Will there be tears for Peaches Geldof from Richard Bacon today?

Will there be tears for Peaches Geldof from Richard Bacon today? If there are then maybe you should watch this video as well... Can I suggest that from 2:48 would be the most illuminating.




It's from the BBC's Most Annoying Person list for 2010 - Peaches Geldof. What's that you're saying Richard Bacon?

"No matter how much we might want Peaches to go away" 

Hmmm, want to retract those unfortunate words now, Richard Bacon? I'm sure you just meant you wanted her to disappear from the public eye, but even so... a tad unfortunate given what's happened?


As I Tweeted yesterday, Peaches Geldof's death is a tragedy for her family and friends but should not have been the top news story on the BBC news last night. Celebrity deaths are given way too much attention in our celebrity obsessed culture.

Richard Bacon and James Delingpole

I have updated this piece with the original audio, listen to Richard Bacon in all his intellectual glory.

Richard Bacon in full biased ranting mode

Last year I posted this piece about the most biased and boorish piece of broadcasting that I had ever heard. The culprit was the BBC's Richard Bacon and thanks to 'noggin' on the Biased-BBC website I now have some embeddable audio...






As I wrote in the original post:

'Please listen to this interview... Richard Bacon shows off his stupidity. The 97% figure as demolished by James Delingpole is as I have blogged previously.
Richard Bacon didn't sound a) impartial or b) knowledgeable...In fact have you ever heard him sound so angry throughout an interview and so triumphant when he thought (usually incorrectly) that he'd made a good point? Are BBC interviewers meant to treat interviewees like this? Can anyone think of another interviewee that Richard Bacon has so taken against?

I wonder if Richard bacon will find the time in his busy schedule to check that 97% statistic that so upset him. In case he or @declanmurray78 need some help here's a link that might help and in case you two cannot follwo a link, here's the meat of the matter:

'How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2500 – that’s the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position. [1]
To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered that they were mistaken – those 2500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently.
The upshot? The punditry looked for and recently found an alternate number to tout — “97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere have begun to claim.
This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.
The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth – out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. That left the 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided that scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer – those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor – about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.
To encourage a high participation among these remaining disciplines, the two researchers decided on a quickie survey that would take less than two minutes to complete, and would be done online, saving the respondents the hassle of mailing a reply. Nevertheless, most didn’t consider the quickie survey worthy of response –just 3146, or 30.7%, answered the two questions on the survey:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
The questions were actually non-questions. From my discussions with literally hundreds of skeptical scientists over the past few years, I know of none who claims that the planet hasn’t warmed since the 1700s, and almost none who think that humans haven’t contributed in some way to the recent warming – quite apart from carbon dioxide emissions, few would doubt that the creation of cities and the clearing of forests for agricultural lands have affected the climate. When pressed for a figure, global warming skeptics might say that human are responsible for 10% or 15% of the warming; some skeptics place the upper bound of man’s contribution at 35%. The skeptics only deny that humans played a dominant role in Earth’s warming.
Surprisingly, just 90% of those who responded to the first question believed that temperatures had risen – I would have expected a figure closer to 100%, since Earth was in the Little Ice Age in the centuries immediately preceding 1800. But perhaps some of the responders interpreted the question to include the past 1000 years, when Earth was in the Medieval Warm Period, generally thought to be warmer than today.
As for the second question, 82% of the earth scientists replied that that human activity had significantly contributed to the warming. Here the vagueness of the question comes into play. Since skeptics believe that human activity been a contributing factor, their answer would have turned on whether they consider a 10% or 15% or 35% increase to be a significant contributing factor. Some would, some wouldn’t.
In any case, the two researchers must have feared that an 82% figure would fall short of a convincing consensus – almost one in five wasn’t blaming humans for global warming — so they looked for subsets that would yield a higher percentage. They found it – almost — in those whose recent published peer-reviewed research fell primarily in the climate change field. But the percentage still fell short of the researchers’ ideal. So they made another cut, allowing only the research conducted by those earth scientists who identified themselves as climate scientists.
Once all these cuts were made, 75 out of 77 scientists of unknown qualifications were left endorsing the global warming orthodoxy. The two researchers were then satisfied with their findings [2]. Are you?
LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and the author of The Deniers.
—
[1] http://www.probeinternational.org/ipcc-flyer-low%5B1%5D.pdf
[2] http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/012009_Doran_final1.pdf''

Thankfully I gave up listening to Richard Bacon soon after this so I no longer have to listen to one of the few broadcasters who appears to have  regressed sinec leaving children's tv.

James Delingpole vs Richard Bacon (update)

On 22 March I posted this piece about James Delingpole's appearance on Richard Bacon's 5Live show. I was appalled that Richard Bacon didn't sound a) impartial or b) knowledgeable. And wondered if you ever heard him sound so angry throughout an interview and so triumphant when he thought (usually incorrectly) that he'd made a good point? Are BBC interviewers meant to treat interviewees like this? Can anyone think of another interviewee that Richard Bacon has so taken against?

James Delingpole has posted his own reaction to this interview which is well worth a read.

So far as I know Richard Bacon has not revealed if he has found time in his busy schedule to check James Delingpole's rebuttal of the 97% figure.

Richard Bacon, cyber bullying and Doug Stanhope

Cast your mind back a week or so and the BBC presenter Richard Bacon was presenting a programme about cyber bullying, he having been the victim of this in the past.

A few weeks before this the same Richard Bacon had undertaken a typically sycophantic interview with American comedian Doug Stanhope. Typical that is of Richard Bacon when interviewing someone from the left of politics and/or an edgy comedian, see my recent post re his interview with James Delingpole for how Richard Bacon interviews someone not to his liking. Richard Bacon included in that show a suggestion to look on YouTube for a particularly nasty piece of Doug Stanhope comedy aimed at Sarah Palin and her Down's Syndrome child. This came to my mind as I read Allison Pearson's piece in today's Telegraph which relates the cyber bullying that she recently experienced at the hands of Doug Stanhope and his Twitter friends.
Read the Telegraph article and feel free to ask Richard Bacon if he has read the article and if it has changed his view of Doug Stanhope?

James Delingpole on BBC 5Live giving Richard Bacon a verbal smackdown (now updated with link and quotation - especially for Richard Bacon and @declanmurray78)

Please listen to this interview 15:10 onwards.

Or you could watch it here...


and here...


Richard Bacon shows off his stupidity. The 97% figure as demolished by James Delingpole is as I have blogged previously.
Richard Bacon didn't sound a) impartial or b) knowledgeable...In fact have you ever heard him sound so angry throughout an interview and so triumphant when he thought (usually incorrectly) that he'd made a good point? Are BBC interviewers meant to treat interviewees like this? Can anyone think of another interviewee that Richard Bacon has so taken against?

I wonder if Richard bacon will find the time in his busy schedule to check that 97% statistic that so upset him. In case he or @declanmurray78 need some help here's a link that might help and in case you two cannot follwo a link, here's the meat of the matter:

'How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2500 – that’s the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position. [1]
To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered that they were mistaken – those 2500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently.
The upshot? The punditry looked for and recently found an alternate number to tout — “97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere have begun to claim.
This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.
The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth – out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. That left the 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided that scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer – those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor – about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.
To encourage a high participation among these remaining disciplines, the two researchers decided on a quickie survey that would take less than two minutes to complete, and would be done online, saving the respondents the hassle of mailing a reply. Nevertheless, most didn’t consider the quickie survey worthy of response –just 3146, or 30.7%, answered the two questions on the survey:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
The questions were actually non-questions. From my discussions with literally hundreds of skeptical scientists over the past few years, I know of none who claims that the planet hasn’t warmed since the 1700s, and almost none who think that humans haven’t contributed in some way to the recent warming – quite apart from carbon dioxide emissions, few would doubt that the creation of cities and the clearing of forests for agricultural lands have affected the climate. When pressed for a figure, global warming skeptics might say that human are responsible for 10% or 15% of the warming; some skeptics place the upper bound of man’s contribution at 35%. The skeptics only deny that humans played a dominant role in Earth’s warming.
Surprisingly, just 90% of those who responded to the first question believed that temperatures had risen – I would have expected a figure closer to 100%, since Earth was in the Little Ice Age in the centuries immediately preceding 1800. But perhaps some of the responders interpreted the question to include the past 1000 years, when Earth was in the Medieval Warm Period, generally thought to be warmer than today.
As for the second question, 82% of the earth scientists replied that that human activity had significantly contributed to the warming. Here the vagueness of the question comes into play. Since skeptics believe that human activity been a contributing factor, their answer would have turned on whether they consider a 10% or 15% or 35% increase to be a significant contributing factor. Some would, some wouldn’t.
In any case, the two researchers must have feared that an 82% figure would fall short of a convincing consensus – almost one in five wasn’t blaming humans for global warming — so they looked for subsets that would yield a higher percentage. They found it – almost — in those whose recent published peer-reviewed research fell primarily in the climate change field. But the percentage still fell short of the researchers’ ideal. So they made another cut, allowing only the research conducted by those earth scientists who identified themselves as climate scientists.
Once all these cuts were made, 75 out of 77 scientists of unknown qualifications were left endorsing the global warming orthodoxy. The two researchers were then satisfied with their findings [2]. Are you?
LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and the author of The Deniers.
—
[1] http://www.probeinternational.org/ipcc-flyer-low%5B1%5D.pdf
[2] http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/012009_Doran_final1.pdf'

Tuesday morning catchup

The usual story; too many open Firefox tabs and too little time.

1) Honest Reporting have the BBC bang to rights over their recent coverage of Israel 'pounding Gaza'.


2) the Jawa Report have an interesting report on the bile and hatred brewing in the left-wing parts of the Twittersphere.


3) A Digital Spy piece from last December shows Richard bacon to be a bigger tw*t than even I thought:

'Richard Bacon has revealed that Prince Charles caught him laughing during the Queen Mother's funeral.'

4) The Algemeiner has a fascinating article about the beginning of life on Earth and he postulates that Intelligent Design may be the correct theory. Don't dismiss the idea before reading the piece.


5) Alex Masterley is wondering about Peter Mandelson's wealth. Here's how his piece starts:

'So a man who little more than 10 years ago was living in a £250,000 flat, who secured an inheritance of £450,000 and a windfall from some shares of about the same, who has never been paid more than £150,000 in the last 10 years (anything else would have to be registered), on which one would presume tax would be payable and living costs deducted, is some how able to buy an £8 million house.'

The rest is fascinating, absolutely fascinating...

'Not one'?

Further to this post I received a comment this afternoon that I found rather offensive (my emphasis):

'Its all a bit of a mess.
Stanhope has been well known to me for years and Ithink that he is probably one of the smartest and funniest comedian to grace a stage or a comedy club since Bruce and Hicks were alive.
No-one is safe from his humour and that shows in this horrible mess that seems to of followed the radio interview.

Doug has something to say on it here http://www.dougstanhope.com/journal/2011/8/7/heres-what-happened.html

I love him and I think the piece is very funny, if you dont like it then dont watch and dont listen. With this world of instant media and the web, we can easilty ignore who we want to ignore.

If politicians dont want their family in the firing line for any criticism or mocking then either dont have any or keep them out of the limelight. What Stanhope said can be considered ugly, but Palins politics are just plain hideous, should her family have to take this sort of comment? Absolutely! Not one of them stays out of the way and they have no problem with talking to the media.

as Raoul Duke once said...

You buy the ticket, you take the ride.'

'if you dont like it then dont watch and dont listen' - My problem wasn't that I had to watch it, I didn't have to and in fact didn't watch more than about 50%, but that a BBC broadcaster thought this was an appropriate piece of material to recommend to an afternoon audience.


'If politicians dont want their family in the firing line for any criticism or mocking then either dont have any or keep them out of the limelight.' - So all politicians and their family are fair game for any abuse to amuse their opponents? Is that right?

'What Stanhope said can be considered ugly, but Palins politics are just plain hideous,' - Some examples please; based on fact not the prejudiced reporting of the left-wing media.

'should her family have to take this sort of comment? Absolutely! Not one of them stays out of the way and they have no problem with talking to the media.' - Not one? Has three year-old Trig Paxson Van Palin, Sarah Palin's Downs syndrome child courted publicity? How should Trig Palin 'stay out of the way'? How often has Trig palin spoken to the media? 


Your attempts to make excuses for Doug Stanhop and Richard Bacon have led you down a rather unpleasant path. I find you to be as unpleasant an individual as Richard Bacon although not as vile as Doug Stanhope, whose routine I feel crosses a line that should not be crossed. I really do not understand how anyone could listen to that routine and think it funny and appropriate.

'Sincerely' - I doubt it.

Further to the Richard Bacon/BBC 5Live/Doug Stanhope affair. I read that statements have been issued by the BBC and Richard Bacon.

'Statement on behalf of 5 live:
"During a live interview on Thursday 4th August with American comedian Doug Stanhope, Richard Bacon made an unscripted comment referencing an online clip of one of his guest's stand-up performances.
"Richard has apologised for referring his listeners to the video of his guest. At no stage did he or does he condone the offensive material in that sketch, none of which was broadcast on 5 live. It was still unacceptable to highlight the clip and he fully accepts that it was inappropriate. It falls below the standards our audience expects from us and both he and 5 live apologise unreservedly for any offence caused."
Letter from Richard Bacon:
I am writing to apologise for any offence caused by my live interview with the American comedian, Doug Stanhope, on the 5 live radio show on Thursday 4 August.
In order to illustrate the comedic style of Stanhope's stand-up performances, I referenced available You Tube clips. This was a poor recommendation and I whole heartedly accept that this reference was inappropriate because of the subject matter. I full well understand my responsibilities as a broadcaster and such a reference fell below the standards I set myself personally in my broadcasting.
I am sorry if the reference has caused offence to anyone in anyway. I shouldn’t have done it.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Bacon

Does anyone believe that Richard Bacon is 'sincerely' sorry for the offence he caused? I believe he is sorry for the trouble that his sniggering recommendation has caused him and sorry that the BBC have made him apologise, but sincerely sorry for what he said, no I don't think so.

What's offensive (Update 2)

An anonymous commenter felt that my original post was wide of the mark. Here is his considered opinion:

'I think Stanhope is hilarious, and even more so for provoking outrage in you, which is precisely the point of the routine.

What's also hilarious is your suggestion that the BBC ia "endorsing" poking fun at children with Downs. Of course they're not, you moron.'

Here is my reply to Anonymous:

'Anon 13:18: You really are pathetic. Are you the sort of person who was offended by Bernard Manning or Jim Davison's routines? Did you find their use of humour racist and/or sexist?

Perhaps you could explain why it is 'funny' to attack Sarah Palin and her Downs Syndrome child in such a vile way? Is it just because it provokes a reaction? Is anything fair game if it provokes a reaction? Does this only apply to people on the right of politics or are left-wing figures fair game as well?'

We'll see if and how Anonymous answers that.

Meanwhile the Downs Syndrome Association have issued a statement:

'DSA make official complaint following Richard Bacon's Radio 5 Live Show

The Down’s Syndrome Association is shocked that a BBC employee has publicised the work of a comedian which is nothing more than a vile offensive rant and conflicts with BBC guidelines which state a responsibility to ‘protect the vulnerable and avoid unjustifiable offence’. During Richard Bacon’s BBC 5 show yesterday afternoon he directed listeners to a video of Doug Stanhope discussing the son of Sarah Palin on YouTube. The child was born with Down’s syndrome and Mr Stanhope’s comments about him were abhorrent.

As a public body the BBC should not be promoting the work of such an individual. Therefore the Down’s Syndrome Association has logged an official complaint with the BBC. We encourage everyone to do to the same using the link below –

https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/'

So who's right: Doug Stanhope, Richard Bacon, the BBC and Anonymous or me and The Downs Syndrome Association?

By the way I note that the Downs Syndrome Association website is down at present, I wonder if they are experiencing rather a lot of hits as a result of the outrage over Richard Bacon and Doug Stanhope?

Does anyone know if Richard Bacon passed any comment or apologised for his remarks of yesterday on today's show?

What's offensive (Update)

I have also emailed the UK's Downs Syndrome Association so that they are aware of Richard Bacon's endorsement of the word 'retard' to describe a Downs Syndrome child...

'Here's BBC Radio 5Live's afternoon show presenter Richard Bacon introducing one of his guests this afternoon:

"Doug Stanhope is here. Just a remarkable stand-up comic. If you haven't seen him and want a flavour of what he's like go to YouTube now and type "Doug Stanhope Sarah Palin" [laughs] and get back to me."

Richard Bacon could have recommended any Stanhope routine, but it was the Palin one he wanted his listeners to hear. Here's the meat of it:

(WARNING FOUL & OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE FOLLOWS)

Sarah Palin is the most fucking horrible, horrible [sic] - on so many levels…

Sarah Palin is this woman - she's the mother of five, two of whom are retarded. One of them has Down's Syndrome and the other volunteered for Iraq. She's got a baby with Down's Syndrome for Christ's sake. How do you expect America to get behind her when even God hates her…

…after that last fucking retard baby came out of her - did you see the size of the head on that thing? The alien skull on that fucking retard baby had to tear her apart. Can you imagine the carnage, the violence of that thing coming out of her. It's like someone stood at the foot of her cunt and yelled "Hey Kool Aid!" They [sic] bursting through her. That baby had to do more damage to her undercarriage than the Viet Cong did to McCain's entire upper torso. I believe that if she were in the White House when she tried to deliver that child the secret service would've had to shoot it in the soft spot as it was crowning to save her… I think the Democratic Party is really dropping the ball if they don't hammer the big cunt retard baby issues for the rest of this campaign and just stay on point. Don't get distracted with all the other nonsense. Stay on point. Bring everything back to big cunt retard baby. They shoulda done that in the vice presidential debates and Biden dropped the ball. Everything shoulda come back to - whatever red herring she tries to throw at you - "Well I broke up the old boy network when I was the governor of Alaska" " I heard the only thing you broke up was that sorry cunt of yours when you fucking threw that spastic out of your tard launcher, that's what I heard." And the moderator would've said "You have two minutes to rebut the big cunt retard baby allegations" and she'll throw some other nonsense - "How's your campaign equipped to deal with that proverbial 3am phone call?" And he goes "I don't know but we're not going to have some fucking waterhead running around kicking the phone of the hook so it goes straight to voicemail with his tongue on the button. I know that! What's up with that?" And then the moderator would chastise the crowd to hold their applause to the end and remain seated. "What's your record on earmarks?" "What's your record on spitting out fucking bulb-headed [laughs] - I heard your fucking snatch is so split open they had to put a tent zipper on your snatch so your guts don't shoot out when you sneeze. That's what I heard."

Does the Downs Syndrome Association find this amusing?
Is the Downs Syndrome Association happy for this sort of abuse of a Downs Syndrome child to be recommended by a BBC presenter?
Is the Downs Syndrome Association happy with a BBC presenter endorsing the use of the word 'retard' to describe a Downs Syndrome child?

Your thoughts would be most welcome.

Kind regards

NotaSheep MaybeaGoat'

What's offensive?

Barack Obama in the United States and many on the left in the UK find Steve Bridge's Barack Obama impression 'deeply offensive'


Yet BBC Radio 5Live's vile Richard Bacon finds Doug Stanhope funny


I wonder if Richard Bacon finds Steve Bridge's act 'deeply offensive'. I wonder how Richard Bacon defends Doug Stanhope's act? Thanks to Biased-BBC here's an extract from Doug Stanhope's act so you don't have to subject yourself to it...

'Sarah Palin is the most fucking horrible, horrible [sic] - on so many levels…

Sarah Palin is this woman - she's the mother of five, two of whom are retarded. One of them has Down's Syndrome and the other volunteered for Iraq. She's got a baby with Down's Syndrome for Christ's sake. How do you expect America to get behind her when even God hates her…

…after that last fucking retard baby came out of her - did you see the size of the head on that thing? The alien skull on that fucking retard baby had to tear her apart. Can you imagine the carnage, the violence of that thing coming out of her. It's like someone stood at the foot of her cunt and yelled "Hey Kool Aid!" They [sic] bursting through her. That baby had to do more damage to her undercarriage than the Viet Cong did to McCain's entire upper torso. I believe that if she were in the White House when she tried to deliver that child the secret service would've had to shoot it in the soft spot as it was crowning to save her… I think the Democratic Party is really dropping the ball if they don't hammer the big cunt retard baby issues for the rest of this campaign and just stay on point. Don't get distracted with all the other nonsense. Stay on point. Bring everything back to big cunt retard baby. They shoulda done that in the vice presidential debates and Biden dropped the ball. Everything shoulda come back to - whatever red herring she tries to throw at you - "Well I broke up the old boy network when I was the governor of Alaska" " I heard the only thing you broke up was that sorry cunt of yours when you fucking threw that spastic out of your tard launcher, that's what I heard." And the moderator would've said "You have two minutes to rebut the big cunt retard baby allegations" and she'll throw some other nonsense - "How's your campaign equipped to deal with that proverbial 3am phone call?" And he goes "I don't know but we're not going to have some fucking waterhead running around kicking the phone of the hook so it goes straight to voicemail with his tongue on the button. I know that! What's up with that?" And then the moderator would chastise the crowd to hold their applause to the end and remain seated. "What's your record on earmarks?" "What's your record on spitting out fucking bulb-headed [laughs] - I heard your fucking snatch is so split open they had to put a tent zipper on your snatch so your guts don't shoot out when you sneeze. That's what I heard."'

Witty, very witty...

I was going to go home but have decided to spend 10 minutes composing a complaint to the BBC.

Complaint type: Radio

Location: England

Radio station: Radio 5 Live

Programme title: Richard Bacon

Transmission date: 04/08/2011

Complaint category: Offence

Complaint summary: Richard Bacon recommended a vile, obscene, offensive YouTube video to his listeners

Full complaint: Richard Bacon introducing Doug Stanhope,one of his guests, this afternoon thus: "Doug Stanhope is here. Just a remarkable stand-up comic. If you haven't seen him and want a flavour of what he's like go to YouTube now and type "Doug Stanhope Sarah Palin" [Richard Bacon laughs] and get back to me."  Here's part of the routine that Richard Bacon recommended to his afternoon, in the school holidays, listening audience: " Sarah Palin is the most fucking horrible, horrible [sic] - on so many levels… Sarah Palin is this woman - she's the mother of five, two of whom are retarded. One of them has Down's Syndrome and the other volunteered for Iraq. She's got a baby with Down's Syndrome for Christ's sake. How do you expect America to get behind her when even God hates her… …after that last fucking retard baby came out of her - did you see the size of the head on that thing? The alien skull on that fucking retard baby had to tear her apart. Can you imagine the carnage, the violence of that thing coming out of her. It's like someone stood at the foot of her cunt and yelled "Hey Kool Aid!" They [sic] bursting through her. That baby had to do more damage to her undercarriage than the Viet Cong did to McCain's entire upper torso. I believe that if she were in the White House when she tried to deliver that child the secret service would've had to shoot it in the soft spot as it was crowning to save her… I think the Democratic Party is really dropping the ball if they don't hammer the big cunt retard baby issues for the rest of this campaign and just stay on point. Don't get distracted with all the other nonsense. Stay on point. Bring everything back to big cunt retard baby. They shoulda done that in the vice presidential debates and Biden dropped the ball. Everything shoulda come back to - whatever red herring she tries to throw at you - "Well I broke up the old boy network when I was the governor of Alaska" " I heard the only thing you broke up was that sorry cunt of yours when you fucking threw that spastic out of your tard launcher, that's what I heard." And the moderator would've said "You have two minutes to rebut the big cunt retard baby allegations" and she'll throw some other nonsense - "How's your campaign equipped to deal with that proverbial 3am phone call?" And he goes "I don't know but we're not going to have some fucking waterhead running around kicking the phone of the hook so it goes straight to voicemail with his tongue on the button. I know that! What's up with that?" And then the moderator would chastise the crowd to hold their applause to the end and remain seated. "What's your record on earmarks?" "What's your record on spitting out fucking bulb-headed [laughs] - I heard your fucking snatch is so split open they had to put a tent zipper on your snatch so your guts don't shoot out when you sneeze. That's what I heard." Does the BBC think it right that one of its afternoon radio presenters recommends his listeners to listen to such material? Count the f-words, count the c-words - Is that acceptable listening for a daytime BBC audience? Does the BBC condone the use of the word 'retard' to describe a baby with Downs Syndrome? Have you informed the Down's Syndrome Association that the BBC endorses poking fun at Downs Syndrome children? I am disgusted at Richard Bacon's recommendation of and laughter at this piece of 'humour'. Do you find it funny? Do you find it acceptable? Is it both funny and acceptable because the victims are Sarah Palin and her Downs Syndrome son?

Receive a reply: Yes

Contacted us before: Yes

Complaint related to previous contact: No

Title: Mr

First name: NotaSheep

Surname: MaybeaGoat

Email address: notasheepmaybeagoat@gmail.com

Under 13: No

BBC 5Live's Richard Bacon and his obsession with Labour figures

Today's BBC 5Live Richard Bacon afternoon show has two main guests: Sarah 'wife of Gordon' Brown and Peter Mandelson.  So that will be an afternoon first of rehabilitating Gordon Brown & supporting the narrative that nothing was his fault, it was just the evil banks and then Peter Mandelson dripping anti-Conservative poison as only he can.

I wonder if Richard Bacon will bring up Peter Mandelson's relationship with Saif Gaddafi? Somehow I doubt that he will probe Peter Mandelson on this matter as deeply as he should.

Alastair Campbell on Richard Bacon 5 Live show

Yes AGAIN. Why is this boil on the backside of the British body-politic given so much free airtime to publicise his books and his views? Especially as his version of history is so obviously self-serving and skewed.

Don't bother answering that, I know why and that is why Richard Bacon and all the other pro-Labour presenters at the BBC will one day be held to account.

A puzzled and angry Richard Bacon

This afternoon I had the great misfortune to be stuck in traffic and found myself listening to 5Live's Richard Bacon, one of the few 5Live presenters to make Victoria Derbyshire sound like an unbiased presenter. Poor Richard Bacon had to interview Lance Price, the former Labour spin doctor whose book and serialisation I commented on earlier today. Richard Bacon was all but apoplectic that a former Labour spin doctor and someone who said they would still vote labour would produce such a book just before a general election. Richard Bacon kept asking the same question; basically 'why you would do this?' over and over again.

Richard Bacon seemed to be saying that rather than report the truth (or people's accounts of the truth) about Gordon Brown's nature before a general election, Lance Price should either have not published anything about Gordon Brown in this book or should have delayed publication until after the general election, as this book and the publicity around it could damage Labour's chances at the general election.

If you get the chance do listen to the whole interview it runs either side of the 3pm news; it's a fantastic window into the brain of a 5Live presenter.

BBC 5Live limber up for the general election update

The new 5Live line-up starts on Monday 11 January and there is an even more left-leaning line-up than ever before.

06:00–09:00 - 5 live Breakfast - All the main news with Nicky Campbell and Shelagh Fogarty. I think we can tell all we need to know about Nicky Campbell for his description of Paul Staines/Guido Fawkes as a 'fascist'. Campbell introduced Paul Staines as a 'Right-wing political blogger' so Paul Staines countered with the comment that 'It's nice to be on the Left-wing BBC this morning'. Nicky Campbell decided that it was appropriate to respond 'It's nice to have a Fascist on, Good morning!' before he tried to calm the situation by adding 'just joking'. I believe that Nicky Campbell later apologised for his remarks but I think the original comment speaks volumes for his political leanings.

09:00–10:00 - 5 live Breakfast Phone-in - Nicky Campbell takes your calls on the day's big story. More of the very expensively privately educated Nicky Campbell.

10:00–12:00 - Victoria Derbyshire - Original stories from across the UK, news, sport, and exclusive interviews. The vile VD keeps a show to inflict her irritating "nnnh" noise and inept interviewing on the populace.

12:00–14:00
Gabby Logan - News from around the UK with Gabby Logan. Including sport, politics, and money news.I wonder if Gaby Logan will interview mainly left of centre figures on this show as she seemed to her on her weekend show.

14:00–16:00 - Richard Bacon - News, sport, entertainment, and big guests. Plus your emails, texts and tweets. Richard Bacon's bias is well documented on Biased-BBC, here's a few links that may be of interest - anti-Sarah Palin tweets, Obama fanboy and more Obama fan boy

16:00–19:00 - 5 live Drive - The latest news, sport and travel updates with Peter Allen and Anita Anand. More from the crusty Peter "We've always got time for Kevin Maguire" Allen


Here's an extract from another Biased-BBC article that seems pertinent:

"In a column from last November titled "BBC must end its smug comedy consensus" the Guardian's Martin Kelner said he was helping produce some pilots of a talkshow for Radio Five Live; he explained that he was keen to avoid the "cosy broadly leftwing" consensus found on shows such as Richard Bacon and Gabby Logan. I was reminded of this when, flicking through the stations this morning, I heard Mrs Logan chatting with her studio guests - Mark Steel, the old school leftie comedian, and Mark Thomas, the old school leftie comedian."

The description 'leftie' hardly does justice to the political leanings of Mark Steele, a man who I discussed over two years ago:

"Mark Steele is a regular BBC commentator on Radio 5 Live where his political affiliations have never been mentioned (so far as I am aware), despite his being invited to discuss politics on a semi-regular basis. Simone Clarke was denigrated by the media for being a supporter of the BNP a party whose views many would find no more repugnant than those of the SWP."

Taking the Bacon

I was unfortunate that I turned on my radio late last night as I drove home and heard 5-10 minutes of the most ridiculous discussion on BBC 5Live. It seemed that Richard Bacon and guests were discussing whether or not the BBC was now biased in favour of the Conservatives, the only evidence seemed to be that Boris Johnson had appeared on Eastenders and Gordon Brown and Ken Livingstone had not. The discussion also seemed to decide that 5Live itself might now be biased in favour of the Conservatives.

Let nobody be fooled, this is part of the new Labour narrative that they are the underdogs, that everyone is against them and that it just isn't fair. It is probably only a matter of time before Harriet Harman gets up and threatens to "thcream and thcream 'till I'm thick" unless BBC coverage of the Labour party reverts to the near adulation of the early Blair years.