Crappest Excuse of the Year Award

The BBC came under fire for referring to the murderous cunts who attacked random strangers in India as ‘militants’ instead of ‘terrorists’.

A BBC spokesman said: “This is nothing to do with political correctness. We are not calling them freedom fighters. We are call them bombers or militants. The fact is terrorist does not have a universal meaning. It translates as freedom fighters in certain languages. We are not alone in not calling them terrorists.”
Read that again. He says that they didn’t use the word ‘terrorist’ because the word for ‘terrorist’ in some other language also means freedom fighter. Eh? Stick to worrying about the English meanings guys, if you want to keep your jobs. Although I fear it may be too late.

Read Full Post »

BBC Pravda

As Britain slowly becomes a banana republic, a shitty little DDR-style police state, the BBC does its bit to contribute to the success of the ‘ex’ communists in ZanuLab.

Today’s story is a slash in the value of our pensions. See if you can spot the ‘mistake’:

Millions of pounds have been wiped off the value of the UK’s pension pot in the last year as shares have fallen, a pension consulting company says.

The value of employees’ defined contribution pensions has dropped by nearly a third from £552bn to £395bn, according to research by Aon.

Millions or billions? If you were the government, which would you want reported?

Story

Read Full Post »

usual BBC nonsense

P.M. on radio 4 just went to a group of floating voters to ask them their opinions on the speech. After a couple of pro-Brown commenters, one chap piped up ‘I was going to vote Labour anyway, but this has only confirmed it.’ er … remind me of what a floating voter is again

Read Full Post »

BBC lunacy

I suppose it’s become a theme with this blog, so I thought I would publicise this story from the Mail. Peter Knowles, a senior executive in charge of parliamentary programming told OUR employees (we pay their wages through the TV tax) not to be aggressive to Brown as his government was in trouble in the polls. To save their feelings? Seriously, what was he thinking? If he felt free to say such things, what kind of culture does our Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation have?

Read Full Post »

Noel Edmonds: telly hero

So Noel Edmonds doesn’t have a TV license, according to the Daily Hate.

He said: ‘Auntie’s put boxing gloves on. I’m so incensed by the idea that I’m guilty of something that I actually cancelled my licence fee a few months ago,’ he said.

‘They haven’t found me, and nobody’s come knocking on the door.’

At University I used to regularly get threatening letters from the BBC, despite the fact that I didn’t have one; I was actually living in halls where it was impossible to get a TV. Edmonds is right, they are rude and aggressive, and it is symptomatic of a general change in the culture of authority that has been occurring over some time. Every organisation thinks it has the right to treat you like shit.

Read Full Post »

TV tax

The belief that Rupert Murdoch has huge influence over our country’s politics, and possibly over other countries’ too, is one of those soft-left assumptions that we breathe in on the air. However, I manage to go through most days of my life without consuming any of his media products, and no doubt most British people also do.

It used to be the case that the same could not be said for the BBC. Time was, when most people would either watch BBC TV in the evening, or at least choose between four channels, two of which were produced by the BBC; or they would listen to BBC radio; or they would do both. With the emergence of the internet, however, many of us now watch TV far less frequently, and rely on TV news bulletins hardly at all. In fact, TV news is often driven by blogs and internet news sites. And sometimes things which have been common knowledge on the internet for a while surface into the TV news a lot later. For example, Sarah Palin’s candidacy had been discussed to death on fairly mainstream blogs while the decision was being made, but was still treated as a surprising choice of an unknown by the TV channels and newspapers when it was eventually announced.

In this environment, the bias of the BBC is particularly irksome to those of us on the right. I don’t watch BBC news (with the occasional exception of newsnight) or use their website, and I don’t listen to their radio any more either. There were stories and attitudes taken on each medium that led me to finally ‘boycott’ them. For example, I read this headline on the BBC news website: ‘Israelis kill 3 in revenge for terror attack’. I thought this was terrible news – Israeli civilians had finally started to attack Palestinian civilians! But, no, the article explained: ‘Israeli commandos carried out a targetted attack on the man responsible for ordering the terrorist attack which left seven Israeli teenagers dead, also killing his driver and one other person in the car.’ This was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me, although there are many more egregious examples of bias. Given that so many people use the internet as their source of information, why are we still paying for the BBC to duplicate what we can get for free from so many varied sources?

Even worse than this is the fact that the money I have to spend on the license fee is money I can’t spend elsewhere. I have now started to miss my summer dose of Test cricket. Now that it appears only on Murdoch’s sky, I find myself having to decide whether to purchase a subscription to that company. It isn’t cheap, and I probably won’t do it. I would, however, have one hundred and thirty pounds of my own money to go towards that subscription if I wasn’t legally obliged to pay for the BBC output that I don’t watch. That makes me angry.

Read Full Post »