When to get Gordon?

For as got he must be, how shall the getting be accomplished?

Sounds rather Shakespearean, no? (it isn't, it's ooonly meee) But it appears that maybe Auntie Beeb is donning her Lady Macbeth costume for the good of her ideological spouse.

There are two good reasons I can imagine why the BBC might now be higlighting Gordoom's lies. One is that, of course, they can imagine how the Labour party's annihilation at the next election would leave them thoroughly exposed without political allies. Getting shot of Gordoom may lift that curse somewhat.

The second is that after more than a decade's support of Gordoom's lies (think pensions raiding, public spending, public spending again, immigration etc) they can see a cunning way to reverse perceptions of their weddedness to the New Labour leadership under Broon-Blair.

(oh, and there is always a third- they have little choice in light of the present public mood and with Gordoom's current ineptitude)

But it is indeed incredible to find Frazer Nelson on a BBC sofa discussing Brown's lies. Has it come to this?

Perhaps Lady Macbeeb has decided to stiffen the sinews of the Parliamentary Labour Party to do what must be done. T'were best it were done before the election.

Character observations

It's interesting to observe politics and ask oneself who makes a good leader, and why.

As GW Bush approaches the last stretch of his presidency, Andrew Roberts writes an historian's assessment of his time in office. He opens with one of those so-easy-to-mess up accounts where he is actually describing another President, also unpopular at the time, but now well regarded. He focusses mainly on the international agenda, as has the President most of the time. What emerges is a nascent narrative of success, concealed by personal unpopularity.

Potentially Bush's Presidency could become seen as a rare triumph for humanity in politics- achieved in the teeth of the failing political machine of Congress and under the incurious eyes of the fouth estate. I like this idea. I watched Adam Boulton interview the President and his wife last weekend, and I found myself wishing there'd been more of Bush to be seen over the last few years in such settings. It has always been the hostile press conference, or the stiff formal occasion, that has been Bush's staple and his responsibility. In the Boulton interview, the high pitched guffaw which I am sure has got the goat of many a BBC journalist (eg. Matt Frei??) was in evidence, and with it, a quick and fundamentally sound mind sought to get a high vantage point to deal responsibly and with vigour and optimism with the relatively reasonable probing of Sky's top man. It was both fun and real- qualities generally appreciated by ordinary people but so uninteresting to the studiously polticised elite.

So much for character- Bush's character and his personality are at one, which is his fundamental strength.

By contrast Gordon Brown has received many a sympathetic treatment from the BBC. At one time the in depth cosy chat with Andrew Marr was virtually bi-weekly, as Gordon sought to recreate the image of Uncle Harold (Wilson) to reassure voters and burnish his credentials as a man of depth. The whole thing was image-based, even after Gordon had pledged an end to spin as he entered Downing Street.

Now Guido Fawkes and the Conservative media team have given Gordon a complete makeover of their own. Fawkes (who is evidently quite a brilliant man) highlights the Conservative take up of his idea and says "Destroying the reputation of Gordon was easy once they tried - because he had a false reputation"

Editorial control

Over on BiasedBBC I posted about the BBC's juxtaposition of an article on re-classifying cannabis with an article on the effects of alcohol in the workplace.

Some people thought that a bridge too far: as if the BBC would actually position their stories strategically!

Well, I had to chuckle when I saw the Sun's frontpage on the web this evening:



I wonder if I am the only one to have been impressed by the caption "inside the mind of a monster" alongside Gordon Brown's face (as well as that abominable Austrian dad's). (image via Iain Dale)

An amusing Beeb-based opening to 08

Sometimes the deference shown by the BBC to the statements of the so-called authorities of questionable nations can be hilarious. Sometimes it's just foolish and unfair, since the Beeb can be so critical of western governments with whom they wish to pick a bone- for example the US.

Well I think in this case it's the former.

"Malaysian Health Minister Chua Soi Lek has admitted that he is the man who features in two widely circulated DVDs of an unmarried couple having sex.", runs the lede (italics and emboldening mine).

Later we learn "his own wife and children had accepted his apology.". So what was the point of the "unmarried couple" thing? He's married, alright, so why the tricksy little moralistic-sounding intro? Or is that just to help me with my google search- ahem, not that I would, of course (and anyway it doesn't seem to produce anything)

I dunno. It does get funnier though, when they quote:

"I am the man in the tape," Mr Chua, 60, told reporters.

"The girl is a personal friend."

Mmm. Certainly what I call a personal friend.

Really just recycling

Something that DumbJon pointed out. He highlighted this rag:

(click to enlarge)

It's obvious that Boris is target number one for the "black community". But is it really the black community that has it in for Boris? In my experience, black people know irony when they come across it; there's no commentator more ironic out there than Boris Johnson. He's absolutely never quite serious.

The thing is that this "Black newspaper" is undoubtedly just funded by public money, whether meted out by London boroughs or by the Mayor's office itself. This kind of hit piece is reminiscent of nothing so much as the activities which the GLC (Greater London Council) used to get up to.

So that's the first thing. The second thing to notice is that Labour MPs were involved in the attack. The third thing is that the attack was covered, first by the Press Association, then by the BBC, and finally by these goons at the Black Information Link. It's all so orchestrated, it's difficult not to believe that Red Ken's hand was in there somewhere.

Of course what it means most importantly is that Boris has them running scared. The intelligence quotient and personable nature of the candidate leaves them grubbing around trying to smear him as a racist. Certainly this will convince the "Black Information Link", which owes its existence to the likes of Livingstone. I think more highly of the black inhabitants of London than to believe that they'll agree with them. That, though, is what propaganda is for: the apolitical non-believers, to convince them that no smoke would exist without fire.

And the final point: leopards do not change their spots. Red Ken is still Red Ken, dirty tricks and all, and the Labour party still finds him useful. They don't really change either.

While the BBC is lavishing attention on Gordy's Toady and his Baptism of Fire- ooh look, adventure, colour, that dashing jawline- JK Rowling's profile on Wikipedia had a rapid update, I notice:

"According to The Guardian, Rowling is a close friend of Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his wife, Sarah, with whom she collaborated on a book of children's stories to aid the charity One Parent Families."

Don't know if the update was simply that of altering Brown's title, or if the whole entry was added after Gordon's ascension. Either way, someone cares about Gordie's image (not least the Guardian, source of one of those articles blatantly appealing to sexist stereotyping, "Gordon's Women")

Frankly I have to say I'm sick of all the Gordon-boosting I notice on the BBC and elsewhere. Gordon does not head a new government, is not an unknown quantity or in any way exciting, and does not represent a new direction for Britain. He has been merely the heir to the media coronation and spin which Blair inaugurated.

The case of the shaken BiasedBBC...

Basically, let me just say, ... I don't understand!!

For those who know nothing about this, I'll just link to Biased BBC and a post where the matter was addressed by Andrew, the leading advocate of comment moderation.

It does however seem sad to me that those concerned about BBC bias cannot work together. The imposition of moderation has had all sorts of curious side-effects, such as the emergence of sites like this, and this . There was this, but it seems to have gone.

I've always had a very merry view to comments- the more the merrier. Of course I don't like people being rude, spouting ignorant rubbish and whatnot, but in my view that's just as (or more) likely to come from some passing BBC staffer as from some anti-Beeb fanatic- to whom I would probably just say, "keep it real, bro", or something like that :-). I could wish that anti-Beeb types like myself didn't feel the need to be vociferous. A more serious point might be that in the end comment threads that are endless are accessible only to the monomaniacal commenter, and there are thankfully not too many of those. Slashing and burning has some virtue, in that the wood emerges from the trees. In the right spirit, people should accept that their comments (and mine!) are not "precious" and unexpendable, but temporary and for a purpose. Carefully thought out comments should never be a victim and where they are I personally would be aggrieved as well. The reason I allowed the comments here on this blog to stay absent when they disappeared as a byproduct of upgrading the blog was simply because they weren't attracting many comments, and it was getting boring looking at 0.

As for the idea of being landed in court over something someone says about the BBC in unmoderated commenting- can anyone be rude enough to make their case indefensible in front of reasonable judges or a jury? It doesn't seem likely, when as John Trenchard points out, TV licensing employs "around 1,700 staff in five offices" just to enable the coercion of TV owners into funding the BBC. Truly an obscenity.

It's not only rudeness though, there're also libel and slander. Well, in those cases what I would say is that as long as it's an allegation of BBC bias, rather than some criminal accusation, everything should be ok. If you say John Simpson is a murderer, then I'll back away from you as fast as from any rabid dog; if you say his bias has potentially dangerous consequences, I have no problem with that. Sometimes the latter can sound like the former, if you're clever in the way you put it ;-).

Well, since the BBC's rottweiler, JR, described me as engaging in casuistry recently, I trust you'll take the above statement of ambiguity in accusing BBC journalists with a pinch of salt.

Summary: I suspect those in opposition to the BBC are closer to each other than we imagine. Misunderstandings are very easy on the web. Understanding differences would also be useful, where they exist. Flexibility is a virtue. Apologies and common resolve are admirable.

BTW- I think I will put comments back from here on. Not that I expect many, or any necessarily, but why not? As a gesture.

The enviro-scam

How fundamental is the enviro-scam to the thinking and ascendancy of today's Left?

That's the question I am pondering more and more. The idea of dwindling resources, the need for management, for restraint, for taxes, for censorship of ideas- all the profound needs of the Left can be satisfied by their mantra.

It makes the sell-out of the modern Conservatives look painfully foolish.

The BBC are of course among the main culprits in causing this skewing of data and ideas, and of course the BBC have been the most stable platform for leftwing ideas for decades (they have in fact been a vital long-term incubator of all leftish ideas). Where would the Left be in the UK without the BBC?

EU Ref points out a series of items in today's Telegraph which call into question both the "fact" of MMGW and the BBC's behaviour.

Then there is this latest example. It's also very wintry in Australia- almost as if El Nino were still playing itself out.

The bottom line for the BBC (unchanging, we know):

"Scientists say the unseasonable droughts, heavy rains and frosts are due to climate change."

In fact it seems ever more likely that it was the Sun wot did it, or the lack of it.

See also what Lubos Motl has translated from Vaclav Klaus. Choc full of ideas. Motl is a great Czech, as is Klaus.

"There has been with each passing day an ever-swelling cast of BBC Television staff, and BBC Radio staff, and BBC World Service staff and BBC News 24 staff and no doubt BBC Papua New Guinea Service staff, none of whom attended a moment of the trial but turned out en masse to capture live the march to the scaffold. The trial wasn’t worth sending a solitary Beeb reporter to, but the hoist to the gallows merited dozens of ’em."

Steyn on the circus which assembled at the Conrad Black trial, which ended negatively for Black and his colleagues today.

Of course I am disappointed, and the BBC are trying hard to restrain themselves now that there is a guilty verdict to clap along to. Their summary has already calculated Black's possible jail-time. But not so fast, Beeboids. I realise that winning on a majority of points doesn't help Black directly, though that's what he did. He won nine of thirteen counts in a trial of great ladle-fuls of detail- most of it obfuscatory, it has seemed to me. If one believed in the US justice system at all, one would be inclined to say, as the jury seem to have, that's there's no smoke without fire.

So in a way, given the appeal which has been announced, it's really nine down, four to go for Lord Black. Maybe a narrower range of charges will make the air clearer for his continued defence.

This ruling class...

On Sunday afternoon I watched the Marr interview the Brown, and I must say the time went as quickly as might a Sunday afternoon nap. Marr of the Beeb conducted one of his usual chummy interviews, a mellow and replete after-dinner-style (it was probably actually for a morning show) chat which enabled Gordon to pose as a calm sober influence guiding anti-terror activities and steering the good ship Britannia through her squalls/storms. A manse-like calm prevailed.

Although I fully believe that the terrorism attempted over the last few days has been real- as it was on other occasions- it is immensely easy on Brown that he has this fluffed attack in which to wallow, aided and abetted by his sympathetic media friends.

Melanie Phillips has a series of points which Marr might have raised, but didn't. One day this ruling class might come to very much regret the chummy games they have played with their hegemony, rather than making serious preparations for the challenges we face.

Phillips does though praise Gordon for his initial appointments- Sir Alan West from the Navy and Sir John Stevens. Yet I would have a question of her: is it enough to appoint better leadership at home, when the indications from the same batch of appointments are that Brown is about to back away from the "taking it to them" strategy that Blair was able to hold? Even finding the best deckchair on the Titanic and putting the best lifeguard in it wouldn't stop anyone from drowning.

Hamastan wondering:

“If we get Alan Johnston back, will Britain recognise Hamas?”

It's a question. First hand reporting, here.

Putting lipstick on the pig

The BBC hasn't been too candid in reporting events in Gaza and the West Bank. Surprise!

What they have reported represents a vain attempt to retain the perception that there is a "good" party of Palestinians in whom to place trust, money, and diplomatic hopes. Not that the BBC particularly blames Hamas for anything, but that there are some very prejudiced types in the West who just might, y'know.

Of course Jeremy Bowen is a known quantity on these issues, but since he's the head honcho in the Mid-East coverage, it's sensible to listen to what he's got to say.

Well Jeremy finds that the defeat of Fatah is in fact our fault, for isolating Hamas. I agree that it would have been been better not to isolate Hamas; we should have isolated both Hamas and Fatah.

The truth is, as Bruce Thornton points out, "U.S. tax dollars are sent to Fatah, in the weird belief that it makes sense to help Fatah, who believe Israel should be destroyed in “phases,” prevail over Hamas, who believe Israel should be destroyed right now". Bowen manages to blame the "powers" for Fatah's defeat, when in fact without the support of the "international community", Fatah and Abbas would be in even more of a no-man's land than they are today.

Maybe one day we will find a Palestinian partner-for-peace, but that day will only come when there is a genuine battle for the soul of the Palestinians, not a squabble between aggrandised gangsters and overweening Islamofascists. The subsidies of the "powers" amount to support for a corrupt status quo, invalidating any genuine democrats, who can only emerge when reality bites the Palestinian polity and practical politics prevails over Islamofascistic or mafioso fantasy.

Excellent analysis of the decline and fall of Fatah, and the rise of Hamas, here.

Who needs money?

What LGF says about kidnapped BBC journalist Alan Johnston's statement is all too true:

"unfortunately, what he says isn’t that different from the BBC’s day-to-day reporting under normal circumstances"

I feel a touch of the old Humbert Wolfs coming on. Sing along:

"You cannot hope
to bribe or twist,
thank God! the
British journalist.
But, seeing what
the man will do
unbribed, there's
no occasion to."

Nowadays no-one is scared of the British polity, so why bribe when you can just take hostages?

Yet one could reaonably ask, why bother when the Beeb are so pliable to the cause of the terrorist anyway? I think it's something in the criminal mind- they just want to make sure. And anyway, criminality is fun, innit?

When a comment is a rebuttal.

Matthew Parris has one of those typically high-handed moments of his, concealed under his trademark upper-class self-deprecation, as he debates the insufficiency of democracy.

A commenter sets him straight:

If you can't trust democracy, who can you trust? For the last 900 years (approx) in England we have been moving towards greater democracy because of the failures of kings (King John, Charles I, James II and others). Our rulers are not necessarily wise.

Taxation without democracy is nothing more than demanding money with menaces.

For a democracy to function, the electorate must be fully and impartially informed. Therefore the press must be free and impartial. I am not sure how this could be achieved but could the owner of this newspaper please take note.

Ian Wyld, Marlborough,

I agree with almost all of this, but it seems pretty clear how a "fully and impartially informed" public could be achieved, and that is by imposing a free market on the UK media through the progressive privatisation of the BBC. Naturally legal powers would need to be buttressed against monopoly interests (which should be the number one priority of the Government of the land in all sectors), and obviously the public would perforce have to wake up to the idea that there is no "given" view to be held, but all this would be to the good, and democracy the winner.

"I look like an exploding tomato and shout like a jet engine and every time I see it makes me cringe."

Sweeney Crawling

The above quote is from John Sweeney, of the BBC's Panorama, and is a calculated attempt to make it look as though he was just out of control when lambasting the Scientologists. In fact, I'd say he seemed to have an icy control behind his bellowing, as though indulging a whim out of contempt for his subjects.

Then again, the US media could get worse (see below post).

"I have made up my mind, yes, but let me sleep on it first."

Bob Woolmer's last words to the media, to the BBC in fact.

Tricky language, English.

I came across a little item from Robin Aitken at BBC Radio 4's Today website, and the phrasing of its description, though unexceptional, amused me. Aitken's the man whose book is doubtless embarrassing all the right people at the Beeb. A video of his comments, filmed by Doughty St., can be seen at Biased BBC here. The item:


"Jackie Elliott
Robin Aitken's interview with Jackie Elliott before he was executed"

I can't remember anything about Jackie Elliott, but I think Aitken has so far survived Auntie's ire, so I suppose Elliott's a gonner and Aitken is merely in a critical condition.

Still playing cricket...

One has to admire the gentleness of the response a man like Robin Aitken to the BBC's endless provocations.

Wearing a white checked shirt and what looks like a pair of cords for his Evening Standard photo, Aitken, promoting a book, catalogues an extraordinary string of experiences had while doggedly retaining both right of centre political views and his job at the BBC. One feels that his forward defensive might be a joy to behold.

The BBC and truth agree at last:


"Back to cold war?
By Rob Watson
BBC defence and security correspondent, Munich

The Munich security conference was born in the 1960s - the height of the Cold War. Forty years on, there been talk of a new chill"

Meanwhile, back in darkest Russia:

"The real news from Saint Petersburg -- demonstrated by cooling that is occurring on the upper layers of the world's oceans -- is that Earth has hit its temperature ceiling. Solar irradiance has begun to fall, ushering in a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012 to 2015. The depth of the decline in solar irradiance reaching Earth will occur around 2040, and "will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60" lasting some 50 years, after which temperatures will go up again."