Are these two paragraphs related? First the lead ... The BBC leads its news this morning with the news that the Taliban are"furious" about the video of some US soldiers urinating over the dead bodies of some Taliban terrorists. Sorry, I mean fighters. Have to say I couldn't care less about what happens to these savages who chose to pick a fight with the US military but the BBC certainly seems vexed about it. Could someone please explain that the Queensbury Rules don't apply in war. I wonder if the Taliban have the BBC on speed dial? Biased BBC's Alan points out... "The BBC has revealed that MI5 and MI6 have been 'cleared' over allegations of being involved in torture....in other words the allegations by the 'victims' are lies. But they make sure you understand that this is only because of lack of evidence.....and so the Security Services are probably guilty of something....if only they had the evidence...but any way something else might be found soon. However evidence is not always held in such high esteem by the BBC, even if it points conclusively to guilt. The BBC has over the years been keen to give terrorists and Islamic extremists a platform to voice their ideology and grievances. The BBC is prepared to give a high degree of credibility to their tales whilst not giving equal weight to the statements of the security services, the Army and police. British soldiers, according to Victoria Derbyshire, are murderers when they accidentally kill civilians in military operations, security services are all implicated in torture and the police are racist and violent, the Justice system weighted against Muslims. Mozzam Begg, Binyam Mohammed, and now Shaker Aamer amongst many others, are given the explicit backing of the BBC regardless of whether or not there is a wealth of evidence that they were involved in extremism. The BBC's naive elevation of such people to 'martyr' status and spokesmen for the Muslim 'community' without questioning their allegations in the slightest is highly dangerous for society, destabilising and undermining the secular State whilst promoting Islam as an essentially harmless 'Faith' intent merely on spiritual endeavours. It is a shame the BBC have forgotten those who are the real victims, those who died at the hands of people who follow the same ideology as Begg and Co. In 2005, in London, on the 7th of July 52 people were killed and over 700 injured by devotees of Islam. The BBC leapt to the defence of the bombers, asking 'what could drive such young British Muslims' to do such terrible things.....concluding of course it was their treatment by British Society and British foreign policy....Islam means 'Peace'...except for a few forgotten voices..... Through the prism of the BBC, the Banks are the bad guys, solely responsible for our financial woes. The role of Labour in bringing about the financial crisis is being sanitised and in fact the Labour Government is The BBC's US President editor is in New Hampshire to cover the Republican Primary. "It's the economy, stupid" is the running gag these days about the number one reason why the President might not be re-elected. Among the elite media, anyway. Much of the rest of the country might be worried about His continued assault on gun rights, poor performance on stopping illegal immigration, the constant class war rhetoric, the possibly unconstitutional power grabs and recess appointments, His poor foreign policy record, and His general apparent incompetence to improve anything, but that doesn't interest Mardell or his fellow travelers. And we never hear about any of that from the BBC anyway, so it may as well not exist for the purposes of this discussion. As Mitt Romney solidifies his lead over Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and Newt Gingrich, where do you think the BBC's top man in the US goes to keep his finger on the pulse of the people? A Jon Huntsman gathering. Who? Yes, Mardell went to a gathering of supporters of the candidate who has been at the bottom of the polls from the beginning. Huntsman is now getting a little play in New Hampshire, because that state is full of Reagan Democrats, who basically were the "independents" who voted for The Obamessiah in 2008. To support his attendance at a Huntsman event, he points to an article by the Left-wing (but not identified as such, contrary to what Jane Bradley said they should do) Daily Beast which says Huntsman had his best debate performance yet. In other words, Democrats like him, so Mardell is on the scene. I'd be more impressed if he had found a non-Left article speaking positively about Huntsman. Now, you might be saying, "Hey, Dave, Hunstman is suddenly on the rise, so it's logical that Mardell would check out his gathering to see what's up." Well, he didn't do that for Santorum, who rocketed up from the bottom of the polls in Iowa. He went to a Ron Paul rally after a quick stop at a Romney speech. The BBC instead sent Peter Marshall of Newsnight to laugh at Santorum. Contrary to the tone here, Santorum's rise was discussed with distaste in BBC reporting. No, Mardell has liked Huntsman from the beginning. He was mentioning Huntsman when the man was not even a blip on the radar, yet didn't mention Herman Cain until after the first debate, when he dismissed Cain out of hand. Last September, Mardell told an audience at the BBC College of Journalism that he liked Huntsman as a candidate and especially that Democrats liked him. I think that about sums it up right there. But this is at least as much about defending the President as it is about Huntsman. Does the BBC provide value for money? It thinks it does and got Deloittes to provide an "impartial" report that proves this. However a Biased BBC reader who is a professional accountant take issue with what is claimed.... THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE BBC First I must emphasise that I have only read the executive summary, and briefly at that, so my comments below may be flawed. I can not afford to spend much time reading this. Good to see the Chief Operating Officer mention in her forward "the privilege of licence fee funding" which allows the BBC to project its influence widely. Deloitte explain in their report that they have taken information and explanations from the BBC at face value, with no corroborative work or even a review of its reasonableness. METHODOLOGY Gross Value Added (GVA) is total value generated for the UK economy. Direct Value Added (DVA) is the BBC's wage bill plus any surplus. Net Value Added (NVA) is the additional value added to the UK economy because of the licence fee funding method rather than the alternative of advertising. Points about Value Added A company's value added is the total amount of value added by all a company's activities. It is: sales - payments to suppliers It's use is dubious for an organisation which does not rely on willing customers with competitive alternatives to provide its income. Traditionally it has been used by companies to show that it's employees receive the bulk of its wealth creation. If the BBC wishes to test their Value Added in the marketplace, they should change to a subscription only service. Spillover effects are the positive effects of BBC spending on other organisations. But we need to remember that anyone who is allowed to take other peoples money by force will have a positive value added and spillover effect by simply spending this money. However the trade off is that those persons deprived of their own money are denied the opportunity to spend and generate value added and positive feedback. The report states that a higher multiple is used to calculate the GVA of BBC spending than to calculate the GVA of alternative consumer spending. In plain English it is simply assumed that the BBC generates more value added when spending other people's money than those people would generate by spending it themselves. Possibly there is an attempt to justify this somewhere in the full report. But in my experience, those who work hardest for their money spend it more wisely than those simply presented with it, because they value it more. CONCLUSIONS? The BBC seems to have chosen the assumptions underlying Deloitte's report and Deloitte have not assessed their validity. The assumptions appear to have been chosen in order to achieve the desired results. Is it just me, or does this remind you of mainstream climate change models? Again, I am not sure of the validity of a value added analysis for an organisation whose customers are compelled by force to pay up. Words such as "estimated" and "approximation" seem to crop up regularly. Not sure whether the word "arbitrary" may be more appropriate? Anyone else catch Miliband on with Humphyrs this morning? To be fair to Humphrys, he did challenge Miliband but then again Miliband is so abysmal that even the BBC struggle to make him look good. The interesting bit for me is when Humphrys starts talking about the late Robin Cook who "brilliant" and "everybody" recognised as leader material? (Around 17mins) Really? Isn't this an instance of John Humphrys admitting that at that time, he was a fan of a senior Labour politician? Is this what passes for studied impartiality?
ALWAYS IN THE WRONG
>> THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012
"British police are to investigate claims that UK secret services helped in the rendition of a man to Libya."
And then... The Metropolitan Police and Crown Prosecution Service said MI5 and MI6 officers would not be charged over separate torture collusion claims
Is the BBC disappointed that our secret services have been proven INNOCENT of the crimes that some fevered imaginations construct? No, that could not be right. Could it?TAKING THE PROVERBIAL..
FORGOTTEN VOICES
THE JOYS OF IMMIGRATION
>> WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2012
"In case anyone missed it, the Victoria Drbyshireshow on 10/01/12 had a typical discussion about the recent report stating that immigration had a negative effect on jobs (only for youths aparently).I did listen to as much as I could stand at the time,immigrants work harder, speak, read and write better than Brits,etc. (Not including journalists and their like obviously). This is to be expected of course and I am in no way remotely offended by such talk! I'm not allowed to be! What really jumped out towards the end was a figure called Jonathan Portes from NIESR (yawn). After completely rubbishing Migrationwatch claiming that "they don't understand statistics" he scoffs at Sir Andrew Green comparing Manchester with Windsor and the unemployment levels in each only to admit that of course there are far more people in Manchester seemingly unaware that he is AGREEING with Migrationwatch that more people in an area will inevitably mean less jobs! Well said that man! Still available on beeb site/ VD show and timed at about 1h13m in to programme"
LOACH THE ROACH
YOU CAN BANK ON IT!
'Comparing the BoE’s policy to that of the European Central Bank, UBS analysts warned the lack of an emergency scheme to support the UK banking system in the event of a new crisis already led to rapidly rising funding costs for lenders. Barclays and Lloyds Banking Group had to pay a very high price to access the debt markets. The impact of this on the economy has been profound. UBS says five-sixths of British private sector workers are employed by companies with no access to the bond market, while bank lending to the UK economy continues to decline. Noting recent Bank of England figures showing a decline in Britain’s foreign trade deficit, UBS said the authorities were ignoring “the lost GDP from inappropriately high cost of debt”. '
Mark Mardell Visits A Jon Huntsman Gathering And Defends The President On The Economy
>> TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2012
WHEN PLURALISM IS INVISIBLE..
BBC VALUE FOR MONEY
BRILLIANCE?
Thursday, 12 January 2012
An annoyed B-BBC reader writes..
I see that that Ken Loach was been prominent across the BBC media estate this morning. This is in regard to a government review of the film industry that is expected to recommend that public funding be directed towards projects which are likely to be commercial successes. I heard Loach referring to "Cameron" during a TV interview this morning. I wonder what it is about the Jew-hating anti-American anti-capitalist Loach that appeals to the BBC? Thoughts on a postcard...
presented as being noble if not heroic for bailing out the Banks. But that is far removed from reality. B-BBC contributor Alan makes some interesting points here;
"A consistent theme from the BBC, one that you can hear day in day out, is that the banks benefited from borrowing funds at low interest rates made possible by the confidence provided by the government guaranteeing the loans. Such an angle of attack allows the BBC money 'experts' to attack not only the banks that needed a government bail out in 2008 but also those like Barclays that didn't.....the criticism being because they also benefited from low interest rates and so should be forced to somehow make reparation for the sins of the banking sector as a whole. It is clearly more an ideological anti-Banking stance than one based on real 'sins' by the likes of Barclays. If the banks obtain funds at low rates the whole economy benefits, businesses can borrow from the banks at lower rates and mortgages are lower....more jobs, more houses, higher GDP. The government's stance now, not to guarantee the banks, is compounded by the government's insistence on the banks having large capital reserves themselves...meaning less money available to lend to business...and what is lent is lent at higher cost. A report from UBS confirms this....and the damage being done to the economy by the government now refusing to guarantee the banking sector finances. 'Banks being made riskier and Brits poorer, warns UBS' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9004507/Banks-being-made-riskier-and-Brits-poorer-warns-UBS.html
It is a shame that some in the BBC are so intent on making ideological attacks on capitalism that they fail to do their job properly....reporting the facts. Perhaps this is the outcome of having their very own government guarantee scheme ensuring their funding, the license fee, allowing a level of complacency and isolation from reality that breeds contempt for truth and the Public. Having to source funds commercially might make the BBC more accountable and responsive to the public's requirements. Privatise them.
A Biased BBC reader notes;
"There has been a small and rather unedifying incident in the Knesset - the Parliament of Israel. Basically, an Israeli MK name of Anastasia Michaeli has thrown a plastic beaker of water over another Israeli MK called Raleb Majadele. She storms out. A security guard gets to his feet rather slowly, and does precisely nothing. Other MKs shout the Hebrew equivalent of "hey, that's not on!" Why is this story of any interest? Why would the BBC report it, somewhere on its website, it's not a long story, a few lines and a link to the video, they've got plenty of room for it. ITN News has it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHO7iWXDc9A The argument erupted after MK Danny Danon (Likud) called for the dismissal of the principal of a school in the Negev town of Arara, who took students on a human rights march held in Tel Aviv last month. The Knesset discussion was held following a Haaretz report that the Education Ministry reprimanded the Israeli-Arab high school. "You are marching against the state," Michaeli shouted at Majadele, who answered back, "Shut up." He then added, "She won't shut me up. The real interest is the different ethnic origin of these MKs. Anastasia - as her name reveals - is from Russia, a member of Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel our home) party. Anastasia was born a Christian in St Petersburg, married a Jew, they emigrated to Israel where she subsequently converted to Judaism. Mr Majadele is a Muslim Arab who used to be Minister of Culture and Sport, a member of the Labour party. As they bicker and argue in the Knesset, around them are seated a whole range of MK's, men and women, Orthodox and secular. Arabs watching this on the BBC website, from Egypt, Tunisia and Syria, yearning for elections and democracy, would be gobsmacked - this is democracy, this is freedom, this is different people of different religions from different parties genuinely arguing, losing your temper??? No secret police rush in and drag you away to be tortured. The BBC could never afford to show ordinary Arabs this, or to explain it fully, their Arab advertisers on BBC Arabic TV would never stand for it. The BBC would be terrified to reveal that Israel is ethnically mixed, it's not all Jewish, that many Arabs and Muslims are MKs, members of 18 different political parties and, good gracious, even Ministers. Wouldn't suit the BBC's leftwing anti-Israel agenda at all, the only news fit to show from Israel is Israeli "soldiers", ie school-leavers doing compulsory military service, against "Palestinians" ie people who happen to live on the West Bank. Forget any other news from Israel, far too educational. Uhhhh.... isn't part of the BBC's Charter something about "educate"?? They would also be revealing that Mr Majadele took his drenching with very good grace, didn't seem to get annoyed at all. And now the Speaker of the Knesset has suspended Ms Michaeli for one month. And she has apologised. And personally, I would tend to agree with Mr Majadele's point of view. But the great thing is they're all free to argue about it, not like in Arab countries."
Posts
