The BBC finally respond...

Further to this and previous, the BBC have finally responded and it's the old brush-off.

NewsOnline Complaints	26 Oct (2 days ago)
to me

Mr Goat,

Thank you for your email. We're sorry you appear not to have had a response.  Jeremy Bowen did not "choose" this date; he is very busy and it was the earliest day he could fit this event into his schedule. He has acknowledged this in his tweets to you. However, this will not be the only such event with him, so there will be other opportunities for those who may consider they were excluded to take part.

 This was not a debate but a question and answer session so there is no question in our view of it being biased.

Best wishes,

BBC News

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/

I have replied:
'Your explanation of why that day was allocated is not believable or acceptable. An unbiased Middle East Editor would have Rosh Hashonah noted in his diary and accordingly would not schedule a Q&A for that date. The bare fact is that the BBC's Middle East Editor held a Q&A session on one of the holiest days in the Jewish calendar when the vast  majority of Jews would not be able to take part. This decision disenfranchised the vast majority of Jews from taking part. Jeremy Bowen would not dream of scheduling such an event for a Friday during Ramadan. As to your glib comment that 'this will not be the only such event with him, so there will be other opportunities for those who may consider they were excluded to take part.', I find that offensive. Should Jews be satisfied that at some unspecified future date we will be allowed to contribute to a Q&A with the BBC's Middle East Editor? Muslims and Jews every time but Jews only occasionally? Do Jews not pay the BBC licence fee? I want to take this complaint further, how do I do so? Regards NotaSheep MaybeaGoat'

I have left the mistake in my surname go uncorrected.

That's odd re Gareth Bale

From Classic Fantasy League's Team News - I think that should read 'paternity', unles there's something about Gareth Bale that I don't know?

The Big Bang Theory unaired pilot

Found it.........http://videosift.com/video/The-Big-Bang-Theory-00x00-Unaired-Test-Pilot

But is it? - A Rule 5 Friday Night Post

Further to this...

Natalie Portman fights back...

Over to you Scarlett...

Thanks!

Only three things certain in life: death, taxes, and BBC anti-Israel bias - The Commentator

' Only three things certain in life: death, taxes, and BBC anti-Israel biasBBC Gaza correspondent shows prejudice towards Israel on Twitter'
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1923/only_three_things_certain_in_life_death_taxes_and_bbc_anti_israel_bias#.UIq1ILqxJOE.twitter

Palestinian terrorists on the payroll : British taxpayers are helping to pay the salaries of jailed bomb makers. : Henry Jackson Society

'British taxpayers are helping to pay the salaries of jailed bomb makers. '
http://henryjacksonsociety.org/2012/10/26/palestinian-terrorists-on-the-payroll/

'Scarlett Johansson’s Cleavage is Way Better Than Natalie Portman’s' - A Friday night Rule 5 post

Brave words from Egotastic, albeit backed up with 'evidence'

Hmmm "How happy could I be with either, Were t'other dear charmer away!" as Louis Mazzini tenth Duke of Chalfont muses at the end of Kind Hearts and Coronets - one of my top 10 favorite films of all time.

One rule for the Daily Mail and one for the BBC?

Quite regularly on the BBC, topical humorists of a left-wing bent remind us that The Daily Mail supported the Nazis before the Second World War. This is used as a reason to ignore anything the Mail says now. This line of reasoning is wrong, inconsistent because the people who supported Stalin's Soviet Union, as the communist state killed many millions of people, are not subject to the same degree of censure. More oddly the BBC's Director General, Lord Reith, also praised the Nazis:

9 March 1933 “I am pretty certain… that the Nazis will clean things up and put Germany on the way to being a real power in Europe again. They are being ruthless and most determined.”

After the July 1934 Night of The Long Knives, in which the Nazis ruthlessly exterminated opponents and many Jews “I really admire the way Hitler has cleaned up what looked like an incipient revolt.”


After Czechoslovakia was invaded by Nazi Germany in 1939 “Hitler continues his magnificent efficiency.”  

Also do note that Lord Reith's daughter, Marista Leishman, revealed that her father in the 1930s did everything possible to keep Winston Churchill and other anti-appeasement Conservatives off the airwaves. 

You don't hear about that much on the BBC do you?

Lord Rothermere and the Daily Mail were indeed editorially sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists until there was violence at a BUF rally in Kensington Olympia that year.
So The Mail's naziu supporting past is relevant although it ended in 1934 but the BBC's is not although Lord Reith was still praising Nazi Germany in 1939. Odd double standards at the BBC.

More on Ed Balls from 2010

So who do you believe, Ed Balls or everyone else?

Did Ed Balls lie on the BBC in 2011?

Judge for yourself, first an interview with Andrew Neil for the BBC's Daily Politics


And then with Adam Boulton on Sky

I leave you to draw your own conclusions as to the veracity of Ed Balls's line of argument but just look at Ed Balls' staring eyes in the last part of the Sky video; is Ed 'Blinky' Balls trying desperately not to blink?

Writing of Ed Balls's relationship with the truth reminded me of a piece I wrote in 2011. Here's a long extract that you might find interesting (where did I find the time to write such long pieces as recently as 2011?):

'... the documents published overnight in The Telegraph that Ed Balls was a prime mover in the Gordon Brown campaign to replace Tony Blair as Labour leader and Prime Minister are quite shocking. Shocking but not surprising as I think we all knew where Ed Balls' loyalties lay and what he and his fellow conspirators were up to. However there was never any solid proof and so Ed Balls could use 'plausible deniability' tactics; no longer!

The plot, codenamed Project Volvo, was launched as London was under attack from Islamic terrorists in the 7/7 attacks; great timing?

It is also being reported that Mr Brown ordered Mr Balls to take a 'brutal' approach to cleanse the Labour Party of Mr Blair's influence.

If this subject interests you and it should, then The Telegraph is a must read to today as it lays out for us what Ed Balls was up to and what his priorities were during some difficult days during the last Labour government.

This is the document index

Do read through the documents they are fascinating, here's some of what The Telegraph discovered:
Here The Telegraph report on who Ed Balls' co-conspirators were and there are some familiar names (my emphasis):

'Around him, Mr Brown formed his “small group” of six that would win him the job of prime minister. Other members included Ed Miliband, now Labour leader, and Douglas Alexander, the current shadow foreign secretary. The team was completed by Sue Nye, another long-term aide; Spencer Livermore, who became Mr Brown’s director of political strategy in No 10; and Ian Austin, a former spin doctor who became an MP in 2005.

In July 2005, each of the members of the “small group” was given responsibility for different parts of the campaign.

Ms Nye, who became Baroness Nye last year, was in charge of recruiting business leaders and managing the relationship with the Parliamentary Labour Party, alongside Mr Brown. Tom Watson, Dawn Primarolo and Ann Keen were seen as key supporters in the Commons, as was Nick Brown, who was later Chief Whip.

Mrs Keen, who lost her seat last year, was Mr Brown’s ministerial aide, while Miss Primarolo was a long-serving Treasury minister. Mr Watson was one of several junior ministers who were to resign in 2006, forcing Mr Blair to tell the country he would be gone within a year.

Several figures were considered for managing the business aspects of the coup. Shriti Vadera, a former UBS banker who became a minister in 2007, was a key Treasury aide with excellent City links.

Alan Parker, the founder and chairman of the Brunswick Group PR company, was named as an adviser on image issues.

An unexpected name is that of Louis Susman, whom Barack Obama appointed as US Ambassador to Britain in 2009. He is mentioned in relation to fund-raising, though it is not clear what role he ever played, if any, in the plot.

Mr Miliband was in charge of developing policy, with the MP Michael Wills, later justice minister, and the Brown adviser Neal Lawson. Wilf Stevenson, who also became a peer last year, led the Smith Institute, the think tank where Brownite theories and concepts were developed.

Stewart Wood, a senior adviser to Mr Brown and a fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, was also handed policy matters. He has also been ennobled. Eric Salama is another key figure. Mr Salama is the chief executive of Kantar, part of the global communications company WPP, and was considered for a senior policy role.
Mr Livermore handled Mr Brown’s image, to make him a plausible prime ministerial figure. MT Rainey, an advertising specialist, and the film director Anthony Minghella were also suggested.

American consultants Bob Shrum and Stan Greenberg were involved in polling on Mr Brown and Mr Blair’s strengths and weaknesses . Mr Austin was in charge of media strategy, dominated by the spin doctor Damian McBride.'

Here The Telegraph show the document showing Gordon Brown's demands for the transfer of power from Tony Blair to himself; nowhere is a democratic vote mentioned.

Here  The Telegraph show a presentation that includes this does list Gordon Brown’s 'weaknesses':

'Humourless, dour, moody, aggressive, unapproachable'

And that's from one of his supporters. It would be interesting why his supporters thought that someone 'moody, aggressive, unapproachable' would make a good Prime Minister. Maybe Ed Balls saw something of himself in the 'moody' and 'aggressive' descriptions?


Of course the release of this documents raises some very interesting questions for the Labour Party and for the wider British public. More of those questions in a moment, but it would be interesting to know how The Telegraph obtained these documents? I suppose one should ask whose interests are served by the release of these documents? It would be tempting to say the Conservatives but I think that their long-term interests are served by keeping the vile Ed Balls near the top of the Labour party. Ed Balls turns so many people off with his smirking, aggressive and repellent personality as showcased almost every time he is interviewed, even by a friendly BBC interviewer. Maybe the leak came from a disgruntled Blairite, maybe someone (or a supporter of someone) who has recently lost out to Ed Balls and/or another of Gordon Brown's inner circle (such as Ed Miliband). Now who might fit that description? 

Leaving that aside, the release of these documents leaves the Labour party having to face the facts that the people who plotted to depose their party leader (the man who won them three general elections) and the people who denied so plotting, are now at the very top of their party. What sort of loyalty can the likes of Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Douglas Alexander expect now that their past actions have been so exposed? Also I wonder how other figures in the Labour party feel now that they know for certain that Ed Balls is a plotter, who might he plot against next?


Meanwhile one Telegraph commentator seems to have rowed back from describing Ed Miliband in rather derogatory terms. Toby Young's piece is entitled 'The Telegraph's scoop will cut short Ed Miliband's time as Labour leader' but its URL indicates that another earlier title may have been dropped - 'http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100091597/telegraphs-extraordinary-scoop-is-proof-that-ed-miliband-is-gordon-browns-bch' I presume that last word was 'bitch'...


The BBC could not really ignore this story but they are downplaying it. There is just one article that I can find on it and that is already just the number 5 story on the front page. The coverage is sparse and ignores some of the more explosive revelations.The story does not even feature in the BBC's top stories on the Radio 4 08:30 news bulletin, anyone would think they were trying to downplay the story; I wonder why?

I also like the whining comment at the end of The Guardian's piece about the leak investigation:

'The investigation will raise questions about whether the new government was involved in the leaking of the papers.'

Yes that's the real story!


One fact that seems to be garnering too little interest is that Ed Balls has now been proved to be a liar. Ed Balls has denied several times that there was a plot to overthrow Tony Blair, he has indeed previously insisted he had "never ever" been involved in attempts to undermine colleagues. take a read of this Guardian piece from July 2010 about Ed Balls' BBC interview:

'Ed Balls, a Labour leadership contender and a close ally of Gordon Brown, today rejected suggestions that he took part in an "insurgency" against Tony Blair and insisted the differences between the two men amounted only to "creative tensions".

In a fractious interview on the BBC, he dismissed as "total, absolute nonsense" any idea that he had been party to a coup against Blair in 2006, which led to him announcing his intention to quit the following year.

...

He said: "I was the chief economic adviser to the Treasury. I was never involved in an insurgency, I was very close to Gordon Brown but I also saw Tony Blair very regularly, but we had our disagreements."'

In the light of the recently released documents why should anyone trust a word Ed Balls says again?'

Did you spot some of the names in that article? Not just Ed 'Blinky' Balls but Ed 'Junior' Miliband, Douglas Alexander, and the ever delightful pair of Tom Watson & Damian McBride. It's odd how this Telegraph story disappeared so quickly from the media and how the BBC managed to minimise any coverage at the time. I just thought you might like to be reminded of the story...

Have The White House, The State Department and Barack Obama lied to us?

Glenn Beck believes so...

Listen especially to the questions Glenn Beck asks from 7:07 to 8:13 and ask yourself why these sorts of questions are not being asked by any mainstream news channel or even the BBC? Are the unbiased media so set on helping Barack Obama be reelected that even a pretense of unbiased reporting is beyond them?

'Former head of Sky News Nick Pollard'

The BBC are relentless in informing us that 'Former head of Sky News Nick Pollard has been asked by the BBC to investigate why the Newsnight investigation was dropped last year. He will look at whether there were any management failings by the BBC. He will also look at the handling by the Newsnight investigation of material that might have been of interest to the police or relevant authorities.'

Oddly the BBC seem completely uninterested in telling us that prior to working at Sky he had worked at the BBC. BFBS tells us that:

'Nick Pollard, 58, has had a distinguished career in British journalism spanning four decades, and has extensive experience in domestic and international news coverage. Nick says he "sort of fell into journalism" when he joined the Birkenhead News on leaving school at 17 and has enjoyed it ever since. He has worked for BBC Radio News, BBC TV News, and, for 13 years, ITN where he was Executive Producer of News at Ten. Most recently he was Head of Sky News for 10 years from 1996 to 2006, scooping four RTS 'News Channel of the Year' Awards in a row and winning two BAFTAS for Best News Coverage.'

Wikipedia tells us that:

'He was born in Birkenhead and was educated at Birkenhead School.^[1] He started his career in journalism as a reporter at the Birkenhead News, and later worked for the BBC in Liverpool and London.^[1] He was executive producer at ITN for 13 years, before joining Sky News where he worked from 1996 to 2006.^[2][3] In 2009 he was appointed as chief executive of the Services Sound and Vision Corporation (SSVC), responsible for providing broadcasting and cinema services to British forces and their families.^[2]'

Alongside the above note the news as revealed by Guido Fawkes that  the law firm chosen to 'gather evidence for these two inquiries has... previously defended the BBC in litigation cases on numerous occasions' and that 'No less than six of their current lawyers have worked for the BBC in the past.' Also that  'Most interestingly of all, this year Reed Smith hosted a series of conferences entitled “Protecting the Media”.

Hmmm this investigation is looking all totally above-board isn't it?

The Jimmy Saville affair

I've been following the Jimmy Saville affair with some interest, watching and listening as various BBC bigwigs twisted and turned in the unfamiliar glare of scrutiny. I heard parts of the DCMS quetioning of George Entwistle and the Radio 4 Media Show last night where Steve Hewlett asked some direct and pertinent questions of David Jordan, the Director of Editorial Policy and Standards at the BBC.Take a listen and enjoy the sound of a BBC chief frantically trying to explain without saying anything of note.

Meanwhile we have heard that BBC Trust Chairman Chris Patten has warned the government not to question the corporation's editorial independence in relation to its handling of the Jimmy Savile sex abuse scandal. Thinly veiled threats from a CINO to a dripping wet Conservative led coalition. In any case, the BBC tell me that 'The purpose of the BBC Trust is to work on behalf of licence fee payers, ensuring the BBC provides high quality output and good value for all UK citizens, and to protect the independence of the BBC.' Did you spot that 'work on behalf of licence fee payers' not try and stop anyone criticising or investigating alleged wrongdoing at the BBC.

It seems to me that there is a lot more to come out re the BBC in the Savile affair.
I don't think anyone doubts that Jimmy Saville was a paedophile. It also seems that he seemed not to bother covering up his activities whilst working on BBC premises.
So how did managers not know what was happening on BBC premises when others have admitted that they knew? A BBC employee was having sexual relations with underage girls on BBC premises and rather than censure him or fire him, the BBC continued to employ him and use him to front more programmes, including ones that involved him being put in close proximity to children.

If all the above is true, and does anyone think it isn't, then how can the BBC avoid taking corporate responsibility for the abuse?



By the Way: If you haven't yet done so, may I suggest that you watch the Panorama Report into the Newsnight Jimmy Saville story, it is absolutly fascinating .

The Jeremy Bowen Rosh Hashonah complaint

The BBC have not replied to my previous complaints or issued me with a case number, so I have tried again.

Your Complaint

Type of complaint:

BBC Online

What is your complaint about:

BBC News Online

URL:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19601920

Complaint category:

Bias

Contacted us before:

Yes

Reason for contacting us again:

Haven't received a response yet

Reference:

-

Complaint title:

Choice of date for Twitter Q&A was discriminatory

Complaint description:

I have complained about this twice so far but have yet to receive a reply or even a case code. I am not going to let this drop, please have the decency to respond to my complaint. The BBC's Middle East Editor, Jeremy Bowen, chose one of the holiest days in the Jewish calendar to hold a Q&A on the Middle East. That disenfranchised all religious Jews and the vast majority of not particularly religious Jews. In response to my query re this choice of date Jeremy Bowen responded via Twitter that "the timing could be better" that he "did know it was Jewish New Year" but that it was ok because "it doesn't stop quite a few Jews using social media!". Jeremy Bowen's choice of day for this Q&A clearly discrminated against religious Jews, who would be unable to take part in the Q&A and thus created a biased debate. Surely an unbiased BBC Middle East Editor would take care to ensure that no interested parties would be unable to take part in the Q&A. Would Jeremy Bowen have held such a Q&A on a Friday during Ramadan? When considering this matter, do bear in mind that eremy Bowen's anti-Israel bias was confirmed by the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust who published a report into three complaints about him in April 2009. The Editorial Standards Committee upheld three complaints against Jeremy Bowen on grounds of accuracy and impartiality.

I will not let this one drop...

"It's not optimal"

I'll tell you what's not optimal, Mr President, having you as President.

Jewish reaction to thousands of antisemitic Arab cartoons: No riots, no injuries, no deaths | CiF Watch

http://cifwatch.com/2012/09/23/jewish-reaction-to-thousands-of-antisemitic-arab-cartoons-no-riots-no-injuries-no-deaths/

The Beeb gloated over Hackgate. It's trembling now – Telegraph Blogs

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100186094/the-beeb-gloated-over-hackgate-its-trembling-now/

What Muslims should actually be angry about - The Commentator

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1888/what_muslims_should_actually_be_angry_about

Obama or Carter

Thanks to Theo Spark and PolitiZoid for the video spot.

Are Labour MEPs anti-Semitic?

"Examples of the ways in which antisemitism [sic] manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel … could include … applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior [sic] not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation."
http://instmed.org/2012/10/22/are-labour-meps-anti-semitic/