Is the Question Time audience biased?

With Question Time returning to our TV screens tonight, a comment made by host David Dimbleby in a Sunday Telegraph interview caught my eye.

"And no, he insists, the audience isn’t biased. How can it possibly be when it is carefully selected to represent as broad as possible a cross-section of society?

For the 150 places on each programme there are an average 500 applicants. These applications are then vetted by a ‘professional woman’ who spends an entire week sifting through them.

First, they are divided on party political lines; then by age, by sex and by ethnic make-up (the last weighted according to the broadcast location: for example, more blacks and Asians for an inner-London programme than for one in Cheltenham). "

Let's examine that defence quite carefully.

"the audience isn’t biased. How can it possibly be when it is carefully selected to represent as broad as possible a cross-section of society?" - On what basis is it selected?

"For the 150 places on each programme there are an average 500 applicants. These applications are then vetted by a ‘professional woman’ who spends an entire week sifting through them." - Just one woman, what information is she in possession of in order to select the chosen 150?

"First, they are divided on party political lines" - On what split? On basis of seats in the House of Commons at the last election? This seems unlikely with the composition of audiences during the years of Conservative government when the audience was clearly anti-Conservative and pro-Labour. On the basis of the percentage of the popular vote cast at the last general election? Again seems unlikely for similar reasons to above. On the basis of votes at the last major elections? This seems unlikely as otherwise there would be a strong Conservative/UKIP majority in the audience. On a 30% Labour, 30% Conservative, 30% Lib Dem and 10% other basis (or similarly ad-hoc percentage split)? If so why? This guarantees a majority left of centre audience; oh hold on that might be why. If the audience is meant to be representative then how many UKIP and BNP supporters are invited as compared to Greens?

"then by age, by sex and by ethnic make-up" - Based upon what factors? The last census or what?


But what of the man himself, where do David Dimbleby's political loyalties lie?

"Does this mean that over the years he has managed so perfectly to hone his position of neutrality that he no longer has any political views of his own?

‘I do have very strong political views,’ he says. ‘But as with most people, I’m a muddle of opinions, with views that don’t tally precisely with those of any particular party. I never tell anyone how I vote. Not my children. Nor my wife.’"

Whilst I do not know how David Dimbleby votes, I think it safe to assume that he either doesn't vote Conservative or is desperately over-compensating for doing so.


Here's some video of the great Question Time presenter being controlled by a Labour cabinet minister and obeying almost immediately...

Some interesting videos re the United Nations and "Durban 2"

"Durban II Debate, U.N. Human Rights Council, March 2009 Session: After Libya praised Durban Review Conference (Durban II) that it chairs, and Iran and Saudi Arabia announced more money for Durban II--while China and Cuba lectured to the world on discrimination--UN Watch exposed 3 myths of Durban II, exposing pernicious provisions in new text. "



Iran and Keeping Jews out of Durban II



Durban II Dispatch: Libya on Trial

Geneva, Switzerland

Libya was chosen in 2007 to chair the preparatory committee for the UN Durban Review Conference--notwithstanding the irony of an egregious human-rights violator chairing a human rights conference. For the past three days, the committee has been holding sessions to finalize the conference's draft statement, upon which many countries will base their decision whether to attend the conference this week. On Friday, the last day, NGOs were given 30 minutes to weigh in.

Amidst the anti-Israel rants from all the usual NGOs, Libyan ambassador Najjat Al-Hajjaji (who was chairing the meeting) gave the floor to UN Watch...

But sitting in their chair was not Hillel Neuer, the group's executive director and usual mouthpiece, but Ashraf El Hagog, the Palestinian doctor who was falsely accused of and sentenced to death for infecting hundreds of Libyan children with HIV (along with five Bulgarian nurses). El Hagog and the nurses were held in Libya on death row for nine years, mistreated and tortured, until their release was negotiated by France last year.

"Madame Chairman," El Hagog began, staring steely eyed at the Libyan ambassador. "I dont know if you recognize me. I am the Palestinian medical intern who was scapegoated by your country, Libya, in the HIV case in the Benghazi hospital, together with the five Bulgarian nurses."

Al-Hajjaji immediately started banging her gavel. "Stop... stop.... I ask you to stop," she yelled, first looking miffed, then exasperated. "You are, you are not addressing the agenda item... I will allow you to resume only if you address the agenda item we are discussing." The room immediately fell silent.

El Hagog, being coached by Neuer sitting next to him, tried to introduce some amendments to the statement "based on my own suffering," and was again interrupted by Al-Hajjaji banging her gavel. But he continued recounting the story of his torture, then said, "All of this, which lasted for nearly a decade, was for only one reason: because the Libyan government was looking to scapegoat foreigners. Madame Chair, if that is not discrimination, then what is?" After listing the amendments, he concluded: "Madame Chair, Libya told this conference that it practices no inequality or discrimination. But then how do you account for what was done to me, to my colleagues, and to my family...?"

At this point, Hajjaji recognized a point of order from ... the Libyan delegation, who said that El Hagog was not speaking on the correct agenda item. Hajjaji used the objection as an excuse to move on to the next speaker."

Again with the penis?

Another person has found their way to my blog via a Fredie Flintoff penis search, this time someone searching in French - andrew flintoff nu with penis - And this blog is number 9. Fox Sports Australia is number one for their Ashes preview, by the look of the players, from 2007; and the word penis appears nowhere on that page...

Children's TV Palestinian style

"Nassur: “There won't be any Jews or Zionists, if Allah wills. They'll be erased.”
Saraa: “They'll be slaughtered.” (Manhurin naher)
Nassur: “And just like we will visit the Qaaba [in Mecca]... everyone will visit Jerusalem.”
[Seven-year old Palestinian child on phone tells how his father, a member of the Hamas Al-Qassam Brigades, “died as a Shahid (Martyr).”]
Nassur to child on phone: “What do you want to do to the Jews who shot your father?”
Child on phone: “I want to kill them.”
Saraa: “We don't want to do anything to them, just expel them from our land.”
Nassur: “We want to slaughter (Nidbah-hom) them, so they will be expelled from our land, right?”
Saraa: “Yes. That's right. We will expel them from our land using all means.”
Nassur: “And if they don't want [to go] peacefully, by words or talking, we’ll have to [do it] by slaughter.” (Shaht) "

For more on the indoctrination of the children of Palestine, take a look here and here.




Thanks to PMW for the spot.

100% right but for 100% the wrong reason

I understand that the Egyptian culture minister, Farouk Hosny, has been defeated in his bid to become UNESCO's cultural head, beaten to the role by the Bulgarian Irina Bokova. I heard that Farouk Hosny then made what I thought was an obvious but nonetheless 100% correct statement when he accused the United Nations of becoming "politicised".

However Farouk Hosny then blotted his copybook with his assertion that he lost because of "Zionist pressures". Those pesky Zionists get everywhere, don't they?

You may remember Farouk Hosny, he's the delightful character who last year said he would burn "Israeli books in Egyptian libraries". Culture Minister? I suppose in Egypt remarks like that run in his favour as much as to his detriment.

The United Nations is becoming dominated by an Islamic/African bloc which singles out the only democratic, multi-racial country in the Middle East with freedom of religious worship for all, Israel, for censure whilst ignoring the inequities and crimes against humanity perpetrated by many of the bloc's members.

"Special relationship"? Even Barack Obama knows a lying loser when he sees one

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear; has Gordon Brown destroyed the UK's influence in world affairs so much that the UK now ranks below Japan, China and Russia in Barack Obama's view? The BBC report that:

"White House officials rejected repeated requests from Britain for a formal meeting between President Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, it has emerged.

The prime minister's team were "frantic" after being unable to secure the talks at the UN summit in New York, a diplomatic source has told the BBC.

However, the president held private meetings with the leaders of Japan, China and Russia. "

That this was true would be humiliating enough, albeit understandable bearing in mind Gordon Brown's performance over the release of al-Megrahi and increasingly ridiculous position over Labour cuts in the run-up to his volte face. However what makes the whole story even sadder for the UK, because this knave represents the UK whilst he is Prime Minister, is that the Number 10 spin machine got into gear (a very low and slow one) and a Downing Street spokesman said that reports of a snub were

"completely without foundation" and that the men had had a "wide-ranging discussion following last night's climate change dinner".

Even the BBC could not resist reporting that

"It has emerged this was a few minutes of conversation in a kitchen at the United Nations. "

The UK under Gordon Brown is reduced to grabbing a few words in a kitchen rather than a proper meeting. I bet the leaders of Japan, China and Russia were met in a more dignified setting. For some odd reason I have a mental image of a sweaty, desperate Gordon Brown following Barack Obama out of the dining room and cornering him in the kitchen to rant away asking why "you never call, how can I make things up with you and please don't forsake me for David Cameron."

How many sexual partners have you had?

Lloyds Pharmacy are trying to get some publicity with their sex degrees of separation calculator, but it is sort of fun. Mind you can you remember a) every partner and b) how old they were when you first "enjoyed" them?

Jimmy Carter the question that should be asked

For context read this.




Thanks to Theo Spark for the spot.

What is a peer?

Anna Raccoon has the requisite definitions.

Here's an extract:

"Noun.
A Peer – Oxford English Dictionary definition.
1 A nobleman.
2 A man who holds a peerage by descent or appointment.

Noun.
A Peer – Nu-Labour definition.
1 A man or woman elevated to the peerage by their Nu-Labour cronies.

2 A Woman who a-peers to break the law when in fact only ‘in technical breach’ of the rules.

3 A Woman who a-peers to make ‘an administrative technical error’ when finding herself on the receiving end of the ’stronger message that such behaviour is both illegal and unacceptable’. (Hansard April 2004)"

The return of "spotted dick"

The BBC report the welcome news that spotted dick is back on the menu in Flintshire council. Spotted Richard or Sultana Sponge will not be used instead regardless of the "immature comments" made by some customers.

Apparently the council's chief executive, Colin Everett said:

"Although the majority have seen the humorous side of the story, the impression given in the media that the council might have been 'politically correct' has led to some derision and, sadly, to a number of abusive letters being sent in from across the country."

He said Flintshire was a "sensible" council and catering staff had used their initiative in ordering the name change following the "childish comments of one regular customer".

He added: "In full agreement with the catering management Flintshire County Council will observe proper tradition and refer to all dishes by their proper name.

"Spotted Dick will be back on the menu under its proper and proud name. In future, any customers who act in this childish way will be asked to behave properly or will be refused service.

"Let common tradition and common sense prevail."

A storm in a steamer...

It's OK, Gordon Brown isn't retiring

Any Conservatives who might have been worried that their greatest electoral asset, Gordon Brown leading the Labour party, might be about to resign on the grounds of ill health can cheer up. The Telegraph report that:

"Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, has brushed off suggestions that he should quit ahead of the general election, declaring: "Of course I'm going on."

Unconfirmed reports have suggested Mr Brown might use ill-health as an excuse for standing down before the poll, and former Cabinet minister Charles Clarke said he should go "for his own dignity".

But in an interview for the New Statesman magazine, Mr Brown said he was "pretty determined and resolute" to carry on.

...

Asked about his leadership, Mr Brown said: "Of course I'm going on. I mean, for goodness sake, I wouldn't be having this interview with you if I wasn't determined to get my message across to the British people.

"I hope that people will see by my actions the determination I have to work not just on behalf of the Labour Party but on the behalf of the British people."

Challenged to give a "cast-iron guarantee" that he will lead Labour into the election, he responded: "The issue at the moment is that the Labour Party has to take this country through a very difficult time and I think we'll be judged by results.

"I've got a job to do ... So I'm pretty determined and resolute."

He dismissed recent reports that his predecessor as prime minister saw him as "a quitter, not a fighter" who might duck the election, telling the New Statesman: "I don't think Tony Blair has ever said that." "

There is of course one fly in this ointment; can we really believe a word Gordon Brown says?

Why are they so set on coming to Britain?

The Mail reports the determination of many residents of "The Jungle" to make their way to Britain. Why are they so keen on coming to Britain rather than France, Italy or Germany?

A very brave man - Hillel Neuer

Hillel Neuer is an executive director of UN Watch and is a braver and more controlled man than I would be in the circumstances in which he often finds himself. Here are some videos of Hillel Neuer in action defending Israel from religiously motivated attacks.

The first video is a much shown one of Hillel Neuer exposing the hypocrisy of the UN Human Rights Council in March 2007. For the first time ever, the Council president, Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba of Mexico, rejects the speech as "inadmissible" and shows a singular lack of tolerance.


The second video is of Hillel Neuer taking on Sudan, while its friends (Syria, Saudi Arabia and China) deny that atrocities are taking place in Darfur.


The third video is of Hillel Neuer challenging the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour on the UN's upcoming Durban II racism conference.


What a brave man to work in the cesspit of hatred for Israel that the United Nations has become.

Proud to be second

It is polite for a gentleman to come second and this gentle NotaSheep is proud to coninue that tradition on Google. If you google - labour conference 2009 agenda - then the first site returned is The Labour Party's 2009 Annual Conference site, the second link returned is to my piece on their agenda, third is a link to Labour's Vote 2009 site.

Question Time is back for a new series

To celebrate, the BBC have put up some video of "Question Time's top comedy moments". Apparently containing:

"Some comedy moments from the last 30 years of Question Time with Boris Johnson, Bernard Ingham, Jo Brand, Ted Heath, Alan Taylor, Arthur Scargill, Shirley Williams and Alan Clark."

Now the line from Alan Taylor is priceless

"To tell you the truth, I don't think anything about it at all... No if you think I'm going to start thinking about this problem, you're very mistaken"

The BBC also link to some recent programme highlights but not to the most revealing piece of Question Time video ever seen, which I first blogged about in July and repeat here in all its glory. It is Harriet Harman instructing an obedient David Dimbleby to try and stop Ian "A quiet man" Duncan Smith from embarrassing the government.

Now that's a video, that whilst not "comedy", certailbly bears repeating.

Further thoughts on Baroness Scotland

This case gets more peculiar the more one thinks about it.

The BBC report that Baroness Scotland

"told BBC News: "I have been given an administrative penalty. This is not a case of a criminal act, this is the case of failing to photocopy a document which I absolutely accept was wrong and I have apologised for that wholeheartedly.

"This was a woman who was working locally, she was married to a solicitor. I believed the documents that I saw on their face value.

She added: "I did believe the woman that I employed was honest, and honourable and entitled to be here. That was a flaw and I have therefore absolutely accepted that for this technical breach, administrative breach I should be penalised."

Hold on is that right? Was she really penalised for not photocopying a document? Surely she was fined for employing an illegal immigrant because she did not carry out the proper checks. As I pointed out earlier

"Baroness Scotland's cleaner was apparently originally here on a student visa and then apparently overstayed the length of her visa. This would mean, I assume, that on the relevant page of her passport would be the student visa stamp stating clearly she wasn’t able to work.

As I understand the case, Baroness Scotland is saying that this was a "technical breach" because

"I did check absolutely everything. The critical thing is having checked, each employer is asked to take photocopies. I didn't take photocopies. I absolutely believe she was bona fide"

So Baroness did check all the relevant documents but neglected to take photocopies? If that is her defence then surely it means that one of the following is true:
1) that Baroness Scotland looked at the passport and either didn't spot that it was a student visa and that the visa had expired, which would make her incompetent (after all immigration related employment law was her area when she was at the Home Office)
2) that she did not look at the relevant page on the passport and has therefore lied to the UK Borders Authority
3) she did look at the page and it had been altered"

Oddly Baroness Scotland refers to "this document" but there is no single document that would have proved eligibility to work in the UK. The Home Office Guidelines (all 80 pages of them) go into seemingly endless detail about what steps need to be followed in order to prevent one from employing illegal immigrants. Could the government's chief legal adviser not follow the rules? Did the government's chief legal adviser not have the time to follow the complicated procedure? If the government's chief legal adviser cannot follow them or finds them to onerous then what about the rest of us who do not have the government's chief legal adviser's finely tuned legal brain?

The aforementioned Home Office document has a section entitled "HOW TO CHECK THAT SOMEONE IS ENTITLED TO WORK IN THE UK." Let's take a look at part of that section:

"Step 2
You must take all reasonable steps to check that the document is valid and satisfy yourself that your prospective employee or current employee is the person named in the document, and check that the documents allow them to do the work in question.

For each document presented, you should:
check any photographs are consistent with the appearance of the employee (this means you must see them in person); and check any dates of birth listed are consistent across documents and that you are satisfied that these correspond with the appearance of the employee; and check that the expiry dates of any limited leave to
enter or remain in the UK have not passed; and check any UK Government endorsements (stamps, visas, etc.) to see if your prospective or current employee is able to do the type of work you are offering; and satisfy yourself that the documents are valid and genuine, have not been tampered with and belong to the holder; and if your employee gives you two documents which have different names, ask them for a further
document to explain the reason for this. The further document could be a marriage certificate, a divorce decree, a deed poll or statutory declaration.

Step 3
You must make a copy of the relevant page or pages of the document, in a format which cannot be subsequently altered, for example, a photocopy or scan.
In the case of a passport or other travel document, the following parts must be photocopied or scanned: the document’s front cover and any page containing
the holder’s personal details. In particular, you should copy any page that provides details of nationality, his or her photograph, date of birth, signature, date of expiry or biometric details; and any page containing UK Government endorsements indicating that the holder has an entitlement to be in the UK and is entitled to
undertake the work in question.
Other documents should be copied in their entirety.
You should then keep a record of every document you have copied.8 The copies of the documents should be kept securely for the duration of the person’s employment and for a further two years after they stop working for you. By doing this, the Border and Immigration Agency will be able to check whether you have complied with the law or are liable to pay a civil penalty if they detect anyone working illegally for you."

I am confused Baroness Scotland is claiming that her only infraction was not to photocopy the documents, something that is covered in Step 3. But surely Loloahi Tapui was not entitled to be working in the first place. If that is the case then the omission to photocopy is irrelevant, the problem is with Baroness Scotland not checking the documentation.

Let's take a look at Step 2 more closely and in bits:

"You must take all reasonable steps to check that the document is valid and satisfy yourself that your prospective employee or current employee is the person named in the document, and check that the documents allow them to do the work in question."

Did Baroness Scotland check the validity of the documents? If she did not then she failed to "take all reasonable steps". If she did then how did she not spot that the visa had a) expired and b) was a student visa?

"For each document presented, you should:
... check that the expiry dates of any limited leave to enter or remain in the UK have not passed; and check any UK Government endorsements (stamps, visas, etc.) to see if your prospective or current employee is able to do the type of work you are offering; "

Again did Baroness Scotland carry out these checks? If she had she would have seen that the visa had a) expired and b) was a student visa?

As I said previously she has not claimed that the documents had been altered so did Baroness Scotland look at the passport and either not spot that it was a student visa and that the visa had expired, which would make her incompetent, or did she not look at the relevant page on the passport and has therefore lied to the UK Borders Authority?


The Home Office document states that:

"Under section 21 of the 2006 Act, an employer may commit a criminal offence if he or she knowingly employs an illegal migrant. On summary conviction, the maximum penalty an employer may be given will be a fine of no more than the statutory maximum for each person employed illegally, and/
or imprisonment for up to 6 months. Following conviction on indictment, there is no upper limit to the level of fine that can be imposed, and the employer may also be subject to imprisonment for up to two years."

If Baroness Scotland did examine the passport as she claims then surely is she guilty under this section?


The BBC, as usual, is accepting flimsy assurances from Baroness Scotland and is not asking the hard questions.

Baroness Scotland helped push this onerous legislation through Parliament and so should understand it. Why should she not be held to the same standards as the rest of the UK's businesses and population?


One further question, when did Loloahi Tapui start working for Baroness Scotland? If is was before 29 February 2008 then Baroness Scotland's case should be under the 1996 Act.

Dumbed down US education

UC Berkeley, "for real"?

Baroness Scotland - a question

Something doesn't smell right about this story.

Baroness Scotland's cleaner was apparently originally here on a student visa and then apparently overstayed the length of her visa. This would mean, I assume, that on the relevant page of her passport would be the student visa stamp stating clearly she wasn’t able to work.

As I understand the case, Baroness Scotland is saying that this was a "technical breach" because

"I did check absolutely everything. The critical thing is having checked, each employer is asked to take photocopies. I didn't take photocopies. I absolutely believe she was bona fide"

So Baroness did check all the relevant documents but neglected to take photocopies? If that is her defence then surely it means that one of the following is true:
1) that Baroness Scotland looked at the passport and either didn't spot that it was a student visa and that the visa had expired, which would make her incompetent (after all immigration related employment law was her area when she was at the Home Office)
2) that she did not look at the relevant page on the passport and has therefore lied to the UK Borders Authority
3) she did look at the page and it had been altered

Which of these is Baroness Scotland relying upon?

Maybe someone could raise these points with the "noble" lady should she deign to be interviewed by the media. I suppose that a really suspicious person might deduce that it is possible that Baroness Scotland took no photocopies because she knew there was a visa problem...

First there was Twitter, now there is Twitteleh

Twitteleh - Twitter for your Jewish mother...

Do they ever learn?

To Hazel Blears, Caroline Flint and Bob Quick we can now add the name of Peter Mandelson who was caught out by a gust of wind to reveal the cover-sheet of a Labour Party dossier on attacking the Conservatives. The Telegraph have the story, here's an extract:

"Sent by Steve Van Riel, Labour’s director of policy and research, the memo described the contents of the 12-page information dossier which Lord Mandelson had apparently requested during a phone call with the party worker last week.

This included a summary of the “key things” which Mr Van Riel was “concerned” about and a “month by month” account of potential attacking opportunities, “focusing on the Tories”.

The spin doctor also provided some thoughts on the “strengths and weaknesses” of the Labour operation, and predications on where the Conservatives’ policy focus might fall over the coming months.

Finally, Mr Van Riel included some background on the work of his own team and concluded by suggesting that there were opportunities for Labour over the coming weeks and months to improve the party’s standing.

While some of the words were obscured, the note seemed to imply that the attack operation would concentrate “solely” on the Tory opposition. "