By clicking Publish you indemnify B-BBC and accept full legal responsibility for your comments
Jack Hughes:
A reputable and impartial broadcasting corporation should have some editorial guidelines for this kind of thing.
Probably along the lines of "if a politician or ex-politician is in the news, then tell the public his/her party".
Maybe they should be more cautious about using party nicknames as well. In fact its only ever the tories that get called by their nickname - we never hear of "the peoples party" or any other nicknames.
TAoL Reincarnated:
Keen New Labour-watchers will know that Hull has been mired in sleaze for aeons now. However, that fine part of the world only appears on the BBC's radar screen when a suspected paedophile or John Prescott are involved (the two are not related).
Anon:
Only conseravtive councillors mentioned by party:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...and/
2481339.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...and/
2847453.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...don/
4081630.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...and/
2206268.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...ter/
3437911.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...don/
5065958.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/progr...how/
4419443.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales...les/
1141519.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...and/
1842663.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po...tics/
346224.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/news/
s...ouncillor.shtml
[From subsequent comments it is clear that not everyone understood that "only conservative councillors mentioned by party" was sarcastic. In fat these links show BBC stories where Labour councillors were mentioned by party - NS.]
Edited By Siteowner
Anonymous:
It's not just a UK thing - the Beeb likes to cover for its Democrat friends in the US while always naming GOP offenders:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...cas/
2162732.stm
Kulibar Tree:
Jack Hughes:
To be fair, "Tories" isn't a nickname, but the party's original name (from the 1670s, I think); it only changed to Conservative under Sir Robert Peel, in the 1840s. I think it's rather nice that the name's lasted so long, especially since their opponents at the time, The Whigs, later transmuted into the Liberals, and have now disappeared as a separate party.
Cheers.
Kulibar Tree:
Correction - the name changed as a result of the Tamworth Manifesto, 1834.
Cheers.
Anon:
Anonymous - it's not even a UK thing as the various links show. In each case, the guilty councillor is identified by party, Labour.
Anonymous:
Anon - can you find cases on the Beeb where the Conservative affiliation was NOT mentioned? That would be more impressive.
TAoL Reincarnated:
In my (very limited) experience, I cannot recall this being a Beeb tendency.
The Inglis affair seem to be a one-off and, actually, I think there are much bigger stories of sleaze and corruption in Hull.
I did notice that the Beeb was slightly backwards in coming forwards when postal voting was the issue du jour, a year or two ago. The well documented (and less documented) accusations of postal-vote fraud tended to occur in (a) Labour metropolitan areas (Brum, Bradford, Oldham, Burnley, Leicester) and (b) in the 'Asian community'. This aspect was seldom, if ever, pointed out - ex-Auntie man Rod Liddle was an exception. I expect the Beeb was wary of making this connection lest it incurred the wrath of lobby-groups, quangoes and professionals in the race relations industry.
pete:
Has anyone one noticed that when a prisoner escapes the BBC always tell us if he was in the custody of a privately run prison. If he escapes from one run by the state prison service the BBC never mentions who runs the prison.
Alan (the other one):
TAoL Reincarnated:
You see this what's problematic about B-BBC. You just make a statement, a series of personal thoughts and hey presto instant evidence for the BBC's bias.
In fact the Today programme ran a sequence on the exact point you raise, with a report by Rajesh Mirchandani. It wouldn't surprise me to learn if there were other reports like this on TV too (I don't know that for a fact, it's just a feeling. How very BBBC of me!)
Seriously though, just because you don't hear or see something doesn't mean the BBC didn't cover it.
Anon:
"Anon - can you find cases on the Beeb where the Conservative affiliation was NOT mentioned? That would be more impressive."
Compare and contrast:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...ire/
3583438.stm
http://society.guardian.co.uk/
lo...1291471,00.html
John Reith:
So let's recap.
Natalie posts accusing the BBC of bias in its reporting of dodgy councillors with criminal records.
Citing as a motive a desire to protect 'its beloved Labour Party'.
Anon demonstrates (with the aid of no fewer than 11 examples) that this slur is unfounded.
He/she is challenged to find a case where a Tory is not identified by political affiliation.
(Presumably the same) Anon finds one.
No retraction from Natalie. Not a word from Jack Hughes, who swallowed the original slur whole.
Business as usual at B-BBC.
GCooper:
John Reith writes:
"Business as usual at B-BBC."
Actually, what's far more like 'business as usual' here is John Reith popping up to snipe at a single target, claiming that disproves any evidence of BBC bias - while completely ignoring the countless other posts which demonstrate it beyond doubt.
TAoL Reincarnated:
Alan (the other one),
Thank you for the heads-up. And you are quite correct to point to Rajesh Mirchandani's work.
I am aware of Rajesh's work in this area. He has indeed covered postal-vote fraud in considerable detail in the last year, and he has provided some background into why, culturally, the Asian community is fertile ground for jiggery-pokery in this area.
Of course my message comprises various personal observations. I make no apologies for that.
In my message above, I have claimed no evidence of BBC bias - indeed, I put forward reasons why, in my opinion, the BBC might have been wary of running with stories such as these.
However, up until the time of the Bordesley Green judgment - April 2005 - the BBC seemed reluctant to point out this connection between Asian Muslims in densely-populated urban areas and postal-vote irregularities.
Incidentally, in the news report, the party affiliation of the bent councillors is mentioned.
John Reith:
- while completely ignoring the countless other posts which demonstrate it beyond doubt.
GCooper | 13.07.06 - 4:11 pm | #
The point is they NEVER do 'demonstrate it beyond doubt'.
Andrew Marr's comment still stands:
"We get from time to time people saying you're biased in favour of the Labour Party. Every time I ask people - show me a case of that bias, explain to me where we got it wrong and why what we said was so unfair - they seem to be unable to do so", Andrew Marr, May 11th 2001.
I have yet to see a single instance of clear and sustained bias in favour of the Labour Party demonstrated on this site.
If the BBC were biased in favour of Labour, you should easily be able to show at least one of the following:
* That the BBC gives Labour an easy ride on its delivery of NHS services, exaggerating successes and suppressing evidence of failure.
(You can't do that.)
* That the BBC acts as a cheerleader for NuLab's wonderful record on crime. (You can't do that either.)
* That the BBC hasn't given David Cameron a fair crack of the whip. (You certainly can't claim that.)
You ca't do it on pensions, public transport or education either.
So instead what B-BBC does is come up with crackpot conspiracy theories - the silliest recent one being that the corporation has been deliberately underplaying John Prescott scandals in order to help out its Labour chums. (I seem to remember the most recent sighting of that canard was on the very day of the John Humphrys Prescott interview - though I might be wrong).
And when the BBC does report Prescott stories, what does B-BBC do? It accuses it of using them to deflect attention from other more serious government failings!
Pretend I'm from Missouri....just SHOW ME evidence of BBC-wide, corporate-mindset, sustained pro-Labour bias.
Anonymous:
When challenged thus:
"Anon - can you find cases [note plural] on the Beeb where the Conservative affiliation was NOT mentioned? That would be more impressive."
Anon replies with a single Beeb citation:
Compare and contrast:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...ire/ 3583438.stm
And John Reith hilariously acts like this demolishes Natalie's posting! Labour/left wingers affiliations are often not included - Conservative affiliations are missed by the Beeb, er, once?
makan:
John Reith asks for evidence that the BBC is biased in favour of Labour. I don't actually think the BBC is biased in favour of labour. It equally attacks Labour from the point of view of the left and the Conservatives from the point of view of the left.
John Reith:
"Labour/left wingers affiliations are often not included "
Anonymous | 13.07.06 - 5:19 pm | #
Oh yes they are - as amply demonstrated by your namesake.
He was a Labour councillor for Park Ward between 1995 and 1999.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...and/
2481339.stm
A Labour councillor, put into a Spanish jail for three days after being accused of staging a fake robbery at her hotel, has insisted she is innocent.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...and/
2847453.stm
A Labour councillor who pocketed thousands of pounds from her local authority by lying about her living
circumstances, has been spared jail.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...don/
4081630.stm
A former Labour councillor has been jailed for stealing money intended for needy children in east London.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...don/
5065958.stm
etcetera....
Natalie Solent:
John Reith,
It was Socialism is Necrotising rather than me who cited the BBC "protecting its beloved Labour party" as a motive.
We usually post readers' comments because we think they make good points (as I definitely think this one did in its core contention, the one you say has been disproved - see below) but we don't always agree with every word. (We also sometimes post emails/ comments we disagree with, or have no opinion on.)
As it happens I disagree with SiN's contention that the BBC loves the Labour party. My take is it prefers Labour to the Conservatives, sure, but actually it acts more like it is a party in its own right.
I quite agree with SiN's contention that there is a tendency towards omission or inclusion of the party identification in order to advance a cause. As usual, this probably is a result of separate and often unconscious decisions by individuals who share the same biases rather than a conspiracy.
As I said, I think this tendency has diminished.
But it hasn't gone away, and it definitely exists and has existed. You get to notice certain repeated themes doing a blog like this for a few years, and reading the stories linked to by commenters.
Without even thinking too hard here's one posted by my colleague Ed Thomas a month or so ago: link. Scroll down to "Donnygate."
It can be difficult to google for the omission of a party name, but there have been plenty of others posted here over the years. I'm sure other commenters can recall their own hits.
Natalie Solent:
Our comments crossed, Makan. You said it better than I did.
ninjacat:
John Keith:
"Pretend I'm from Missouri....just SHOW ME evidence of BBC-wide, corporate-mindset, sustained pro-Labour bias."
First time poster here. Love the website.
However, I agree with Keith's assessment that the BBC probably is not giving the Labour Party immunity from criticism by leaving out the name of the party when one of it's politicians (or the party as a whole) screws up royally.
Nonetheless, I do resent Keith's slur against Missourians, as I am very much a resident of that state. A few of us citizens of Missouri (the homestate of that notorious hayseed Mark Twain) actually have functioning brains, and some of us even check out the BBC website from time to time(when we're not busy farming or chasing after UFOs trying to abduct our cows).
Perhaps I am misreading your statement "pretend I am from Missouri", Mr. Keith, and taking offense where none was intended, and, if that is the case, then I certainly apologize. But I do find it humorous that an individual who decries B-BBC's claims of bias possesses clear biases of his own.
Natalie Solent:
To be fair to John Reith, ninjacat, I have always read the saying "I'm from Missouri, you'll have to show me" as portraying Missouri people as sceptical rather than stupid.
John Reith:
Natalie Solent
Quite right regarding Missouri. (certainly no criticism of your home state meant ninjacat).
Wrong again though - and in much the same way as before - about Donnygate.
Donnygate was a complicated story because at least one Conservative was among those prosecuted. I think his name was Dainty and I'm sure he was acquitted.
However, the BBC did frequently identify the Labour councillors who were accused/convicted by their party affiliation.:
A council leader arrested in connection with a corruption enquiry has resigned.
The former Labour leader of Doncaster Council, Malcolm Glover, was arrested at his home on Wednesday.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/222762.stm
Also in the dock is the former Labour deputy leader of Doncaster Council, Ray Stockhill, former Labour planning chairman Peter Birks,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...and/
1749782.stm
The idea that - whether by conspiracy or 'unconscious decisions by individuals who share the same biases' - the BBC sought to keep the party affiliations of corrupt councillors a secret, just doesn't stack up.
No normal person would find the occasional omission of a party label particularly significant or sinister. Particularly when dealing with part of what was widely known as 'the socialist republic of South Yorkshire'.
Those who do tend, like you, to subscribe to the myth that BBC news journalists all share the same political outlook. But the plain fact is that they don't.
Some vote Labour, others for the Lib Dems and others for the Conservative party.
Some are secular in mindset, others religious. Those who are religious come from many different faiths and denominations.
Some are socially conservative. Others libertarian.
Some are temperamentally Atlanticist...others europhile.
Many are open (to colleagues) about their own worldviews/political/philosophical outlooks....others remain enigmas even to their closest co-workers.
I don't see any 'corporate view' or shared agenda.
What's more....there's quite a lot of 2-way traffic between the BBC and newspapers (including...perhaps especially right of centre ones) /other broadcasting organizations.
Many at Sky and ITN once worked for the BBC.
Many at the BBC once worked for the Times, the FT etc.
Where does this alleged 'shared worldview' come from? Do people adopt it as they enter the BBC from wherever they came from and discard it as they leave a few years later for another job somewhere else?
Or is it that it just doesn't exist?
Anonymous:
Reith - that the party affiliation in numerous cases of Labour corruption/vote stealing etc. is cited only proves that there is quite a stench around that party.
The point is that Anon could only find one case (after copious Googling I'm sure) where the Tory/Conservative label was omitted in similar circumstances.
Several times Labour labels have been left out.
See the difference?
Natalie - Missouri is the "Show Me"
state.
John Reith:
anon
You still don't get it do you.
Your namesake, the other anon, responded to the original point of this post by citing 11 links that DID show Labour party labels....thus proving the allegation false.
Someone clutching at straws then asked for cases that omitted the Tory label. Anon came up with one in a trice.
But that was just a final flourish. Natalie's house of cards had already been flattened by 11 examples to the contrary.
THERE IS NO STORY HERE. sorry for shouting, but you are being a bit exasperating. And styling yourself anon doesn't help.
Anonymous:
"Anon came up with one in a trice."
Well, in 3.5 hours. Any luck with a second one?
Remember, finding BBC pages with the Labour label omitted is pretty easy.
GCooper:
John Reith writes:
"The point is they NEVER do 'demonstrate it beyond doubt'."
Demonstrate what, - profound, systemic bias at the BBC, or one narrow aspect of bias?
My own take is broadly similar to Natalie's - that the BBC isn't notably biased in favour of ZaNu Labour.
Indeed, under the rule of St Tony de Bung, the corporation's respone has been to attack it from the Left.
If anything, and if it's party political bias you're talking about, then it would be possible to make a case (a good case) for a pro-Lib/Dem agenda.
So, rather than cooing over Marr's remark, you'd be better tryng to address Jeff Randall's. That's the incontestable bias demonstrated here day in, day out - the relentless Left-liberal, stance that begins with Today and ends with Sailing By.
ninjacat:
It appears, Reith, that I did, in fact, misread your intentions. I apologize and regret my error. And I also, for reasons I cannot understand, called your last name "Keith". I offer a second apology for that.
Perhaps there is some truth to us Missourians lacking considerable intelligence. 
gordon-bennett:
2 points for john reith to note.
1. This discussion, with all it's varying/correcting viewpoints, has taken place without any stealth editing.
2. You say that beeb staff have varied political affiliations over the whole range. Michael Vestey (Radio critic of The Spectator) has mentioned several times in his column that, during the time he worked for the beeb, whenever he raised the right-wing point of view there was a collective, aghast dismissal of any idea that that side of the matter should be broadcast. The beeb's leftie majority simply didn't see right-wing ideas as having any legitimacy then or now.
The beeb is old labour supporting in all its stances such as its attitude to Margaret Thatcher (to this day!), privatisation and the BNP being an extreme right-wing party.
Jack Hughes:
John Reith wrote: "Not a word from Jack Hughes, who swallowed the original slur whole."
Can you elaborate this point a bit - maybe show me where I swallowed anything ?
Here is a clue, I wrote:
"A reputable and impartial broadcasting corporation should have some editorial guidelines for this kind of thing.
Probably along the lines of "if a politician or ex-politician is in the news, then tell the public his/her party".
Maybe they should be more cautious about using party nicknames as well. In fact its only ever the tories that get called by their nickname - we never hear of "the peoples party" or any other nicknames.
Jack Hughes | 13.07.06 - 10:53 am"
Which bit of this is swallowing ?
GCooper:
gordon bennet writes:
"You say that beeb staff have varied political affiliations over the whole range. Michael Vestey (Radio critic of The Spectator) has mentioned several times in his column that, during the time he worked for the beeb, whenever he raised the right-wing point of view there was a collective, aghast dismissal of any idea that that side of the matter should be broadcast."
An experience more than shared by a former colleague of mine who spent some years in BBC news.
Among ex-BBC staff who have been candid about the prevaling weltanschauung at the corporation, I always think of Gillian Reynolds, who has not only been quite candid about the liberal-Left bias, but has actually claimed it is a Good Thing.
AlanF:
I made this complaint but have nowhere to bring it?
How does Biased BBC work? This is posted at the end of a completely unrelated post?
10-o'Clock News I was disturbed by the Sikh cremation item. It was presented by the journalist as somehow negative, these poor Sikhs who had difficulties getting their dead relative cremated, and how unreasonable that was. Then we saw the cremation, the scattering of ashes, er, it happened OK. So why not give this piece a positive spin? First traditional Sikh cremation in 70 years, family delighted! My guess is that the reporter, schooled in typical BBC "Muslims as permanent victims" mode, mixed up her religions. This is the first time I have ever posted here. Can I tell the person who reads this that I despair about the BBC, the way its going. If you always ask the extremists for their opinion, you'll convince the population that all of them are extremists.
Alan F, you can post "off topic" comments on the "Open Threads" that occur every two or three posts.
Edited By Siteowner
PJF:
"But it hasn't gone away, and it definitely exists and has existed."
Natalie, I think there has been sufficient evidence shown in this thread to question the existence of such a tendency. Unless you are willing to do your own research and show that your claim is anything more than a perception, then short of a retraction the least you can do is update the post to mention that a reasonable challenge has been made.
.
PJF:
"Business as usual at B-BBC."
Interesting observation there, John Reith. It strikes me as the opposite - an unusually poor post, based as it is on commenter research rather than a B-BBC blogger's own (sort it out, Natalie!).
Perhaps deep down you think so too, for another way in which it is unusual is in being graced with a response from your good self. Of the sixty-two B-BBC blogger posts that have been made since the site split off the off-topic comments threads in early May, only one other received a comment from you. And that was to offer your whole-hearted support.
In the meantime you’ve been quite active in those off-topic comments threads, targeting the input of other commenters (can’t provide figures because Windows word search crashes in those frighteningly long threads). Given your readiness to challenge generally, one is inclined to conclude that you normally find it difficult to challenge the input of B-BBC bloggers.
Of course, your interaction with the site might be merely for the sheer entertainment value of rattling the cages of the more frothing aspect of the B-BBC commentariat. Nothing wrong with that, but if that is the case then you do look a bit pompously disingenuous dropping in here claiming this post typifies the place. If it did, you’d be all over the easy pickings instead of noticeable by your absence.
.
will:
Perhaps the BBC is seeing the Cameron Conservatives in a new light.
It is a heavy news day, but the BBC could certainly have made more mischief over Cameron breaking his single policy pledge - i.e. to take the Conservatives out of the EPP block.
Anonymous:
Natalie, I think there has been sufficient evidence shown in this thread to question the existence of such a tendency.
Naming the party of offending councillors, MPs, MSPs, Lords, Senators etc. is something that should be done and usually is by the Beeb/other organisations.
However, if that label is missing on Beeb reports it is much more likely to be when the offender is from a party from the left of the political spectrum.
Indeed, Anon/Reith could only find one example of a Tory not having his party affiliation named.
So, I'd say the tendency is alive and well.
Umbongo:
Could I ask the controllers of this blog to discourage people commenting as "Anonymous" so that, at least, there can be a consistency of response. More than one "Anonymous" in a thread just creates confusion which, of course, may be the purpose of the commenter. It is possible to create a nom de blog AND retain anonymity.
Umbongo:
will
But what Cameron is doing is consistent with the BBC agenda of "EU good, euroscepticism bad". Why would the BBC give Cameron a difficult time? I think we would have seen a different BBC response had Cameron announced that withdrawal from the EPP would take place immediately rather than in 2009 (or 2090).
MisterMinit:
gordon-bennett: "The beeb is old labour supporting in all its stances such as its attitude to Margaret Thatcher (to this day!), privatisation and the BNP being an extreme right-wing party."
Name one media organisation that doesn't refer to the BNP as extreme/far right wing. Let's see if we can find one now.
How about The Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
art...2030041,00.html
"Abu Hamza al-Masri and Nick Griffin have, on the surface, nothing in common: the hook-handed, one-eyed, 47-year-old Islamic cleric and the suited, one-eyed, 48-year-old leader of the far-right British National Party detest one another. Only on the subject of Jews might they find ideological agreement."
No. Ok, what about The Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/.../05/05/
ubnp.xml
"Supporters of the far-right BNP claimed the party was "on its way" after seizing 11 of the 13 seats it contested in Barking and Dagenham in east London, and getting councillors elected in Stoke-on-Trent, Sandwell and Solihull in the West Midlands."
No again. What about the Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
pages...in_page_id=1770
"The far-right British National Party has been condemned for using a photograph of the bombed number 30 bus on a leaflet for an upcoming by-election."
And no for the third time.
So are these newspapers "old labour supporting" in this regard then?
Natalie Solent:
PJF,
Since you asked so nicely, there is now an update stating that a reasonable challenge has been mounted.
Natalie Solent:
Anon provided a list of ten instances where the Labour affiliation of councillors who had done wrong was mentioned. A just riposte to Socialism is Necrotizing's list of six where the Conservative affilation had. Advantage: Anon! However in response let me point out that nine of Anon's ten did not mention the Labour angle in the headline. The tenth, that did, just said the guy had quit his council job - you had to look in the story to see he was a fraudster. In contrast two out of SiN's six had the Tories fingered as wrongdoers in the headline.
Two out of six versus one half out of ten is only a tendency - but then I only said it was a tendency. I think it is legitimate to look at headlines specifically, because a lot of people never look past the headline.
Natalie Solent:
John Reith writes, "Those who do tend, like you, to subscribe to the myth that BBC news journalists all share the same political outlook. But the plain fact is that they don't."
All? When have I ever said all? Just most. It's a matter of proportions. Mr Reith then lists many different views that some BBC people hold. I am sure there are indeed some BBC people who hold each of these views, but in what proportion compared to the nation as a whole? Mr Reith then says, "I don't see any 'corporate view' or shared agenda."
In that you differ from several eminent former colleagues of yours.
GCooper has mentioned Michael Vestey and Gillian Reynolds. These examples were new to me. Off the top of my head I can name Gerald Baker, Jeff Randall, Rod Liddle and Robin Aitken. All of these have said there is a left-wing mindset at the BBC. The last named is writing a whole book on the subject.
I've been meaning to write a post bringing together some quotes from all the above, so you might see that soon.
Natalie Solent:
Last one before I go: the most difficult thing to search for is stories that omit the party affiliation, because you have to know the person's name before you start. Here in this post Andrew covers a story about Stephen Twigg's antics that failed to mention his (Labour) party. Here's another, concerning the Blackburn vote fraud. Yes, other stories about that did mention Labour. But that one didn't. Many readers will have known that Blackburn pretty well had to be Labour - but many others wouldn't.
gordon-bennett:
So are these newspapers "old labour supporting" in this regard then?
MisterMinit | 14.07.06 - 12:31 pm
My emphasis added.
Yes. It is a deliberate lie propogated by the left-wing and (sadly) now widely accepted as fact.
The left obviously want to disassociate themselves from the nazis and bnp (=neo-nazis) despite the fact that fascism and communism are virtually indistinguishable from each other.
Perhaps they are more embarassed by the gassing of 6 million Jews than by the mass extermination of 56 million people in the ussr.
MisterMinit:
So all of these well educated, professional journalists have been duped into thinking that the BNP are right wing, when in fact they are in fact left wing?
Doesn't sound likely to me.
I think that the issue here is that we all have different criteria of what classifies as right-wing, so to some (and I guess most) the BNP is right wing and to others it is most definitely not right wing.
Just goes to show the stupidity in this whole left/right nonsense, if you ask me.
MisterMinit:
So all of these well educated, professional journalists have been duped into thinking that the BNP are right wing, when in fact they are in fact left wing?
Doesn't sound likely to me.
I think that the issue here is that we all have different criteria of what classifies as right-wing, so to some (and I guess most) the BNP is right wing and to others it is most definitely not right wing.
Just goes to show the stupidity in this whole left/right nonsense, if you ask me.
dumbcisco:
It is perfectly possible to claim to be left wing but actually to veer straight towards supporting fascism. George Galloway and his support for Saddam is a case in point. Much of the Respect party looks pretty fascist to me - even if it is supposedly led by "socialists".
If Mr Minit thinks leftwing/rightwing is nonsense - he would be out of step with all those well-educated professional journalists he talks about. Can't have it both ways.
Anonymous:
So what U.S. party was Gary Condit a member of?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...cas/
1433535.stm
Hmm, no clues there. How about this page?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...cas/
1438106.stm
No joy there either. Strange. How about this page?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...cas/
1490239.stm
Why, no. He mustn't be in any party. Well, let's see what this page says - Stephen Sackur will surely enlighten us:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...cas/
2006009.stm
Why Stephen, you've not put the party affiliation. Pressure of space I'm sure.
Well, let's try Kevin Anderson:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...cas/
1436464.stm
Nope, no joy there either.
This one maybe:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/worl...cas/
1506105.stm
Er, no - nothing either.
Well, Mr Condit is mentioned here...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...cas/
2005612.stm
...But still no clue which party he belongs to.
Nor here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...cas/
2004361.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/worl...cas/
2005612.stm
Sigh - can you imagine the BBC reporting a scandal involving a GOP Congressman with this number of stories and not mentioning his political ties?
Anonymous:
Te-hee..!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/enter...ent/
5180518.stm
I know it's not exaclty a crushing defeat...but a sign of the Future......the BBC does'nt have to be closed down or stopped...it is simply, oboslete......and people are turning away from the 1 Way propaganda machine that is "Television"....
Natalie Solent:
Anonymous of 4.23pm,
Wow. Impressive.
Charlie:
Doesn't James Naughtie's "When we win the election" comment represent pure and clear BBC pro-Labour bias?
Hear it at:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/
obse...th_feeling.html
TAoL Reincarnated:
I suppose we can broaden this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/50.../uk/
5089750.stm
'Asad Rehman, who has spoken in the past for the Menezes family and the two men arrested at Forest Gate, called the timing of the award "insensitive".'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/41.../uk/
4159310.stm
'Asad Rehman, spokesman for the Justice4Jean Family Campaign said "The home secretary must now use his powers to order a full judicial inquiry into the killing."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/388535.stm
'Asad Rehman, a spokesman for the Stephan Lawrence Family Campaign, today criticised the decision to drop some of the charges.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/47.../uk/
4726485.stm
'Menezes family spokesman Asad Rehman told BBC News...'
And so on.
And an interview with the great man here:
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/June...04-
Respect.html
He is a political animal through and through. Good luck to him and his Islamist-Marxist buddies.
Should we be made aware of Rehman's political affiliations when he is quoted by BBC News? I think we should. He is a political animal and, by definition, an opportunist. Full disclosure please, BBC.
MisterMinit:
"Much of the Respect party looks pretty fascist to me"
You know, I've never bothered to read any Respect manifestos.
Why do you think that they look fascist?
Anonymous:
Hey Nat:
"Wow. Impressive"
Good is'nt it....not only is the BBC losing 1 milloin viewers a year.....
Everyone is Ignoring it's constant bleating too.....
BBC Ignored on Iraq....
Ignored on Kayoto.....
Ignored on Palestinian Issue....
Ignored on Pro-Immigration propaganda....
Ignored on the EU.......
lol......
Don't you get it.?? The BBC is just a blow hard State Run Dinosaur of a TV station with a big mouth and baised leftwing output.....it has no real power, it is'nt "special and balanced"..you're just as warped as Al Jazeera, and everyone knows it............Bush and Blair have the real power...and they are ignoring you.....lolol....
As is, increasingly, the rest of the British public and wider world.....
The BBC is obsolete, and fading fast.......
I'm looking forward to the coming strikes and sackings....I'm glad Woss gets £18,000,000, and the rest of you get your P45s.....
Sums up the BBC rather well......bloated, top heavy, and cruel.......lol
Maybe you lot will begin to awaken from your la-la dreamland...and enter the real world.....
Now...go make a crappy Soap....s'what your'e good at......well, not according to latest viewing figures, but hey-ho.... lol.
will:
Now...go make a crappy Soap....s'what your'e good at......
But an odd product to be deemed important enough to be financed by the force of law.
gordon-bennett:
MisterMinit | 14.07.06 - 3:23 pm
Here is some info on the difference (ie none) between communism/socialism and fascism.
http://www.tfp.org/what_we_think...nk/
fascism.html
Natalie Solent:
Please could commenters discuss general political issues such as this in the open thread.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
