a looming threat to democracy
https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/28/henry-porter-news-international-murdoch

'For as long as most of us can remember, this dynast posing as an anti-establishment newcomer, this patriotic Australian who became a citizen of the United States, this family-values diehard who went off with another woman, has been running things behind the scenes. We are used to his power and sardonic disdain for Britain but last week a line was crossed when Murdoch's News International dismissed a parliamentary committee's report on the phone-hacking scandal at the News of the World by saying that the all-party membership of the committee had formed some kind of a conspiracy.'

Chilcot inquiry: panel member claims antisemitism after impartiality queried
https://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/28/chilcot-inquiry-martin-gilbert

* Gilbert and fellow panel member Sir Lawrence Freedman "are Jewish, and Gilbert at least has a record of active support for Zionism," Miles wrote. "Such facts are not usually mentioned in the mainstream British and American media." *

people might like a read of this page, if they are interested in the "Resolution 1441" debate on the Iraq invasion.

https://www.utopia-politics.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3941&st=0

#8 Jaunty: No eggshells. I am certain that many young people face this kind of discrminatory, even potental violence from choosing partners their family do not agree with. And from many different sub-cultures within the UK. How would Nick Griffiths or his supporters respond to their kids wanting to marry a Moslem?

but this behaviour is UTTERLY UNACCEPTABLE, and it is both good it ended with only bruising, and that her brother and family understands that in the UK, an aduly woman can date who she wants. And i am glad the judge made that clear.


btw, WOW!!!! Lucky Hindu dude! :o

more Chilcott:

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387285.ece


#11 DJ: indeed.

and even more Chilcott:

https://www.mail-archive.com/peace-justice-news@enabled.com/msg01262.html

CHILCOT/IRAQ INQUIRY

Sir Gilbert (who is Jewish) threw a bit of a hissy-fit on an Israeli radio show, on air (via internet), whilst talking about the perception of Jews in the UK. Apparently he bitterly complained about an article that Richard Ingrams had written in the Independent criticising the fact that he and Sir Lawrence Freedman are committed Zionists and are therefore biased.
'Richard Ingrams’s Week: Will Zionists' links to Iraq invasion be brushed aside?'
https://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/richard-ingrams/richard-ingramsrsquos-week-will-zionists-links-to-iraq-invasion-be-brushed-aside-1829896.html

He (Sir Gilbert) went on to complain about growing anti-semitism in the UK in general and in particular on the blogosphere, demanding that the British Govt take steps to clamp down on the rise of Jewish/Israeli anti-sentiment.
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Radio/News.aspx/1870

Two of the five panel members are Jewish. For the record, The Inquiry committee members are Sir John Chilcot (Chairman), Sir Lawrence Freedman, Sir Martin Gilbert, Sir Roderic Lyne and Baroness Usha Prashar.
https://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/about.aspx

Looking into the background of one of the other panal members - Sir Roderic Lyne on Wiki...it states...
'He is an advisor to JPMorgan Chase, who has been chosen to operate the Trade Bank of Iraq, which will give banks access to the financial system of Iraq. He was a special adviser to BP, which currently has major interests in Iraq.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roderic_Lyne

Impartial...or what!!!....so not only does he have significant current interests in Iraq, through the oil company he works for, but one of his co-workers at JPMorgan Chase bank (The new Bank of Iraq) just happens to be a Mr. T. Blair!

#14 M_H

Who is 'Nick Griffiths'...is it the famous snooker player (retired) Terry Griffiths' brother?!?

14
..I am certain that many young people face this kind of discrminatory, even potental violence from choosing partners their family do not agree with..

ah but the brother was doing his religious duty? The punishment for a woman to go with a non muslim is that of adultery which is severe. so the koran is proof against her? so to interfere is to limit religious freedom?

14

Lucky Hindu dude!

never heard of the concept of bounty hunters then? :)

#18 DJ: lol, did i get his name wrong? You know who i meant. :P

#19 Jaunty: the Muslims of the UK, just like their Christian, Jewish, Buddhist and Atheist counterparts, all accept that the legal power of this SECULAR state overrides their religious duties.

in fact, apart from a few special cases, such as this problem of marrying out for women, there are remarkably few points of disagreement between modern UK Law, Shariah, Christian Law etc etc. Usually the religious laws merely add to the restrictions, such as not eating pork for Muslims, and meat for Jains.

however imho, the State should crack down hard upon breaches of this contract. There is absolutely NO justification for denying people the right to choose their own sexual, friendship or marriage partners, and our Secular Liberal legal system has absolute priority over such anti-Liberal sentiments.

it must be noted though, that the vast majority of religiously minded people completely accept that reality, and also that this situation, family members unhappy with the choice of partner/groom, can quite often happen without 'religious' overtones.

ALL must equally discover it is not permissible to behave like this.


20: no... but i must say i do think it is disgraceful this young women would marry a Hindi. What, when there ae so many pagans around she could have chosen... lol ;D

21...all accept that the legal power of this SECULAR state overrides their religious duties...

we are spending billions a year in extra policing because they don't?

...As for the former bounty hunter Zakir, he is clear about what will stop the problem. "Nothing. Families will do anything in the name of honour."...

https://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/aug/29/taxi-driver-bounty-hunter

..If the girls escape without police protection, they risk being traced by the local bounty hunters who are employed by families to track down wayward daughters and wives.

One of these, a man who calls himself Ahmed, said: "I use shopkeepers and taxi hunters to help find the girls. They usually know where they are and what they're up to."

"I have met many parents who are prepared to kill their daughters if they go astray and, although I do my best, many of the cases I have been involved in have ended tragically."

His mobile phone goes off constantly...

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/392619.stm

the asians say themselves its a widespread problem.

..Zena and Jack spent subsequent weeks travelling between B&Bs and struggling to stay one step ahead of her family, until it was revealed that there was a private investigator on her tail and a £9,000 bounty on her head..

https://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/apr/18/ukcrime.gender

which is why there is no integration?

17

given the israeli state funded the bigoted King's Torah that basically calls us subhuman what does Gil say to that? i don't think those who admitted to stealing british citizens passports details to make copies to use in illegal death squads that would put the british lives and families at risk from other international death squads need to lecture us about morality?

Can`t think that this thread has been at all helpful in suppressing the horrid English...and that nationalist chappie Dick Griffiths!

Thank goodness the Americans haven`t instructed us to treat British nationalists like we are obliged to treat Irish nationalists ....or we might have to let the BNP form part of the Coalition!

"But for the rest, Mr Blair once again gave what is known in the trade as a robust account of himself. Has his second testimony taught us anything we didn't know about the war and the events leading up to it? "

it was far from robust, blairs "inconsistencies" and narrative was being chipped at (yes even by this lightweight panel) along with the idea that the decision to go to war was anyone elses other than blairs. he made it clear that it was regime change and was from the get go.

interestingly there was no return to the crawford disclosure by blair and israel connection.

clearly coulsons resignation would always have been front page headlines .. as always the resignation announcement begs the question - who benefits. i suspect coulson affair has helped blair by his disclosures today not being reported.

"..''Marry a Muslim or you die!'' ..
i can hear the crushing of eggshells as people tiptoe around this one?"

why tiptoe, its not as if this kind of attitude is exclusive to muslims , in south asia it cutsd across all faiths .. and if one wants closer to home it is very explicitly so in the north of ireland.

this week the evening standard published an attack against ken livingstone directed at presstv (for being iranian govt funded) which was quickly picked up by both the (uk government funded) bbc and itn news orgs.

its not as if presstv doesnt invite all viewpoints from staunch israelis, jewish people - neo conservatives and those with the opposing views. it does provide a more open platform than the current mainstream media.

wikileaks revealed - that the government was seeking along with the usa to deny presstv the ability to broadcast from the uk and into the uk/europe and today blair was pretty much advocating war against iran.

#22: Jaunty, there is plenty of integration - in fact it is that very integration that has caused this 'problem'. Young British women who are Muslim, and grew up in our culture are questioning the traditional values of their cultures, if this is not happening then they would not be rebelling - just as mainstream UK culture did against "traditional values" a generation or so ago.

of major note from your links:

- "And what about the right to control their wives' behaviour?

- "They do it because they see their fathers do it and then there are the imams who come to Britain from rural Pakistan, chosen for their piety rather than their scholarship, and they encourage this kind of attitude, bred in the culture of the subcontinent and not by the Koran." "

indeed. This is primarily 'cultural honour', not religious at all. I would doubt that the Prophet Mohammed would have demanded the deaths/kidnappings of Muslim women who married out in his day. This is a relic of cultures that still see women as possessions of men, rather than free individuals in their own right. This is changing for western Muslims, who despite the problems of our own societies and cultures, can see the clear benefit of western ideals.

if we lived up to them more, and set a good example, they will accept them sooner.

and we must make it abundantly clear we will NOT accept such archaic, anti-Liberal activities. People are free to hold whatever silly attitudes and beliefs they want, But they are most definitely NOT allowed to inflict them upon others.

for me, i welcome the Islamic element in current UK society, and i think we are both benefiting from this cultural interchange. British Muslims are spreading the UKs liberal message to the rest of Islam, and Islam offers our young who desire a stricter religion to experience membership of one. But it has to made ABSOLUTELY clear that the UKs secular laws are the Law of the Land, and that is not going to change. And anyone who breaks those laws, *especially* on something as central as the right of people to choose their own futures and partners, should face the full penalties possible.

'melting pot' and 'salad bowl' we certainly are, - but one where the absolute rights of Liberal culture are the bedrock upon which we shall move forward together.

it is interesting through B'Liar that we learn what the Murdochracy has planned regarding Iran.

that such an attack would *UTTERLY* devastate both Iran, the region, the global economy, and ultimately the US, UK, and eventually Israel, is hardly something he would be unaware of.

which is worth a ponder, when we hear from this war-monger.

"Iran is a threat to the World". Not even half as much of a threat as the activities of B'liar and friends, let alone the continued behaviour of the US.

today I think it is coming over for the first time in a more obvious manner that blair was demonstrably blocking or ignoring evidence or views that would have not led to war, because blairs excuses do not fit the paper trail.

with regard to the potential / hypothetical - russia / france veto to war - what he called the "the unreasonable veto" - is another point since a veto by anyone on the security council would have been right.

chilcot asks when was cabinet aware that war was likely - were they consulted - blair says of course they knew "I was giving tv interviews where I said regime change was an option".

chilcot made blair squirm because blair couldnt demonstrate cabinet was involved, briefed or consulted and chilcot pulled that apart using prior testimony and with ref. to robin cook and clare short.

and further on we find that saddam was co-operating and the americans with blair at their side was always going to invade regardless even to the extent that there was no second resolution - Lord Goldsmith told Blair in July 2002:

"The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change"

clearly coulson came at a fortuitous time for blair and for those who back the wars .

"This is primarily 'cultural honour',"

and in south asia it cuts across all faiths ..

"it is interesting through B'Liar that we learn what the Murdochracy has planned regarding Iran."

for some reason france is playing victim for the last 6 months or so .. and has a first strike policy whilst threatening iran. france is obamas new best friend in europe

SHINING THE FREUDIAN SPOTLIGHT ON TONY

Poor Tony - perhaps he really does believe in God. He certainly keeps on confessing, even while appearing to deny!

At the end of his Chilcot bravado, he declared his deeply felt sorrow for all those dead, and followed, rather oddly, with: "I just wanted to say that, because I think it's right to say it, and it's what I feel."
Just repeat those words out loud. How was it for you?

Note the order of importance in the Blair mind: 1)'IT'S RIGHT TO SAY' 2)'IT'S WHAT I FEEL'. Little Boy Blair is asking us to see that he is DOING RIGHT (I'm a good boy) adding as a rider that HE HAS FEELINGS (I'm a nice boy).

This is the individual who the Westminster system elevated to near absolute power. Jekyll/Hyde Brown was to follow, and now we have Destiny Dave. How many more little boys will it take until we, collectively, realise WE KEEP GETTING OURSELVES ANOTHER ONE? fundamental change is needed. Let's make a start:

SPOILPARTYGAMES

2. At 2:47pm on 21 Jan 2011, you wrote:
'..there are two big stories which are set to dominate tonight's programme,

Odd.

I tend to capture a key sentence from the original post in order to create some context to a comment.

This now seems to have vanished, which could render the comment somewhat orphaned. In fact the whole post I read in the afternoon seems to have been replaced.

Is this to be a new trend; changing the original and hence rendering anything, including valid input, at best... redundant? Seems... hardly honest representation, at best.

Might one suggest if things evolve, or if you have new things to say, a new thread gets created? It is less.. confusing. And has more.. integrity. Having to capture every page commented upon before and after commenting, and possibly once archived, will be time consuming and hard-drive hungry. Plus it hardly inspires trust; an essential commodity in this line, one would have thought... hoped.

Speaking of which....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2011/01/addicted_to_lab.html

One sees this actually lurched over the double century before the inevitable pulling.

Thing is...

Nick Robinson | 10:53 UK time, Friday, 21 January 2011
220. At 5:21pm on 21 Jan 2011, Skol303 wrote:

This entry is now closed for comments

... in light of the whimsical notion that some in the WUVisphere are a bit obsessed, there is a certain irony that the majority of the UK licence fee paying population, who may appreciate a rare opportunity to comment, probably didn't clock off work until 9 minutes after 'closing time', and hence missed their chance. Again.

And unique.

Some are evidently considered more equal in such opportunities than others. Well, almost all really.

Such editorial shenanigans with what is written, and when, are proving vexing. Can I ask for a refund?

'Westminster and Fleet Street can talk of little else.'

One is sure. And don't be shy: broadcast new... er.. views... is in on the 'act', too.

But we have the former News Corp executive, Andrew Neil and Lord (John) Prescott to help us tie them all up for you with a pretty bow.

Bless. One is sure they were happy to oblige. Especially as Mr. Neil seems somewhat relegated these days (hard to find on the blog listings, and with blogs pulled when comments are barely out of double figures) and seeking redemption to regain his place in the fold, and our esteemed ex-DPM being a pillar of objectivity and professional probity.

Well it`s been a spiffing day for burying bad news all round....if only the cemetery wasn`t full to bursting!

Mind you ...that could explain the distinctly undead appearance of our parliamentarians....perhaps they can claim second life allowances!

Has the Beeb stopped British posters commenting on Mark Mardell`s America Blog?
I rather miss chatting to the folks at HQ!

THE FREUDIAN FRONT DOOR (#33 additional)

Bold and fearless Tony, this time arrived at the front door and swept, in dignified composure, towards it. Suddenly - catching his entourage off guard - he stopped, turned, and FACED THEM DOWN - for a whole nano-second. Then he strode in. No one gets to write "Blair could not face us" as a headline. But he won't be giving the bereaved parents 'face time', any time soon. And if he did, would it amount to 45 minutes?

missed tonight's show as well, (playing poker with friends. I lost). Will catch up later though, hopefully.

wendymann: indeed. Well worth an eye or two. Doubt 'Freedom Fries' are on the menu right now in the US.


#34 junkkk: original posts could be added to rather than deleted...?

"WUVisphere"??

----

worcesterjim: surely you mean "Russia Today"???

random post: literally, my apologies to redwood;

https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/best-of-the-politics/2008/08/crunch-street-jeremy-installed

just amusing, is all. (:

38...Come again Morky..when the Special Brew hangover has worn off?
Russia? Was it poker ...or Russian Roulette?

'38. At 04:11am on 22 Jan 2011, Mindys_Housemate wrote:

#34 junkkk: original posts could be added to rather than deleted...?

"WUVisphere"??

A conflation of two less than stellar collectives: 'Westminster Village' and 'Useful Idiots'.

Seems to be a growing trend. With added features, often:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349506/Left-wing-bias-Its-written-BBCs-DNA-says-Peter-Sissons.html

'Instead of concentrating on interviewing the leading players in a story or spreading the net wide for a range of views, these days the BBC frequently chooses to use the time getting the thoughts of its own correspondents. It is a format intended to help clarify the facts, but which often invites the expression of opinion. When that happens, instead of hearing both sides of a story, the audience at home gets what is, in effect, the BBC’s view presented as fact.

41..Left Wing Bias !!! Have you given leave of your senses??? How often do real left wingers get a say on NN without a "balancing" representative of global capitalism bullying them into silence...if the "presenter" hasn`t silenced them already?

Well to my jaundiced eye the Beeb and its sistership the Guardian are fundementally NEOLIBERAL institutions with a strong affiliation to American "left wing" values and attitudes and interests.

Now let`s remember that in the USA George Soros is considered by some to be a Marxist and no one gets to criticise right wing Zionism whatever shade of political opinion they represent.So "left wing" is way to our right!

And if you want a simple litmus test of where the BBC sits in the political spectrum just ask yourself how the mass immigration industry they ruthlessly promote reduces the problems of our British born underclass on our third world sink estates? Sink estates where no Question Time production team dare ever tread!

To be frank the entire British establishment is an offshoot of American culture and US interests ....and the idea that it is left wing in traditional British terms is nonsense!

41...Now if you had suggested that the BBC represents the muddled "Minky`s Housewife" brigade then you would have had a point.

'42. At 10:39am on 22 Jan 2011, worcesterjim wrote:
41..Left Wing Bias !!! Have you given leave of your senses???
43. At 11:11am on 22 Jan 2011, worcesterjim wrote:
41... then you would have had a point.

Impossible of course, but I like to think of myself as very 'un-wingist'. Always felt any bird trying to fly with more heft to one 'side' or other would simply end up going in circles.

And as my dear Mum used to say, 'no sense without feeling.'

Meanwhile, speaking of points it is disappointing, unsurprising, but worthy of note that, so far, no comment from any quarter on the text we respond to changing afterwards.

Seems a poor precedent. Along with much else. Odd priorities abound.

44..No the Beeb don`t "do" apologies or explanations....but that may be their only remaining British quality..authoritarianism!

You have to remember that ours is the only country where it`s common to hear of a "patient" being "released from hospital"....released???

"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias"
Andrew Marr


"I do remember... the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles. I'll always remember that"
Jane Garvey
BBC Five Live, May 10th, 2007, recalling May 2nd, 1997.

46...Yes I always felt New Labour was strongly supported by the huge aristocratic mandarin class at the BBC....until Blair put Burlington Birtie in charge and the champagne supplier caught a cold !

The luvocracy are all fashionably anti-authority and "Labour" .....if they think it leads to the perpetuation of their priveleged empire.....but of course the politicians hate the power and patronage the BBC holds over them..... so this is one area where they must be enjoying the Beeb`s mandarins squirming at the prospect of cuts and privatisation and the rest.

Of course the politicians may come to regret handing the entire media over to anyone with lots of cash....but I do wonder whether it`s too late to halt the progress of the money as the arbiter of everything in Britain? We seem to follow the USA in everything....after a short commercial break!

Of course we could call for a UN inquiry into ways of bringing the "markets" under democratic control....though there is little democratic control in up-coming countries like Russia and China....and money already runs the USA....with a sort of democracy in place.

#41 junkkmale:

"Instead of concentrating on interviewing the leading players in a story or spreading the net wide for a range of views, these days the BBC frequently chooses to use the time getting the thoughts of its own correspondents. It is a format intended to help clarify the facts, but which often invites the expression of opinion. When that happens, instead of hearing both sides of a story, the audience at home gets what is, in effect, the BBC’s view presented as fact."


NewsNight is a collection of some of the best journalists in the business, and are incredibly widely respected abroad. Often they are far more aware of the true state of affairs than the supposed 'experts' in many fields. When they explain something to the Public (which is also part of a journalists job), it is almost always more accurate than the biassed inputs of the politicians, and especially the 'financial experts' inputs that are regularly trotted out to persuade much poorer people that they should stay that way - all in the nicest possible economics jargon, naturally.

me, i would **LOVE** to have a NN evening where all the reporters and journalists of NN just sit around and discuss what THEY see as happening.

naturally, the next day we would get to see how "independent" the BBC is from the Govt, because they would probably all be sacked. They would have been under NuLabour as well.

when the corporate media is not telling us the truth, i quite like it that the NN journalists DO explain things.

IT IS MORE SERIOUS THAT EVEN I THOUGHT - BLAIR AT CHILCOT

Where to begin? I have now watched Blair 'delivering words' to Chilcot and the overall conclusions are stark. Blair has the Manichean view of the world - a struggle between good and evil. He clearly believes he is to lead us the 'Last Battle' - which explains his global posturing since being ousted by Brown.

His adversary is GLOBAL EXTREMISM - ubiquitous, insidious and permitting any and every means to combat it.

So there we have it. Tony Blair is the Lord of the Rings - and not Frodo Baggins in sight.

"FAITH AND REASON GO HAND IN HAND"

First the Pope said it and I KNEW that he cannot see the Bears for the trees. Now Baroness Warsi quotes him (in her speech about bigotry) and kosher pigs fly.

Do these people set out to make us laugh? Is it a vendetta against the blood pressure of poor Dawkins?

For all the years that I paid any attention to religious poppycock, it was made plain, that FAITH IS A LEAP! A leap into the unknown, off the precipice, to be BORNE UP by Jesus. Hence faith is the opposite of reason. Douglas Adams (peas and potato be upon him) wrote of an occasion, upon which God was proved by reason to exist, such that he was annihilated - much as matter and antimatter.

Ah well, women just can't do logic - can they. Warsi clearly no exception.

"IT TAKES ON A LIFE OF ITS OWN AND NO LONGER NEEDS TO BE JUSTIFIED" (#50)

You should all read the Warsi speech, while remembering that (like Coulson) the Baroness is a 'Dave's Delight'.

Here's the question: Is my title quote referring to a FAITH or a PHOBIA? Hard to tell eh?

NN blogdogs?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349478/BBC-online-axes-hundreds-job-corporation-halves-website-operation.html

52..Heavens no! Save our Blogdogs NOW!

But then again....are we being entirely fair to those who would benefit if we let the Blogdogs off their leash and they found some new and more fulfilling employment?

Mmmm!Er...it`s not that easy to think of an occupation that fully utilises their particular skill set...now Guantanamo Health Resort looks set to close!

@ Ecolizzy #52 - Thanks for the article! This explains why Newsnight is on Facebook - to cut costs...... Isn't it ridiculous, when ALL TV channels are going online, the BBC is cutting back. Ho hum :p

Blair Crusade

so to speak politically is not the same as speaking legally?

Did NN have the work experience trainee running the behind the scenes show?

Day by Day

we get

Madder and Madder

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349691/Equality-madness-Government-spends-30m-discover-preserving-fish-stocks-harms-ethnic-Chinese-hovercraft-discriminate-gays.html

OH WHAT A TANGLED WEB

I never understood why the BBC got caught up in the web anyway. They should have spent more time with Radio and TV - trying to get it right.

It would be nice to know that all those without internet access are no longer being told they can get-more/find-out by 'going online'.
Almost like a public service . . .

WHAT DID THE HOVERCRAFT SAY TO THE HOMOSEXUAL? (#56)

"Look, Just because I've got a skirt doesn't mean I have to let you have my berth."

#57 It would be nice to know that all those without internet access are no longer being told they can get-more/find-out by 'going online'.
Almost like a public service . . .

Yup all 9 million of them Barrie! Some public service 'eh?!

LET THEM EAT CAKE!

Austerity Mum's £3.4m new home
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/propertynews/8276061/Austerity-Mums-3.4m-new-home.html

No comment

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8275937/Gay-lessons-in-maths-geography-and-science.html

ZOO BEHAVIOURS I HAVE KNOWN (#61 link)

Alternative Penguins in Central Park Zoo eh?

Zoo maths: "If a demented Tiger paces the side of its cage, a thousand times per 24 hour day, at three miles per hour, and the cage is 30 feet on a side, how far does the Tiger travel in a year. (Neglect the fact that the Tiger is sick some of the time, and humanely shot after 7 months."

Compare and contrast zoo behaviour in Tigers and Penguins.

DO NOT DESCRIBE any ape behaviour (marks will be deducted).

THE UNBELIEVABLY UNBELIEVABLE RIGHT HONOURABLE ANTHONY BLAIR

"It would have been better to have corrected it in the light of the significance it later took on."

That was Blair's response to yet another confrontation with '45 MINUTES'. It stands up to no scrutiny at all. His (government) silence, in the face of massive, multiple headlines WAS A CONSTRUCTIVE ACT calculated to mislead - a corrupt act. Had Campbell been instructed, he would have sworn at the press till a correction was printed.

The 'error' was engineered, the silence: deceit by default.

In passing, I notice Blair is STILL being addressed as RIGHT HONOURABLE.
How ironic. He has forfeited all rectitude and honour. Only in the culturally corrupt ethos of the British Establishment, could such a charade endure.

Weep Britain.

OK Barrie we have wept....so what now?
I can`t pretend to like Blair but let`s ask ourselves what is behind his behaviour...other than the self-serving ambition that you have to possess to get anywhere near Downing Street today?

Like all products of boarding schools Blair entered adulthood with a belief that his very survival depended on grovelling and toadying to whoever holds the power in the dormitary you presently inhabit....or taking charge of the dorm yourself!

Principles and values and morals come a poor second to doing what gets you by....in an emotionally and psychologically damaging environment.

In Britain today we cultivate a myth that we are an independent nation....or would be if we could just escape from the EU. Sadly, that`s rubbish.We have been a virtual satellite of the USA since we were bankrupted by WW2....and EVERY politician has to know that and find ways to act upon it if they want a successful career.

Blair`s strategy was to embrace the role and take active and obvious pleasure in rubbing our noses in his complete contempt for our fantasy of independence and our absurd Labour Party.

The moment he got into Downing Street his government and the BBC and the City of London and the Foreign Office were directed to get out there and prostrate themselves before the god of America and do whatever the USA wanted.But...Barrie...in the end he was only doing what any other politician would have found themselves having to do or get deposed by the media and a Wall Street engineered financial crisis.

Mrs Thatcher never quite caught on to this ...and though she destroyed British industry for the benefit of Wall street she did also have a Falkland`s War with America`s friend Argentina....and worse still she looked like pulling us out of Europe at times...and we are America`s milch cow and Trojan Horse in the EU...as De Gaulle knew we would be.

'48. At 5:53pm on 22 Jan 2011, Mindys_Housemate wrote:
#41 junkkmale:

"Instead of ...

Another telling quote. Thanks for sharing.

'...me, i would **LOVE** to have a NN evening where all the reporters and journalists of NN just sit around and discuss what THEY see as happening.'

Well, that is your prerogative, and pretty close to being a desire fulfilled. One to meet your approval because you feel well represented?

Sadly, not one I share. Because, too often, I do not. Through poor professional service delivery (really NOT keen on editorial being subsequently edited all the time, especially by stealth. It's plain dishonest) and altogether too many departures from objectivity.

'...when the corporate media is not telling us the truth, i quite like it that the NN journalists DO explain things.'

This would be because of your faith in the BBCorporation as opposed to others you are less keen on?

Mr. Sissons' piece has rather highlighted the inevitability of, and dangers from shared views becoming insular and tribally incapable of self-awareness or criticism.

I am glad you like 'it'. And can see why you would be keen to see the unique funding that maintains 'it' to continue.

Sadly I, with a different view, am not so keen.

It seems I am merely required to cofund those views promoted and shared by others (with an odd twist on democratic process at play, ranging from no vote in a hundred years, to representation - oddly high % of Guardian guests vs. those from other sources really not considered the 'proper' voice of opinion to help the British public with 'explanations'), which seems a poor choice at best.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

STONE WALLS DO NOT A PRISON MAKE NOR IRON BARS A CAGE (#64)

What to do next? As we have different starting points Jim, you must answer that for yourself.

I stood for Parliament in 2005, not to win (!) but to put down a marker and erect a 'point of leverage'. I also put my money where my mouth is.
Being an optimistic pessimist (on a good day) I prowl my notional cell, looking for weak spots in the imprisoning structure.

Shortly I shall send the Conservative 'liar flyer' to the Agent of my MP, as he has a duty, in law, to ensure none are broken. As always when presenting the flyer, I shall ask him to explain how to read it as TRUE.
I am considering asking Newbury (one way or another) if anyone was influenced by the flyer, to vote Conservative (as it directed). I hold the view that that would establish UNDUE INFLUENCE under the act.

I have until May 4th to make a complaint to the police (1 year limitation) and over four years to make a serious nuisance of myself to the Coalition.

I am also considering reviving 'the pamphlet', freely distributed to shoppers going for a coffee, as a means of raising interests and awareness (with other miscellany).

Come the next election, I shall be out in the streets (as I was 2010) not canvassing but causing people to question what they are doing, and if it is democracy etc.

And the rest of my life's my own.

WHEN INDIGENOUS COLLOQUIALISMS ARE NO LONGER OURS TO FREELY USE (#66)

#67 is #66 with a well-known, illustrative, saying removed from after the word 'TRUE'. The link below might give some clue to why the uninitiated, in our ways, would remove it.

https://unity1.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife-the-quran-hadith-and-domestic-violence/

I am not a delighted field-rodent.

67 Barrie...Have been thinking about your post and it strikes me that you are expecting too much of politicians and moderators and their like.

What do we both know about working with other people? That for a group of people to function effectively as a team each person has to give up a degree of autonomy and work towards a common purpose.

In the case of our politicians.... they are constrained and moulded by the powerful influence of the USA and the need to pretend we are still an independent nation....and no political party can hope to win elections at the moment unless they keep up that pretence.

In fact Blair,Brown and Peter Mandelson almost gave the game away by being so totally non-socialist and devoted to the rich and to America.....and they did also bring in freedom of information laws which gave ferrets like us a better grasp of what was going on behind the scenes than we we ever had before.Would the Tories have exposed the expenses scandal?

And how many real socialists or Tories want us chained to the neoliberal EU?

Would you and I be any more honest and open and transparent if we were party whipped MP`s...I doubt it...though we might really want to kick over the traces ....but it just wouldn`t be a realistic option on a regular basis.

Worcester`s first Labour MP was no more use to us than the line of Tories before him.....yet I would wager that even an old bolshie b. like me would have been equally crushed by the Westminster mafia.

In reality the House of Commons is just a collective of politicians ....effectively operating as a rather powerless one part group.....while the executive does largely what the Americans and Wall Street oblige it to do....regardless of which party is alleged to be "in power".

You probably know this ...but I notice on the Total Politics website there`s an article about "Martin Bell`s Independent`s Network"...and they sound like your sort of chaps! Toodle Pip! And don`t forget to read Private Eye.

YEAH YEAH (#67)

Hi Jim - thanks for directions. I am an Eye subscriber of many years (my only sub).

I did not know Bell had set that up (IN). I would like to see a bit less prescription in The Nolan Principles. Just a requirement for integrity, and eschewal of 'de facto honour', would do me. Incidentally I wrote to Bell - no reply.

We seem to be in thrall to so many power-bases (none we dare name apart from your bete noir) that I choose to tilt at a Barrie-scale windmill. In truth, as the Vogon guard said: "Resistance is useless".

I am still chortling at the Blogdog clang over HYSBYW @66. How jumpy can we get. When I Googled, I just could not believe my eyes at the crass hijack. Of course, I seem to remember the Blogdog pounces on 'calling a playing card a playing card'. Another loss to PC.

Oh - it's all going very well.

LIGHT BLUE TOUCH PAPER...AND STAND BACK!

Leaked information not from Wikileaks...
https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/23/palestine-papers-expose-peace-concession

When this firework goes off we may not have anywhere to stand that`s far enough away from the explosion...DJ

When Britain lost her empire we should have stopped meddling in the Middle East....but where there`s oil we always seem to find some excuse to be interfering in the politics of the region.

Perhaps if we had used our own oil instead of selling it we could have kept clear?

Not enough profit in that for the multinationals I suppose?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#71: DJ, the Palestinian people are already fully aware of this, it is news mainly in the West, where despite Israel's constant invasions of its neighbours, its openly boasted about and obvious ethnic cleansing, its flouting of every International law, even its attacks on unarmed civilian aid convoys, still there are some people who honestly believe Israel is seeking peace.

this was the reason Hamas won the free elections, and this was the reason the West and Israel removed Hamas from the political arena and ONLY talked to the PLO/Fatah.

the details may be shocking to some, but most Palestinians have known the basic outline of what is happening behind the scenes.

what will this report change?? :(


barrie: i am reading an old book, 'The Sleaze File' by Judith Cook. Written in the 90s, it examines (by academics but in very readable language), the activities of the last Conservative Govt (them being the Govt when the book was written).

OM[B]G.

very much recommended, and re: your earlier comments, there is a very interesting section on electoral fraud. "Shocking", is what springs to mind.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sleaze-File-Clean-British-Politics/dp/0747521832/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1295840886&sr=8-1

#73 attemped repost, part 1:

Subject:
Friday 21 January 2011

Posting:
#49 barrie: "Blair has the Manichean view of the world - a struggle between good and evil. He clearly believes he is to lead us the 'Last Battle'".

ahhh, the classic "Christ v Anti-Christ", so promoted by the Catholic Patriarchal Autocracy, where apparently the "anti-Christ" struggles for global peace, and "The Redeemer" comes along and blows the World up instead. An 'interesting' version of possible events, yet not really one i find particularly likely. Apart from the unfortunate possibility that lunatics and the mentally challenged will believe in it and try to make it real.

of course, what they *actually* want (B'Liar, Bush n Co), is to return to a mythical paradise of feudalism, where they and their descendants are top-dogs forever.

this, apparently, counts as "Good" in Catholic B'Liars view. Hopefully, most of us have different ideas, and will ignore this historic piece of bi-polar propaganda.


#50: "FAITH AND REASON GO HAND IN HAND".

actually, they *can* do. But when B'liar says so...


"A leap into the unknown, off the precipice, to be BORNE UP by Jesus. Hence faith is the opposite of reason."

mystical Christianity is not the only Faith out there! -- Thankfully.

Nor do most mystical-Christians agree with B'Liars acts and decisions.


"Ah well, women just can't do logic - can they."

actually, most *people* cannot do logic, gender seems to have little effect, beyond education levels (and any gender gap in there). I have always found it curious that the basics of logic are not taught in State schools... i wonder why. And i will bet a small fortune that they are also excluded from this old Tory notion of "Baccalaureates", ie "core subjects" that appear to exclude the physical sciences, instead concentrating upon 'cheap-to-teach' book topics. Parrot learning, cheap and nasty 'education'.

i wonder why.

'Nasty' right-wingers always slash education budgets drastically. There is a strong link between further education, and growing liberalism in thoughts and beliefs... hmmm.

*perhaps* that has something to do with growing abilities in logic? The Church forbid that the peasantry learn to think critically for themselves!


#52 Lizzie: yet another revealing article, thank you!

"The cuts come following last year’s strategy review and after years of concern from commercial rivals about the growing dominance of BBC Online"

we have to wonder who runs this country, Sky, The Govt, or the Public? The Beebs "commercial rivals" are annoyed the Public enjoy the BBC's services too much? Their inferior products can't compete?

where are all those fine words about "free markets" now? The Public pay over 4x the amount of money to Sky for their sport and crappy 'lifestyle' shows, than they do the BBC, yet it seems that this is not enough money for Sky to be able to compete "equally". Perhaps because the BBC is RUN FOR THE PUBLIC, whereas Sky is run purely to enrich one family, and promote their views across our entire media?


"An insider said: ‘This will directly address the concerns of creep and also concerns that the BBC has become too big. It is about addressing the size and scale of the operation.’"

so... its OK for Sky to aim for a monopoly, but PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTING must be slashed?? And probably the BEST Public Service Broadcasting in the World?

the Murdochs are a cancer upon the body-politic, thankfully OUR GOVT is still independent, their decisions not influenced by MURDOCHIAN 'advisers'.

oh, wait.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

part 3:


#65: Junkk - lol, the quote was from YOUR earlier post!! :P

"This would be because of your faith in the BBCorporation as opposed to others you are less keen on? "

the BBC is a non-private, non-profit Corporation. In fact, this is exactly what the "Corporate" business structure was set up to be. This is why some (perhaps older) people still refer to Council Housing as "Corporation-built", because they were built under a local-Govt-controlled corporation.

"Corporations" do have a place, but NOT as privately held, profit-making, tax-avoiding monopolistic Global behemoths. Imho.


"Mr. Sissons' piece has rather highlighted the inevitability of, and dangers from shared views becoming insular and tribally incapable of self-awareness or criticism."

oh, i very much agree. However such criticisms are generally FAR more apt when thrown at the Corporate media, because at least the BBC has to show SOME lip-service to multiple views. Privately held media does not. In fact the biggest dangers facing the BBC are too much Govt dictat, especially forcing the BBC to 'tone down' any criticism of their actions, and the dangers caused by the BBC's controllers in Downing St hanging on to Murdoch's coat-tails, never mind the service to the Public who pay for it.

the BBC is infinitely more vulnerable to public opinion than any of its competitors, which tends to keep it in check also.


"I am glad you like 'it'. And can see why you would be keen to see the unique funding that maintains 'it' to continue."

actually, i can foresee a very different funding model on the horizon, and one that WON'T involve the BBC being broken up, and hived off to Sky. Nor will it leave the BBC in the position of being controlled by advertisers, either.

and the final benefit is that foreign viewers will also pay for the quality of BBC programming, as well as 'home' viewers.

but the private media Corporations will fight such a change tooth and nail.

until then however, the BBC is producing 90% of the most watched shows in the UK, it is one of the leading News organisations in the world, it is (was?) one of the best net-based services, widely acknowledged to be a leader in the field, it is a global brand-name that IS still British, and British-owned, and it is one of the few things we British have truly excelled in, without our Govt and general ruling-class incompetence managing to destroy it.

yet it manages to do all this on less than 1/4 of a years subscription to Sky.

once this Govt sells off the NHS to US 'health' companies, schools to US 'prison and security' corporations, and the BBC to Sky, our military forces are effectively US mercenary troops, and our children in permanent, and unpayable debt to global corporate banks, the only thing we will have left to sell is our politicians souls.

unfortunately, as we will then discover....

yes, i like and admire the BBC, despite its many faults. And i am proud to be from the culture that created, and continually recreates the BBC. And although having to pay for something is irritating, not having anything *WORTH* paying *FOR* is infinitely worse, - if you are intelligent, and enjoy mass media.


imagine a UK with only Sky-controlled TV channels. All media controlled by one family, all public discourse controlled, elections even more of a farce. No criticism allowed, else you WILL be targeted for tabloid smears.

personally, that is not the kind of UK that i want to leave for future generations. For one, because in the Murdoch controlled US and Australia, there is NOTHING like the Chilcott Enquiry happening, because Murdoch didn't want there to be, and the politicians were too scared to cross him.


"It seems I am merely required to cofund those views promoted and shared by others (with an odd twist on democratic process at play, ranging from no vote in a hundred years, to representation - oddly high % of Guardian guests vs. those from other sources really not considered the 'proper' voice of opinion to help the British public with 'explanations'), which seems a poor choice at best."

yeah, life sucks, and then you die. I'm sorry that you have to join in paying for the BBC, just as you do for schooling, health, roads, street-lights, defence, refuse collection, foreign wars, Echelon, MI5, customs and excise, 'The War on Drugs', MPs expenses, and cleaning the streets.

of course, we could privatise the lot, as it seems his Govt is intending to do, and then you won't have to pay taxes at all.

so, instead you will pay 5x the cost, for a corporate service a 10th of the quality. And with no transparency, or accountability. But hey, if that level of idiocy and wilful ignorance of the Corporate ethos is what swings your boat...

attempted repost #76, part 1:

Subject:
Friday 21 January 2011

Posting:

#54 Mistress: "Isn't it ridiculous, when ALL TV channels are going online, the BBC is cutting back. Ho hum :p"

you voted for the bunch forcing this through, didn't you? After all, this is hardly the BBC's own choice. At a time when the BBC is virtually a lone creator of superb UK drama and news, with the very real chance of British media being the global leader, the Murdoch's demand the BBC gets hacked back, because Sky simply cannot compete with British excellence.

first they demand some of the BBC's well-spent monies for their own low-quality [bleep] - and profits(!), and then they demand the BBC gets forcibly slashed in size. Next step is undoubtedly a demand that the more potentially profitable services are sold out to tender...

after all, the UK is broke! And this Govt will ensure that even if it isn't now, it will be as soon as they can achieve it.

although, to be fair to the Tories, they only seem to do so when one of their cronies can make money off it. They do not seem like Chimpy Bush, who gloried in the destruction of his own economy apparently for the 'Hell' of it.

but i could be wrong on that, unfortunately. :(


#56 Lizzie, another apparently skewed article. Firstly, i would probably agree that some of this legislation may go too far, i haven't read it, but i am aware of the trend of NuLabour. Sometimes i thought, quite seriously, that they were going so far out to discredit the actual hard work that goes into Equality Legislation.

however, this article deliberately seems to expanding the entire costs of various necessary investigations onto one small part of the studies. But then, it IS the Mail.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

[sighs, THAT was the problem?? Jeez!]

repost part 2:

if such lessons *can* reduce homophobia in Christians, Muslims, and general society, £35,000 seems like a small price to pay. The cost of a single trial for a violent homophobic attack would cost vastly more than that. Plus, its purely optional, just guidelines on how to break the exclusionary focus on heterosex in lessons. I have to wonder, are there not more pressing issues facing the UK population than a mere £35,000 spent on lesson-plan guidelines?

if this is how the UKs mass media behave, with only 60m people to look for small isolated 'incidents' to focus on as 'headlines', i shudder to think of the kind of banality that American media must drown in.

Still Murdoch has control of a very large share of the US media market, and i'm certain that the quality of his media is uplifting the Americans tremendously, as he does in Australia. That's why the whole world regards the quality of American News, and the grasp of issues by the US Population, with such envy and high regard.

[uncrosses fingers].

seriously though, this is hardly headlines stuff. Pre-sexual awareness kids won't think anything of it, especially as with so many families being split up today, having "2 dads" is hardly uncommon. Much as the Telegraph may hate that.


#60 DJ: just as with the Bankers, and Tories... "We are All in this Together!!!"

austerity is great - for the poor.

I agree with Mork`s general theory about the dangers of our media being owned by whoever has most money ..but wonder if his approach to this discussion will win many converts to his point of view?

Seriously now,we do have to appreciate how powerful the brainwashing of British folk has been ....and over many generations. We have somehow turned ourselves from being pirates and slavers into squeaky clean saviours of the world!

How was that achieved? By what used to be called usury or moneylending...and stopping slaving of one kind ..but exporting slavery (and our worker`s jobs) to Asia.Well look who is lending all the money now!!

We need what Americans call a serious reality check about what has brought us our relative prosperity and civilised culture...and to start using a little humility about the damage our lifestyles and culture and wealth is doing to other people....both here and abroad.

Our present political debates completely ignore underlying issues and give us no opportunity to challenge the real injustices in the world.

Mork is right...privatising the media is no answer to that problem......but neither is having a vastly expensive americanised neoliberal BBC!

NATURE LOVES STEREOTYPES AND STASIS - NATURAL WISDOM

Every aspect of natural life lives in a dynamic equilibrium with the planet - except us. HomSap is the derivative Credit Default Swap of life.

Even Sky will fall.

DOWN WITH CLEVERNESS

OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF KNAVES AND MUCK-KINGS

In passing: When Campbell and Galloway locked horns (how appropriate) on Question Time, Campbell said "and that was shameful AS WELL, in weak riposte to Galloway’s allegation. In using 'as well', Campbell aligned IN SHAMEFULNESS 'blooded hands' of himself and Blair, with crass utterance (addressing Sadam) of Galloway.

On Andrew Marr's Sunday programme, no sooner had Nick Clegg dismissed his broken promises in the words: "people rewrite history to suit", than he reprised the non-sequitur: "we went into coalition because it was what the voters wanted". So that's sorted.

77. At 04:03am on 24 Jan 2011, Mindys_Housemate wrote... and at length, often. In fact, as I write (others may post this morning prior) for the last 7 posts in sequence.

Shows... commitment at least.

But hey, if that level of idiocy and wilful ignorance of the Corporate ethos is what swings your boat...

And it was all going so well. Disagreeing, but based on fact and argument. Then that hard to resist escalation based on a belief that no other can, or should have another view. Seems oddly familiar. Especially if having an intimate knowledge of 'Corporate ethos' to the point of worship is not in some quarters deemed a little bit creepy. Must be a hoot sharing certain homes with that level of shaky pedestal rhetoric over the breakfast table. Degrees of idiocy can he highly subjective, and fraught to invoke, as they can reflect more on those who deploy them too casually, especially during blog debates. Best left to others to assess. I merely note that Mr. Sissons was a long-term employee and, on presumes, familiar with 'how things were and are done'. He would appear to be one of those whistleblowers that some don't like as much as they do others.

#65: Junkk - lol, the quote was from YOUR earlier post!! :P

And so good, it has now been recycled 4 times! Guessing no issues with the substance then?

'...the BBC is a non-private, non-profit Corporation."

The semantic book definition is noted. But then, what is said, or written, as 'should be' can so often be at odds with reality. What 'is'. Depending on perspective, of course. The BBC Charter is a great read. As are the editorial Guidelines (mentioned below).

"Corporations" do have a place, but NOT as privately held, profit-making, tax-avoiding monopolistic Global behemoths. Imho.

Ho, ho. One person's humble opinion is another's observation on possession of rose-tinted glasses.

However such criticisms are generally FAR more apt when thrown at the Corporate media,

And, with justification, they are. Thing is, knowing where many are coming from does enable one to frame a lot in context. And punish with withdrawal of support. Or ad eyeballs/ears. The BBC does rather persist in the notion that it is entirely impartial and incapable of being anything but. At best using 100 years of past glory and a £4B ad/PR budget to spin a brand that is in reality not really like that. Especially these days.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/2010/10/new-bbc-editorial-guidelines-l.shtml

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/09/impartiality_is_in_our_genes.html

Sadly both these now closed and, some might feel, rather prematurely. Especially the latter, and with near zero of the promised answers promised materialising.

...because at least the BBC has to show SOME lip-service to multiple views. Privately held media does not.

Whilst agreeing with some of the first sentence, I would suggest that market forces and professional credibility may guide the latter more, and more effectively, than what the former seems to concede, 'has to' do. And poor delivery of 'lip-service', at best, seems a rather poor service standard to be seeking to maintain, especially to the tune of £4Bpa and in demanding uncritical trust and support.

In fact the biggest dangers facing the BBC are too much Govt dictat,

No argument. Short term. One might hazard the internet, and consequent plethora of sources of all that can be streamed, is another. Which is why some are already a wee bit wary of the need to pay merely for the ability to receive a signal. Another unique the BBC sits astride in the global village it so often celebrates.

'.. especially forcing the BBC to 'tone down' any criticism of their actions, and the dangers caused by the BBC's controllers in Downing St hanging on to Murdoch's coat-tails, never mind the service to the Public who pay for it.'

One presumes here you mean the Downing Street controllers currently in office, with whom you are less enamoured, as opposed to those who not so long ago were in power, and for a considerable period. A period one does recall, when aspects (and influential ones, at that) of the 'empire' were also in a supportive frame of mind for a while. The views on Mr. Murdoch seem to have waxed and waned in certain quarters depending very much on the fidelity and heft of such affiliations. Unsurprising. Hardly laudable. Or with much professional integrity. Acting as a default opposition because the current political version is so dire, seems to be stretching the remit of an objective national broadcaster in many eyes.

'...the BBC is infinitely more vulnerable to public opinion than any of its competitors, which tends to keep it in check also.'

"Vulnerable"? Not sure I can see much evidence for that. 'Sensitive', maybe. And unlike a politician, who has a serious career review every 5 years or so, 'the BBC' (if the vastness and diversity of its makeup can be so encapsulated) is pretty much ensured of a guarantee existence into the foreseeable future. Few media entities in competitive arenas that actually involve more familiar measures of competitive success enjoy this.

'...actually, i can foresee a very different funding model on the horizon, and one that WON'T involve the BBC being broken up, and hived off to Sky. Nor will it leave the BBC in the position of being controlled by advertisers, either.

and the final benefit is that foreign viewers will also pay for the quality of BBC programming, as well as 'home' viewers.

An interesting prospect. Care to amplify?

but the private media Corporations will fight such a change tooth and nail.

If contrary to their interests, only to be expected. A bit like the BBC's advocacy in decisions regarding those which might affect their own. A hard one to steer without conflict.

'... the BBC is producing 90% of the most watched shows in the UK, it is one of the leading News organisations in the world, it is (was?) one of the best net-based services, widely acknowledged to be a leader in the field, it is a global brand-name that IS still British, and British-owned, and it is one of the few things we British have truly excelled in, without our Govt and general ruling-class incompetence managing to destroy it.'

If independently verified, I see no reason to argue with any factual claims you make in this press release. As to the subjective ones, well, I fear I must seek leave to follow another path. And invoking the 'British' aspect is interesting, as there is indeed a national affiliation. Do I feel that, in many areas, the BBC speaks for me as a Brit? Er, no. So, again, I seem bound to an eternal messenger who does not well represent me.

'...yet it manages to do all this on less than 1/4 of a years subscription to Sky.,'

I sense this is a fruitless area to engage in, but I actually watch a fair bit on SKY (if finding the news as dire, for different reasons, as the BBC's efforts), so I don't mind paying for it, having been given that option. I like to glean entertainment and information from a screen. So on top of that price, paying a tax for content I am not so keen on, or finding actively compromised, seems an unfair imposition.

once this Govt sells off the NHS to US 'health' companies, schools to US 'prison and security' corporations, and the BBC to Sky, our military forces are effectively US mercenary troops, and our children in permanent, and unpayable debt to global corporate banks, the only thing we will have left to sell is our politicians souls.

Where our taxes are spent is a complex interaction between the voter and politician. based on priorities and often selfish interest. With societal compassion in the mix to compensate.

But let's consider real-life necessity vs. entertainment and 'information'.

I fear health, education, home affairs and defence seem a smidge more valid to me that the right of some to watch Eastenders or pay off Mr. Ross' production company to ensure a senior exec maintains his market rate bonus. Or to get 'news' which is in fact now mainly the 'views' of those a rather murky cabal in production and editorial mandate.

In respect of reader representation, how often does one see a BBC story commented upon by one from the Sun or Mail vs. one from the Guardian or New Statesman? Why? The trend for one-degree-of-separation proxy mouthpieces of corporate views that would not be allowed is a sorry downward spiral.

The rest of what you write is your opinion, and valid enough for all that. I just happen not to share it. Relative possession of 'intelligence' notwithstanding.

Invoking the Murdoch boogeyman does seem rather extreme, especially in claiming Britain is now the only bastion of democratic free speech because of the BBC, as if these counties have succumbed to some of 'dark side'. From what I can see, there are thriving combatative media voices in all those countries still. They seem to be managing OK. Again, acting as a counter to the Telegraph, Mail or Times (I've added two more non Murdochs for 'balance) seems beyond the BBC's remit, somehow, and making that claim only embeds notions that it is anything but impartial.

yeah, life sucks, and then you die. I'm sorry that you have to join in paying for the BBC, just as you do for schooling, health, roads, street-lights, defence, refuse collection, foreign wars, Echelon, MI5, customs and excise, 'The War on Drugs', MPs expenses, and cleaning the streets.

Well worth the repeat, I am sure. If insincere. I will merely again point out the difference between necessity and desire. Not sure the attitude inherent in the first phrase will win many converts, but good luck with that.

It's one that, currently, sees you happily getting what you want, co-funded, uniquely, by me and others, who are less thrilled.

And, when politely challenged, finding it hard to resist talking down with snide comment and the arrogance of entrenched privilege. A bit like the problem some have with much from the BBC.

Let's see how that principle continues successfully.

In concluding I also notice that, to date, no comment or feedback on the odd notion of retroactive editorial changing. Like I say.... a poor precedent. As is editorial by omission. Another day in paradise.

Well this thread is more like the paradise I seek...... than the illusion of life after death so many are brainwashed into accepting as a substitute for a decent life in the here and now.

A lot of the JM and MH detail is beyond my ken ....but I sense that at long last a realistic and intelligent argument is being joined.

I thank you all.What a relief!

'WHAT HE SAID' (#85)

I concur with Jim (though my quote - from memory - is Stan 'agreeing' with Olly).

I would add Jim himself and a few, less frequent, posters to the list of cogent, erudite and agreeably-opinionated contributors.

Carry on Posting.

Humiliation of the Americans is know complete.
A chinese pianist plays a tune at the whitehouse

https://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/49822/

87 Well perhaps not Kev....because if you examine what is making China great again it`s a "Made in America" capitalist revolution.

And it comes complete with the magic that makes for capitalist success and growth....usury...slavery...and "communist" "liberal" authoritarianism that delivers power directly to the rich ...and keeps the poor firmly in their place ...hungry desperate and working very hard to stay alive!

Only the American public could seriously imagine China is a communist country!

'...the odd notion of retroactive editorial changing. Like I say.... a poor precedent. As is editorial by omission.'

With some lack of surprise, if sadness, especially for the cause of free speech, I sense my concerns may be soon resolved. Even if the baby and bathwater do share the same fate. Conveniently.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12265173

'Refocusing priorities'

There will be fewer news blogs while standalone forums, communities and message-boards will be reduced and replaced with integrated social tools.

I may be wrong, but suspect an 'integrated social tool', if different to a blog or forum (Google struggled to help explain further), may possibly be either satisfyingly unidirectional again (ie: here's what we think you need to think) or, if interactive, find even more filters applied than already (ie: 'we want your views: 'here's some we like').

Start a new blog Junkie ....based on this... but free of BBC moderation?

junkk, thank you for your erudite and inspired response, i agree with more of what you wrote than you would probably guess.

"and the final benefit is that foreign viewers will also pay for the quality of BBC programming, as well as 'home' viewers.

An interesting prospect. Care to amplify?"

i wouldn't mind to do so, but not on an "open channel", due to various factors. Any way to chat in privacy?

re the murdochracy:

https://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2010/03/pilger-australia-murdoch-media

if we lose our PSB, this IS the future for the UK.