Earlier this week I wrote a piece on my blog complaining at the BBC News reports of John Redwood's deregulation proposals. In particular I cited news bulletins which started with the words 'Labour has today criticised...'. Others complained about TV News showing Redwood singing the Welsh anthem. You kindly responded on the BBC Editors' blog - a very welcome innovation, I might say - and admitted you were wrong on the anthem issue. You did, however, defend the news coverage, quoting at length various bulletins throughout the day, including the offending bulletin I heard on 5 Live. Contrary to what you asserted, the 5 Live bulletin was not the only one to use those words, as evidenced by several of my readers who heard them on other BBC stations.
Frankly, I had no intention of taking this further, but I am afraid after what I have heard this morning, I am beginning to despair. On Radio 2 at 9am and 5 Live at 9.30am their respective news bulletings began with the words...
Labour has sharply criticised Tory plans to...
There followed a thirty second clip of Alistair Darling accusing the Conservatives of a lurch to the right and more besides. There was no balancing Conservative voice and little attempt to explain the context. My complaint is not particularly one of bias, although you can understand why Conservatives get hot under the collar about this sort of thing. My complaint is of shoddy journalism. I have no idea what your news guidelines are, but might I respectfully suggest that they need updating.
You may well be able to cite examples of new bulletins which begin with the words 'The Conservatives today sharply critised Labour's plans to...' It's just that I don't ever recall hearing them. And even if this has happened, I would submit that nine times out of ten you would have had a Labour response within the bulletin.
I have tremendous respect for most of the news coverage put out by the BBC and I don't make a complaint lightly, but on this occasion I feel it is justified.
Yours Ever
Iain Dale
UPDATE 3.44pm: Apologies for the typos in the original post. I typed it on a Blackberry. The PS has also disappeared for some reason. It said something along the lines of that I thought the Newsnight and Today Programme coverage was very fair indeed.
140 comments:
Well said Iain.
Best,
Lucy
Dear Iain
This was a lapse on the part of our editorial staff which, regrettably, you happened to notice. Fortunately, there's f*** all you can do about it and you can rest assured that it will recur.
Yours truly
Helen
"I have tremendous respect for most of the news coverage put out by the BBC and I don't make a complaint lightly, but on this occasion I feel it is justified."
Yes, it's not as if you spend all your time bleating on about BBC bias at every conceivable opportunity. Oh no, no, no. Not at all.
you really are up yourself aren't you Dale?
Why is it important to have someone from the Conservatives responding to a Labour response to a Conservative proposal? The listener already has both sides of the argument; one outlining proposals, one highlighting what they believe are weaknesses. To give people endless opportunities to respond is called debating, and the BBC has those kind of programmes all the time. However, it can hardly invite people in from all political parties when it's simply trying to report a bit of news quickly.
We should be thankful for the BBC. Go to America and watch current affairs programmes. They're incredibly biased, I feel like smashing the TV when I see anything reported on Fox News.
A Tuscan Pedant Peasant writes:-
para 1 line 3 - "comained"
para 4 line 3 "My complaint is not particularly one of, although you can understand why Conservatives get hot under the collar about this sort of thing. My complaint is of shoddy journalism." - superfluous "of"?
no doubt you'll be taking your protest directly to the bbc by refusing to do your pisspoor paper reviews (for £150, you desperado).
Like you, Iain, I was encouraged by the BBC's coverage of Redwood's proposals on the Ten O'Clock News and Newasnight last night. And the Osbourne interview this morning was fair enough, although they got some traffic "expert" on later to ridicule an aspect of the plans for transport. And then they got Alastair Darling on to have the last word.
But encouraging on the whole. it seemed that the bias accusation was being taken seriously.
So I am horrified to hear about the coverage on Radio 2 and Five Live.
I'm certainly going to complain to the BBC as I did a couple of days ago and I urge everybody to do the same, whether by phone, post or e-mail. Sorry, I can't give you links. Perhaps you can, Iain.
The Radio4 news bulletin at 8am was fair - just the straightforward news of what Redwood said. I thought your previous complaints must have borne some fruit - then you tell us about the other stations which haven't learnt a thing!
Just goes to show the leopard is not going to change its spots.
Keep up the pressure Iain. Ignore the sockpuppets who are out early this morning.
Vanfuertes
1. I think the point being made is that the BBC's invitation to reply is skewed towards the socialist parties
2. as has previously been noted, the BBC don't air the clip of Neil Kinnock plunging into the sea in Brighton every time he is quoted/interviewed/commented upon; so why was a 10+year old clip of John Redwood looking silly deemed contextually appropriate viewer fodder?
3. the BBC is a publi service broadcaster, Fox he ain't so.
4. the overwhelming majority of US broadcasters are democract-friendly
5. the BBC headline yesterday made much of the CIA-IP-originated amendmnets to certain wikipedia articles, yet omitted mention the BBC-IP-originated amenments to various articles, including a (presumably) BBC employee "correcting" George Walker Bush's middle name to somethig that rhymes with anchor.
Interestingly (zzzz) I did detect a distinct change of tone on the BBC's interview of John Redwood (I think yesterday), which startling unless one knoew f the events of the preceding 2-3 days.
They (BBC) really are rather obvious and embarassing, and I think Iain has been remarkably restrained in his letter to Helen - I would not have been so.
Me me me! I'm Iain Dale! I'm terribly, terribly important!
The latest announcement from the Conservative policy group was covered, as you admit, "very well" by Newsnight. And on the Ten O'Clock news. That was last night's news. Newsnight, you see. Then, because we have a democratic process in Britain, we invite politicians to respond to what other politicians say. Then we write a top line which gives the latest information about the story. Because we're called BBC News. Not BBC Olds.
You really have reached new levels of portentiousness, Iain. And I'm convinced you have a pop at the BBC only because it gets hits on your blog. There are subtle BBC references in many posts -- even when they aren't even about the bl**dy BBC.
Have a nice holiday.
Was the following a description of a HIPPY LOVE IN or a piece of incisive balanced journalism?
" As the TANNED, CHEERFUL twenty-somethings set up their tents, you could be forgiven for thinking this was the summer's latest MUSIC FESTIVAL.
But the lines of BURLY police officers around the site, not to mention the 747s roaring overhead, give a clue as to the true purpose of this gathering.
Flanked by Heathrow Airport on one side and west London's outer suburbs on the other, this is an unlikely setting for an impromptu ECO-VILLAGE.
Environmental campaigners have assembled here not just to oppose a third runway for the airport.
With their compost toilets, wind turbines and leaderless command structure, they are also KEEN to demonstrate that an alternative, more SUSTAINABLE way of living is possible"
No mention of the opposing view. The police are "burly" but the protesters are "tanned" and "cheerful". No mention that they are trespassing, causing a potential health risk or a potential security risk. As always, those "burly" (sounds like bully) police are later described as "HEAVY HANDED" The article justifies this statement by saying that the police searched and photographed the happy campers.
What? They searched people illegally camped near an airport in with the incident at Glasgow just weeks ago?
Come on, BBC. Has any pretence of impartiality been thrown out of the window and are you now waiting for your inevitable demise, like a genocidal dictator in his bunker?
I am glad Ms Boaden saw fit to involve herself in the issue of bias. She has to because she cannot stealth edit or alter the entries on Iain's blog.
Darling was on R4 this morning complaining about the proposals.
He's sole argument was that it would take X billion out of the economy.
Doh! A tax cut takes no money out of the economy. It just changes who gets to use the money. Alastair Darling, or the people who earned it.
Labour has sharply criticised Tory plans to...
This is how the 10:00am news started this story on Radio 4 this morning.
Which reminded me of the weekend coverage.
I see the astroturfers/BBC apologists are out in force this morning.
Do you reckon they have a little rebuttal group at the BeeB?
Any chance of the IPs being displayed.
bj,
"Me me me! I'm Iain Dale! I'm terribly, terribly important!"
Well, yes, actually, he is - if he helps guide the BBC back to the basis of impartiality its Charter requires.
Of course, the BBC are free are to take whatever political stance they want - just as soon as they give up the ability to tap me for a hundred and odd quid every year... But I suspect that once their cotton wool were taken away, they would soon find the real world a cruel and unforgiving place.
"We should be thankful for the BBC. Go to America and watch current affairs programmes. They're incredibly biased, I feel like smashing the TV when I see anything reported on Fox News."
nobody is forced to pay for Fox News.
nobody is jailed for not renewing their Fox News subscription.
Fox News can be as biased as they like - its a free market in America. If you dont like Fox, dont watch it and dont subscribe to it.
Over here in the UK we have NO CHOICE when it comes to the BBC - if you have a TV you have to pay the license free, which is then passed onto the BBC. If we dont pay it , we break the law and end up with a criminal record.
The end result of this is that I am forced to pay for constant leftist/liberal drivel that comes out the BBC - would you like it if you were FORCED to pay for Fox News?
"Doh! A tax cut takes no money out of the economy. It just changes who gets to use the money. Alastair Darling, or the people who earned it."
I think you're referring to the 'trickle-down' effect so triumphed by Thatcher and Reagan. In fact, most economists have concluded that this effect does not happen. Money is often either held on to or spent abroad, meaning a detrimental effect on Britain.
Pompous doesn't begin to describe your attitude!
BJ.
Iain Dale occasionally has a little look in the mirror to admire the view, but in terms of importance, he is 100 floors above you.
You, on the other hand seem to be just another fabulist puffball farting tawdry invective.
Now why don't you go back to your putative hack job at the BBC and lick a few more arses and see if you can't manage yourself that career hike you so desperately want.
I appreciate you're not an official party spokesman Iain but in the eyes of some you're pretty darn close and in that context we are really, really going to have to watch how we handle this issue.
As far as the substantive point goes there's very little to criticise your response on and much to be angry at the BBC over. But, as per a comment I left on another thread recently, everything the party says and does has to be understood from various angles - one of which is how our detractors and opponents can portray it.
For a party whose former electoral successes can, in the eyes of some, be almost directly linked to the media mocking their opponents duffle coat and walking canes or putting their heads in light bulbs we need to be extremely cautious about having a go at the media. As I've said it almost doesn't matter if we're right - in the mid-90's Campbell (and remember his background) allegedly banned senior Labour figures and commentators having a pop at the media, stressing the need to remain positive and focus on the issues. Eventually this approach paid off (from their perspectve) and what was once a hostile media eventually came round.
We clearly still have some real hostility to overcome and I'm as angry as the next bloke that too much of this appears to come from a tax-payer funded BBC - but that's no excuse to forget the realities of modern politics and have a go at a system that we were once so happy to benefit from.
Mr Weasel sir, I have never really claimed to be important. Writing an open letter to Helen Boaden -- as opposed to quietly logging on to bbc.co.uk/complaints, like any other licence-fee payer -- smacks just a little of self-importance to me.
I genuinely did like "fabulist puffball farting tawdry invective" though. Are you George Galloway?
"The end result of this is that I am forced to pay for constant leftist/liberal drivel that comes out the BBC - would you like it if you were FORCED to pay for Fox News?"
I would make a conscious decision not to own a TV if I lived in the US, but I take the point. However...
In Britain, there is a centre-right agenda. We are conservative with a small 'c', slow to constitutionally reform, elections are fought on the economy, on tax, on immigration etc. Never is the key issue of an election campaign an issue concerning the centre-left, like the NHS. The last three campaigns have seen the Tories desperately attack Labour on immigration (2005), the EU (2001) and the economy/tax (1997). Each time Labour has spent most of its time defending itself against these negative campaigns.
As a result, neutral reporting appears to certain people to be 'lefty propganda'. This is simply untrue. In Sweden the BBC would be seen as neutral or even centre-right in its outlook.
It's also important to note that the likes of Andrew Neil and Nick Robinson are self-confessed Tories and are two key reporters on all things political.
If there's any justice in the world Iain, they'll tell you to piss off, accuse you of stalking them, and/or mobilise a group of anonymous tosspots to make claims about their parentage, sexuality, and mental health by way of reponse.
(Later, they can deny having done this by claiming that someone hacked into their account with the password '1234'.)
Very Good work Iain, please keep up this campaign. I hope Helen Boaden will reply..
Iain Dale should get an award. This must be the politest letter written throughout history where the real meaning only emerges between the lines, saying to its recipient, 'your lot are a low-down, lying bunch of evil cowards, who think you're so powerful you are entitled to.....etc etc
Fact is they won't listen to reason. So what's next after that?
The BBC took a lurch to the left a long time ago. It's time someone took a lurch to breaking them up.
For a start, I thought John Redwood was a Vulcan - not a sleek and deadly hunting dog. Whichever it is, his proposals are getting a strongly approving reception in many quarters...other than from the inevitable Beeboids who dwell in a permanent state of terror awaiting the next 'lurch' to arrive at any moment.
They're all having 'honesty' classes in the Beeb - all 16,000 of them - as they are so prone to telling lies, which we all knew but someone made the mistake of getting caught which was not in the narrative.
These individuals are sick of mind and need help.
They need therapy to overcome their lurch phobias...maybe walking a dog in the country would help, or a trip in a spacecraft accompanied by John Redwood. Some how the Beeboids must be introduced to normality.
Lurching is just a part of life. In the normal world, we call them policy reviews. No one gets killed. It all can happen over a number of years, and anyone can offer their thoughts and ideas well before any decisions are taken.
Beeboids need help and understanding, Iain just like you are giving them.
"Why is it important to have someone from the Conservatives responding to a Labour response to a Conservative proposal? " - Anon
Because the Labour response was based upon not having read the report yet as it had not even been published at the time the show went out?
.Helen Boaden has apologised for the use of the fourteen year old Redwood blooper which marks an acknowledgement of the way the BBC is going astray. Its as far as she can go. The difficulty with the BBC is that for them to even admit there is another point of view immediately raise the question of the jobs of the incumbents, A small admission is terrifying . Helen Boaden is a centre Left leaning media professional , virtually everyone else in the BBC is the same .They expect us to trust them when their jobs depend on stopping the Conservatives forming an administration.. They know this is not going to happen and now they are squarely behind Brown.
There was always special duty of impartiality but sheer size makes it more sensitive now . Prior to the 60s there was a broad area of agreement in the country on such things as the monarchy and the countries institutions which was a fair common ground. After the so called satire boom of the 60s the BBC turned on the other institutions, attacking parliament especially to its own advantage. Using its dual role to inform and entertain to promote a particular left progressive agenda as the old consensus broke down . After the shift into editorialising during the Birt period this practice has become malignant .
The agenda is , Pro Europe , anti monarchy , anti religion , anti N Ireland Protestants , anti America and Israel ,anti nationalist anti Conservative Party .Using free tax funding they have ruthlessly poisoned the ground for private media trailing its own programmes for free , for example, and starting such vanity projects as BBC seven and BBC four which does what BBC two was supposed to do. These ridiculous ideas show how confused the rationale of the BBC has become. The need for viewers is driven by justifying a Poll tax but popularity itself makes the Poll tax redundant. In news they can only become polemicists in the left direction. They want to be the Independent but dare not admit it . That is the conflict at the heart of the BBC and it is mirrored in the absurdity of public grants for Big Brother level entertainment and cooking shows.
PS Vanfuetres you have that the wrong way round twit . Wake up. It doesn’t have to trickle anywhere if the earners retain it. You might have a point with the hyper rich but then Brown is , not very mysteriously , kindly to them and to be fair taxing them only reduces the revenue to the country...and the Labour Party. A social worker discusses finance ..always such a joy
I think that your blog has been added to labour grid!
Anyway, I don't know why the BBC have ANY politians on news programs. What politians have to say is not news, it's opinion.
Quite often the reports are about what is going to be announced later that day. That's not news either.
I think the BBC are scared of the Government.
As a result, neutral reporting appears to certain people to be 'lefty propganda'. This is simply untrue. In Sweden the BBC would be seen as neutral.
Oh this is hyterical ..thanks V yes in Polly Toynbee`s favourite country where 70% GDP is state managed expenditure the BBC would be seen as neutral. That shows you just how left wing they are and how far left of the people who have to pay for it.
On Andrew Neill you have aweak point of course the BBC cannot be seen to be Brown suppprting which they are It comes though in he ommisions the emphasis all presented as neutral. Andrew Neill is presented as having a POINT OF VIEW the BBC is not
Thats the difference . End of.
Vanfuertes.
I initial took your post seriously because of your, erm credentials, but really.. its all over the place! major corrections, if you get my drift.
"In Britain, there is a centre-right agenda."
Define your terms. From where does this agenda emanate? Who controls it? If you mean that your local postman wants to repatriate the corner shop owner, that is different to an index of influence or a measure of poitical will upon public policy. What is the role of the political and social elite in this "agenda"?
You need to make a distinction between campaign strategies of the various parties and its reporting in the media. They should not, in theory be contiguous, although we are all talking as if they are.
The argument that the media "appears" lefty is weak. The BBC for example is demonstrably biased against a raft of issues, all of its own twisted volition. It is also institutionally deceitful.
Andrew Neil is a freelance.
Anne Robinson is a game show host.
I am only amazed at the fact that you are NOT complaining of bias. I certainly am. Since Brown has been PM we have suffered totally one sided generally fawning coverage of his every move, whilst ignoring the opposition parties as well as any criticism.
As soon as the Conservatives (why do the BBC INSIST on calling us Tories?) come up with a polivy initiative, we revert back to a rebuttal by the other party. Not fair, Not unbiased, Not good journalism, Not to be trusted, Time to dismember this overblown shower and unburden us once and for all.
I did feel that the coverage on R4's Today this morning was much more even-handed (until the transport-related rant towards the end of the programme). The news, after all, was the Redwood report, not any comment thereupon. Did wonder if this had something to do with the attention Iain and others have been giving to the BBC recently, which has caused them to begin to put their house in order.
Disappointed to hear, then, that the coverage on R2 and R5 was so dismal. Presumably there are different editorial teams responsible for news reporting on the various different stations. Keep up the pressure! The BBC is (still) an outstanding institution, but that's no excuse for complacency on its behalf.
It was interesting to hear how the Redwood coverage on Today changed as the morning progressed. At 6.40 the reports from What the Papers Say were glowing - approving quotes from two or three sources. It seemed like Iain had made headway, or so I thought. By 7.40 there was not one mention of Redwood on the newspaper review. All praise had been wiped. Straight after that there was a pretty daft debunking 'anaylsis' about cutting red tape from Evan Davis, but a decent headline at 8am and a decent interview with George Osborne. By the end of the programme another rubbishing piece appeared attacking the Redwood transport proposals and by 10am the headline had apparently reverted to Labour party spin. I'd guess that there was significant pressure from Labour spin chiefs as the programme progressed. The Brown clunking fist approach is below the belt and obsessive. The BBC, I think, are scared.
Mr. Weasel what qualifications has Mr. Vanfuertes got then? Following his piercing insight that in Sweden the BBC might look neutral I am guessing ...ooo 25 yds back stroke with rubber ring ?
Oh Lord and I love BJ accusing Iain of being portentous.He will be assisting in the "Nation speaking unto Nation ", later today I suppose from the grubby propoganda and cheap circus maker known to us as the BBC
JP I had the distinct feeling the R4 coverage was a cover up
Keep fighting on this one, Iain. The BBC are running scared, with their coverage all over the place today, varying from programme to programme, and hour to hour, as some posts have noted.
I listened to Radio 5 this morning. I have to say i was very dissapointed. From 8o'clock there was a short clip of Osbourne (about 10-20sec worth), then the chancellor comes on to attack the proposals for about 15mins!! All this from 8.00 to 8:20, which is the peak listening point in the morning.
Hardly balanced.
Boaden has the memory of a fruit fly and the hide of a rhinoceros.
But it's not just her. There's a whole mindset within certain parts of the BBC which leads to this sort of thing.
And "BJ" - why should Iain do as you say? What the hell has that got to do with it?
"BJ", indeed.
anon 12.51 "Since Brown has been PM we have suffered totally one sided generally fawning coverage of his every move, whilst ignoring the opposition parties as well as any criticism."
Quite so. And all those who are saying the Labour Party can't afford an October election are missing the point - Brown has had £50m++ of free advertising for his manifesto over the summer. It has given him a 5%-10% lead in the polls. He may want to get the benefit of all that free campaigning before the value is diluted.
BBC News coverage is a mess and as long as Peter Horrocks and his old school network is in there it will get no better, they are all so full up them-selves with "Facebook" and "Wikipedia" they have scarce time to devote to researching News stories well done Sky News at least they are on the ball and secure decent interviews.
If only they were as quick to report rebuttals (albeit from those nasty planet killing denier heritics) to the Man Made Climate Change Concensus, whenever serious disrepancies are raised to figures and claims that have been treated as gospel, but it would never do to have a serious debate on that topic would it?
I love the blog, but you really do take yourself far too seriously!
http://gtrmancfabians.blogspot.com/
I was surprised at this post because I only heard the reports between 6.30 and 7 on Radio 4 's Today,which were fair and balanced.No doubt they have been got at since.
On a more serious note, isn't this all being blown out of proportion? The usage of the Redwood clip isn't a huge deal in my view. It has been played over and over and people will always associate Redwood with his mumbling of the Welsh national anthem. The BBC apologised...end of story.
In terms of the way in which items are opened and Tory views that they reflect an overarching Labour bias amongst the BBC, I am not so sure...I think there is a stronger argument to suggest that the BBC is subconsciously inclined to favour whoever is in government and this is reflected in news output. I am sure there has been some research into this although I am damned if I can find it.
http://gtrmancfabians.blogspot.com/
BBC is subconsciously inclined to favour whoever is in government and this is reflected in news output. I am sure there has been some research into this although I am damned if I can find it.
Utter nonsense for god`s sake you`ll remember what chums they were with the Maggie Christ they practically lead a revolution in Scotland. Minotaur looked the coverage of Europe over a five year period and found the weight of pro to anti coverage was about 2 to 1 . Its not so much Labour as what they think of as "Progressive". For example Michael Hesletine and pro EU Conservative were given plenty of space at the time .
The BBC is full of people who would rather kick a cripples crutch from under him than admit to voting Conservative. Thats the real story.
BTW Are the fabians still in favour of a Eugenic extermination of the poor ?
Hi Iain
I didn't listen to Five Live for long this am but they did make much of the fact that most of their texters were slagging off Darling and saying they were going to vote Tory. I didn't hear the interview itself - presumably those that did thought it needed balancing so got texting.
Cath Dibble
GMFs -
"BBC is subconsciously inclined to favour whoever is in government"
Newmania, you got there before me.
The BBC hated Maggie, but stopped short of enshrining their disposition in the Charter.
The BBC has always been a leftist, aetheistic, disproporitionately homosexual/ethnic organisation with roots in postwar Soviet communism (documents released under the 50 year rule testify to the scope of this) and you cannot provide one shred of evidence to the contrary.
Iain, I'm sorry but how anyone, other than those on the left whose propaganda it is, can have any respect left for the BBC's wildly biased and wholly unbalanced news output is beyond me. At such time as the BBC return to reporting both sides equally, and in a fair and balanced manner, on the following issues then they will once again be entitled to the respect that was once their by right:
1) Coverage of Labour and the Conservatives in the UK
2) Coverage of European Integration and the EU
3) Coverage of the Iraq War
4) Coverage of Israel and the Palestinians
5) Coverage of the USA
6) Coverage of the rise of Islamism
7) Coverage of the Climate Change debate
8) Coverage of Business both national and international
9) Coverage of crime and punishment
I've probably missed some as well, but for me that is at least 9 major issues on which it is no longer possible to trust the BBC, that makes respect impossible surely?
Evan Davis has written a very good blog piece about Redwood and his deregulation proposals. Its fairness and lack of bias sticks out a mile amongst the media-liberal hatchet job Redwood has received from the rest of the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/evandavis/
I totaly agree with you Iain. The Labour government and the BBC appear one and the same to me.
We need some positive discrimination in BBC recruitment of people from the right.
The BBC is so much to the left even middle of the road comments they consider right wing.
They must not audit their output as they did not keep a check on phone in competitions.
You just cannot trust the BBC.
And after viewing "angry" kids, having to return their toys because of the nasty Mattel company, not a single mention that these toys passed the CE European Quality Standards that, amongst other things, prevent the UK from doing our own quality control...
Well said Iain,
I see the Labour Party are getting their juniors to post insulting stuff again. Stalinists!
I wrote the other day that I would love Cameron to say that, when elected, he would institute a Royal Commission on the future of the BBC. Pointing out, through his research which MUST be going on, how biased the BBC have been towards the Tories since Margaret Thatcher's days and up to the present day...IS there a need for the public to fund the BBC and Channel 4?
The time is up for this self serving politically biased labour cronies. Sell the BBC and Channel FOUR to
I don't object to the substance of the letter (although I would hastily point out that Nick Robinson was Chairman of the student Conservatives at University - so the bias didn't prevent him becoming top dog!).
I do, however, object to how badly the letter was written and structured. I know blogging has been criticised for enncouraging the 'cult of the amateur' (I, personally don't see that as a problem,) but this leeter reads like it has been hastily put together by a 10 year old. General assertions are made without any decent evidence. Hearsay and anecdote replace statistics.
You will give blogging a bad name with poorly presented, and slightly pompous open letters.
Anon 3.46 pm :
"but this leeter reads like it has been hastily put together by a 10 year old."
Reely?
Well, whaddya know?
Gold watch:
"you really are up yourself aren't you Dale?
Jealous are we?
Chuck,
I think even you must realise that there is a difference between a typo in comment post, and the poor structure and writing of an open letter to the BBC.
Maybe you don't?
Tim said...
If there's any justice in the world Iain, they'll ...
No, Timothy, I know it's hard to get your head round, but once again, this isn't about you
So that's Redwood and Osborne on Today (taking up a good half hour between them) getting respectfully queried, the 10 pm TV news last night and Newsnight (and R4 World Tonight), all respectfully reporting an advisory report that isn't policy, the headline of which merely replicates that of the Forsyth Commission.
Not to forget all the coverage on Sunday, including the long Sissons iv which even Redwood accepts was fine.
And no doubt much more of the same to come on TV and radio tonight.
How much broadcasting, ideally, would you like to hear like this before a Labour voice is allowed to reply?
And how very, very bored do you think the poor listeners/viewers are by this painstaking analysis of some ideas some Tories are considering maybe using at an unspecified point in the future.
You will give blogging a bad name with poorly presented, and slightly pompous open letters.
...and you will give left wing politics a bad name by pretending you give a sod about style. Read your prissy doodle again and consider your own faults.
They are many
It isn't about you:
You haven't been paying attention, you cowardly custard... that's how Iain treats everybody who suggests that he is wrong/biased/cheating/etc.
Either Iain attacks you, or he steps back and lets a bunch of anonymous bullies do it for him.
And here he is play-acting that he's got some kind of moral superiority over the people at the BBC!!!
How much broadcasting, ideally, would you like to hear like this before a Labour voice is allowed to reply?
how about as much as Labour got in the 94-97 period?
Yes, we'll settle for that much.
Oh, sorry, were you trying to suggest that the BBC don't have an intrinsic Labour bias? Then you must have a very short memory...
"well done Sky News at least they are on the ball and secure decent interviews."
And you wonder why people dismiss right-wing complaints about the BBC? How can anyone have any respect for that Murdoch-inspired claptrap. They introduce left-wing guests by savaging their reputations then asking them several questions at once. If this is what people want the BBC to be then they should piss off to America and watch the O'Reilly show every week.
Greetings, Useless Tory fanboys.
As we know, Iain Dale rarely lets the facts spoil his bungling attempts at spin.
Helen Boaden presented some facts in her blog as did "BJ" on this. They showed both Dale and his cloth-eared readers were wrong.
None of the criticised BBC news bulletins had started with the words he complained about.
Now here he is at it all over again, as if he just cannot remember anything since his last anti-BBC post.
No doubt he calls this "staying on message".
Others might call it a form of dementia.
"although I would hastily point out that Nick Robinson was Chairman of the student Conservatives at University - so the bias didn't prevent him becoming top dog"
That point has laready been shot down. After all, Anne Robinson is a game show host don't you know?
touchy touchy
shouldn't conservative central office or the party chairman be commplaining about this BBC bias and not leaving it to a humble blogger?
Helen Boaden presented some facts in her blog as did "BJ" on this
Well thats all, clear then Auntie , to you . Lets ignore the fact that the BBC is a public sector industry with hardly a Conservative in it and trust them not to allow the tone emphasis amd ommission to colour everything they do .Lets continue to pay for it to snuff out any competitors with our money.Lets imagine that the prospect of having no job is something they ignore and dream that a publicly subsidised behemoth is keen on "tax cuts".
That seems fine lets go on like that shall we .They are past masters at sneaking their bias under the radar but on this occassion allowed their love of the savious Brown to prevent the usual stealth.
All the coverage I saw was outrageous as you would expect. This cannot go on.
( And fan boy is not funny , just bewildering..twerp)
The point is that news bulletins from the beeboids don't tell you what the two year Tory policy review has come up with.
They just shoot it down in flames in the Spintro before anyone's even heard it, then accuse the policy presenter of being a lurcher, or a europhobe as he's trying to explain his points.
SPINTRO - Tories are going to make a lurch any minute now.
Redwood: I believe we can cut £14 billion from regulations costs on business.
Beeboid: That's a lurch. And you're a lurcher.....
And you want to withdraw from the Working Time Directive too. You're a eurosceptic lurcher.
Redwood: You used to say I came from another planet.
Beeboid: No. We were wrong. You're a purpose-bred hunting dog, a lurcher, disguised as an earthling.
Redwood: You're the ones who come from another planet.
Beeboids: We apologised for using footage of you talking to the mother ship. We now realise that you are not an alien. It was a mistake.
The problem is the ordinary voter cannot make head nor tail out of any of it. What for example does the word 'regulation' mean? and why does it cost £14 billion? Do the Beeboids know anything about planet earth?
Iain, can you put a limit on commentators of say 10,000 words or 5 posts per day. That, or explain to Newmania et al that people dont have to keep hitting the send button as it just results in the same comments being reposted again and again and again...once is more than enough.
Tap, are you annoyed because the beeb rejected your idea for a sci fi political satire set in a future where all the Tory voters can fit into a police phonebox called "Dr Whoseanidiotnow" ?
who told you? I thought I had a confidentiality clause on it. just trying to lighten up a dull Friday afternoon. It was BBC employees actually.
Tap, just got a message from the future. They changed their minds after the coup of 2112 and it's a huge hit on TeebyBeebies.
Good news - one of your clones wins Celebrity Big Brother in 2114, Bad news - I can now reveal that you are actually Jade Goody.
"Doh! A tax cut takes no money out of the economy. It just changes who gets to use the money. Alastair Darling, or the people who earned it."
I think you're referring to the 'trickle-down' effect so triumphed by Thatcher and Reagan. In fact, most economists have concluded that this effect does not happen. Money is often either held on to or spent abroad, meaning a detrimental effect on Britain.
------------------
No.
Trickle down is the idea that cutting taxes for the rich will trickle down to the poorer parts of society enriching them.
I'm refering to Alastair Darling saying that tax cuts remove money from the economy.
It doesn't. It leaves the money with those that earned it, and they have to be in the economy, otherwise they wouldn't be taxed in the first place.
What Alistair Darling was spinning was that tax cuts means that he doesn't get to spend other people's money.
Nick
A related problem, only slightly off topic, is the way politicians are allowed to run the interviews: For example, on the Today programme this morning: Tim Frakks interviewed Alastair Darling about yesterday's 4% fall in the stock market fluctuations.
The first question was, "What should the Government be doing about it?" Here is Darling's reply:
"I think the first thing we need to keep in mind is that the UK economy is strong and that's against the background of a strong global economy and we have had ten years of sustained growth [etc., etc., etc., blah, blah, blah]
In other words the question is simply used as a launch pad for sixty seconds of government propaganda. This happens time and time again. The Tories are just as bad.
Don't the interviewers notice that the question has been ignored? Don't they care? Why don't they repeat the question? Why this foolish preoccupation with "moving the interview on"? It plays into the hands of politicians. Time and again they run rings round the journalists.
had to google that one.
i'd rather be whatsername shetty or at least her t***** as Charles would say.
i read the story while overseas. never saw what Goody looked like, but her attitude seemed 'orrible. That's spoiled the fun.
"well done Sky News at least they are on the ball and secure decent interviews."
"And you wonder why people dismiss right-wing complaints about the BBC? How can anyone have any respect for that Murdoch-inspired claptrap."
The other morning:
BBC Breakfast Time: two people sat on a couch looking smug and chatting together about something banal.
Turned over.
Sky Sunrise: Reporter standing in a Kalashnikov factory reporting on the anniversary of the AK47, the ubiquitous rifle.
That's why they won news channel of the year.
vanfuertes said...
"I think you're referring to the 'trickle-down' effect so triumphed by Thatcher and Reagan. In fact, most economists have concluded that this effect does not happen. Money is often either held on to or spent abroad, meaning a detrimental effect on Britain."
August 17, 2007 11:40 AM
Only the really stupid economists think that. When Thatcher & Reagan cut taxes, their treasuries both increased their income AND the poor got richer faster than ever before. Under the present tax-increasing regime, the gap between rich and poor has risen. The trickle-down is not merely a theory, it's actually impossible to stop it happening. Rich people can only spend or lend their money. If they bury it in the garden it's worthless to them, so they don't. If they send it abroad, what can the recipients do with UK sterling? They can spend it in the UK. Not much else they can do.
Anon at 3:40 said:
"Well said Iain. I see the Labour Party are getting their juniors to post insulting stuff again. Stalinists!"
Heh! Do hope that's satire. It's really quite amusing.
Fanboy
The political fallout from the financial fall-out will hit the Beeb into the back end of the last century from whence it came.
Trust in the Beeb is wearing thin. Soon it will be completely demolished.
From the ashes will arise the phoenix - the curious vulcan-like being that lurches forwards while the rest of the world hangs back in fear.
Cometh the moment. Cometh the man. Beeboids will die like flies as the vulcan lurches and seizes the day. As the world financial system crashes around us, the vulcan sent here centuries ago to be ready for just this moment, is striding out wearing his Big V, as the cracks appear in the walls in Shepherds Bush and the whole edifice of bureaucratic totalitarianism in its second manifestation crashes to the ground.
film rights negotiable.
You have to admit that "Tories propose tax cuts" is hardly newsworthy stuff, but "Someone somewhere sometime sat up and took notice of braindead Tory party proposals" is a noteworthy event!
:-)
Vanfuertes said...
In Britain, there is a centre-right agenda. We are conservative with a small 'c', slow to constitutionally reform, elections are fought on the economy, on tax, on immigration etc. Never is the key issue of an election campaign an issue concerning the centre-left, like the NHS.
You may like to think that, but it is not accurate. It is a very short memory that cannot recall Labour's "Education, education, education" and "24 hours to save the NHS" campaigns.
Interesting to see the terribly busy and incredibly important Tim Ireland on here again with his own unique brand of jealousy-driven character smears.
Any sign of that National Service project you got people to put their hands in their pockets for, Mr Ireland? Maybe you can explain to those donors why you have time to go around whoring for attention but are too busy to deliver what they helped fund?
really nice !
reposted again and again and again...once is more than enough.
Mine are like fugue , the same theme revisited with vaiation of tone and key. It culminates in the joyous tonic note THE BBC MUST GO.
You have no appreciation of beauty but I forgive you.
Councillor Tony Sharp speaking on the subject of groundless smears, ladies and gentlemen!
Sharp, you're a man with a grudge recycling what you know is a groundless accusation (that itself resulted from a grudge).
Take your misrepresentation and your loaded questions elsewhere.
(has second thoughts)
No, best keep them right here where they belong.
an example of the BBC "lying by omission"
Hips extended to three bedroom homes
no mention of course of the EU origins of Hips which i blogged about here:
The Big Elephant in the Room
And thats just one example - the Biased BBC blog has been blogging about the BBC's agenda for 5 years now.
Tories will consider tax cuts
Why oh why do the BBC consistently refer to the Conservatives as "Tories" - its like a term of abuse - like saying "Reds" about Labour.
then within the article we get the well worn phrase "lurch to the right"
Chancellor Alistair Darling said the Conservatives were "lurching to the right".
So if Gordon Brown proposes a tax reduction is that therefore a "lurch to the right"?
He told the BBC: "What the Tories are proposing is actually £21bn of tax reductions, but they don't say how they are going to pay for them."
by firing the tens of thousands of non-job jobsworths hired by Labour on 40k a year to be "5 a day outreach program directors"?
maybe Mr Darling needs to pay a visit to the Burning Our Money blog.
"the itself-biased 'Biased BBC' blog has pushing their anti-BBC agenda for years now"
/fixed
PS - Not speaking for yourself today, Iain? Leaving it to your little gang of bullies again? You may need some new hands if Sharp is the best real person you can come up with.
Timothy, you can do far better than that. I had been wondering why you had graced my blog with your presence again. Having visited your own site a few moments ago I think I know why. You are trying to drag me into another of your little blogwars aren't you? You've written nine stories in the last three days and not one of them has attracted a single comment. So you thoughti, I know, I'll goad Fawkes and Dale and raise my progile a bit. The trouble is, this time I'm not coming out to play.
Iain, I would not post this here, but I have received a message telling me that I am not allowed to post on the Helen Boaden account:
"Steve (97), I submitted two courteous questions earlier in this blog, neither of which were answered.
Interestingly, I have a blank google account for the purposes of commenting on other blogs. The visitor count has nearly doubled in the last three days.
Obviously, BBC employees are more interested in looking at the background of those who comment on BBC blogs than in answering their courteous questions."
I would also be interested if you could find out why I am not allowed to post on the BBC site, since I have been unfailingly courteous there.
Hahahahahaha! Iain, you're drunk!
:o)
(saves to disk)
Bahnahhbutsheriously... iboubamna goad Fawkes and Dale ta gaise my progile. Ma ga.
;oP
antifrank...
me too. I have been banned from Nick Robinson and others. I have never posted anything obscene or offensive. I gave up "have your say" because my posts, usually critical of the question and by inference, the BBC, and accordingly were always banned.
The way they ban people is by the use of IP addresses, so you must use a proxy server.
You can pop up as a new identity anytime using an anonymous proxy, or an anonymizer.
Tim,
Tony Sharp writes excellent articles and has made some very valid points.
If you can smell sh*t, it is because your nose is too close to your mouth.
"You can pop up as a new identity anytime using an anonymous proxy, or an anonymizer."
Sorry, wrinkled weasel, but Iain Dale (the grand master of weblog wizardry) may have to discipline you for that...
"I condemm [*---->SIC<----*] all impersonation on Facebook and elsewhere. It's not clever and it's not funny." - Iain Dale
(waits)
[dr: Sharp has only one barb that he uses against me, and he knows that it's pointless.]
It is indeed pointless because you are the perfect blogger and we must all follow your lead. Imagine me kneeling in homage, as I type this. Run along now.
Tch.... and here was me looking forward to some discipline.
I can tell you how to cut taxation AND increase revenue at the same time ...
... simple, sell the BBC.
Apologies to others for commenting off subject, but this needs saying. Tim, as the self professed blogging omnipresence, please do let me in on this grudge I am supposed to hold and why. I guess in your eyes if I have a 'grudge' it sounds more dramatic than simply being 'critical' of you.
I note that to deflect attention from a question you would rather had not been asked, you decide to accuse me of a smear (pour quoi?). Do feel free to explain why you believe my criticism of you to be groundless. If I am wrong I will happily apologise.
It is a shame that you cannot get your head around the fact people form their own opinion of what they see and comment accordingly. Your childlike response of accusing them of being part of some imagined gang or conspiracy against you is a bit worrying.
Actually, maybe you should forget that National Service lark and get some of your fiction published. With your imagination you could be the next JK Rowling.
Hilarious! Like Iain Dale really believes that BBC accurate reporting of facts is shoddy journalism! Like Iain knows the difference between shoddy journalism and journalism at large.
It is a fact that XY and Z. There really is no requirement in a fast moving news environment to always or even often wait for a rebuttal before reporting something.
Once reported ... rebuttal arrives ... factually report rebuttal.
This is how the BBC works. Though not quite how IDD works. Though contrarians can comment.
Just like on the BBC.
The idea that fast moving media must collect rebuttals before going to press is just silly.
Carried to its illogical conclusion this requirement could have the second and possibly third parties deliberately dragging heels on comment and thereby slowing down or burying stories.
Preposterous idea.
Tories announce something.
That is covered.
Labour announce a response.
That too is covered.
Response to response?
Possibly, on people's own blogs anyway.
Pic and words for book coming ... sorry Iain. You'll just have to delay publication until I'm ready.
Chris Paul,
Your self deception knows no bounds does it?
The BBC in league with the NuLab smear unit had a rebuttal ready BEFORE the details of the proposals were known! The video clip and instructions from the NuLab command bunker were in place too quickly!
Accurate reporting of facts? A smear is NOT a fact! A lie is NOT the truth! You are so blinded with your political views and so happy that your views are being pushed so hard that if you were given concrete proof of bias you would dismiss it!
Do you work for the BBC? Are you working in the media? Anyone with an ounce(gram) of independent thought can see political bias and even former BBC workers have come out and said that the institution is socialist to its core!
Your pathetic excuses are so flimsy and halfhearted that I wonder why you waste the time to type the words!
UNLESS you have a vested interest in the BBC! Well do you?
Councillor Sharp: I have already answered your question... you're a man with a grudge recycling what you know is a groundless accusation (that itself resulted from a grudge).
And if anyone's attempting to deflect attention it's you.
Hmmm. Grudges, pots, kettles...
Ah, Iain... you're awake! And *sober*!
Still no condemnation [of] the sock-puppeting action wrinkled weasel is advocating against the BBC, then?
"I have tremendous respect for most of the news coverage put out by the BBC"
You must be mad.
98% omits any mention of anything they don't like i.e. the truth. 4% is news they don't understand but like the sound of. The rest is pea-brained leftoid propaganda.
Bunch of drug-addled trots and commies, pampered by the state, with a mission to destroy all things English.
You're mad and you know you are
*sigh*
Iain, if this is the way it's going to be, then at least have the courtesy to state it as official policy... something along the lines of "I do not tolerate abuse, smears and/or the use of sock-puppets, unless these tactics are used against people or institutions that I personally disapprove of."
"Regrettably some of our early morning/lunchtime/evening(delete as necessary) bulletins regarding(complete subject matter)went out over footage of an ex-Tory/present Tory/ Cabinet/Shadow Minister(delete as necessary).We wish to make it clear that on reflection it was "not right" to use such old footage but on balance taking the tone of the piece in totality we feel that there is nothing to suggest undue bias but rather that editorial staff were putting the whole issue in a more understandable way for our viewers."
It'll save time if they run a few thousand off now before the election.
Poor Timmmmy, the neurotic is nailed to the cross of his fiction.
When I was involved in party politics I was certain there was an anti-Conservative bias. AfterSince I left it - 15 years ago - I managed to acqire a more neutral perspective and came to believe that actually the BBC's bias was more against the governement of the day, which is actually a very healthy position for a State-run broadcaster to take. Over the last few months, with the wall-to-wall coverage of Blair's departure and Brown's arrival at No 10, I've become less sure. There is clearly a "liberal" bias there, and has been for years. Even the BBC admited that themselves in a recent report. But from time-to-time this in-built left-of-centre favouritism manifests inself in blatantly anti-Conservative coverage. and it's getting worse.
You're as boring as hell Tim
Naughtie Naughtie
I wonder why the BBC have never broadcast the clip of Jim Naughtie coaching hapless power hungry Neil Kinnock ?
They would never have excercised the same self censorship for a Conservative.
And why did the BBC pay lawyers £200,000 to prevent the Balen report from being released under the FOI act?
Now who thinks they're impartial?
To sum up- the Beeb shows a bit of left wing bias. The Pope shows a bit of Catholic bias too. And they are about as likely as one another to change.
Iain- I'm generally a fan but I think open letters and the like are going a little far and taking your blog a bit too seriously.....
Sorry Iain but you are talking rollocks as usual.I've heard several BBC news reports that have started with "Conservatives have criticised government/Labour plans for", at one stage I thought David Davis was a BBC employee he was on so bloody often ,it's the nature of political reporting to go for the downside of any proposal put forward by a political party.It seems Iain, as usual ,wants the BBC to run Tory press release/proposals the way the Tories want them presented.
No Tim, you have not answered my question at all. You have repeated a cryptic comment that remains a total mystery to me. What is this grudge you accuse me of bearing?
It seems strange that I could have any grudge when our only contact has been the exchange of two emails, when I criticised your hypocrisy for an unnecessary smear of another blogger while simultaneously asking for blogging to be cleaned up.
Or is this your tired old tactic of trying to deflect attention from your failings and throw mud at the person highlighting them, by levelling undefined allegations of things that exist only in your mind?
When you have thought up a good 'grudge' to pin on me do be good enough to share it. I cannot wait to see what you come up with. Many thanks!
John Redwood salute you, excellent piece in the Telegraph today
Dave sack Andy Coulson Helen Boaden has achieved much better publicity by just being so very mealy-mouthed and employing such weak foot soldiers
Tch. Silly.
We have also been in contact via this weblog where twice now you've thrown the same allegation in my face when I've dared to question the integrity of Iain Dale. You were there for the relevant exchange and you know that the person who originally made it only did so because he was peeved about something else... he even said so at the time.
Why would you throw this dud ammunition in my face repeatedly if you weren't a smear-throwing grudge-holding so-and-so?
Wait... before you answer that question; let's explore your narrative;
Tim Ireland, in accepting money from the public for a project, suddenly takes on the role of general public servant, and any time he spends on something other than that project (in your case, you only ever complain when Dale is in danger) is a shocking misuse of his time, possibly even to the extent that the word 'misappropriation' can apply.
This accusation and implication comes to us (again), empty, dirty and second-hand, via Councillor Tony Sharp, a public servant who is up all hours of the day and night (and very early morning) smearing those who oppose him or his chums personally or politically. (Or, to paraphrase, using the tired old tactic of trying to deflect attention from Iain Dale's failings and throw mud at the person highlighting them.) Tell me, how is this putting your constituents first? Do they write to you often and demand that you do more to protect the reputation of right-wing bloggers?
The point I raised is that my (and anyone's) reward for criticising Iain Dale for anything (including bias) is just these kinds of attacks from his faithful minions. A wider point that has developed and been proved (again) in this thread is that these attacks often involve the kind of fraud, flim-flammery and flat-out abuse that Iain claims he doesn't stand for... yet he stands by and allows it when it serves his purpose. This, in itself, is bias... and before you wheel out the old "he never hid he was a Tory" chestnut, this is bias on a platform where Iain claims to have no bias.
If even a hint of this favouritism made itself known on the BBC discussion board, you lot would be up in arms, and you know it.
Now, Councillor Sharp, perhaps you would like to actually address that point or provide evidence* of my being unduly biased and/or using this level of comment manipulation, thereby showing that I have no place discussing it with any authority/credibility.
Do take your time... I know you have more pressing matters to attend to.
(* Please note that Iain's usual trick of saying something like "That's rich coming from you" without providing anything to back it up won't wash.)
Remember this man - the one who started speaking the truth about NuLab. anyone who dares to break with the system of lies or who challenges it.... - where has he gone?
'Humphrys attracted further controversy in September 2005 when he allegedly branded all politicians as liars and made comments about Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and John Prescott in an after-dinner speech which was subsequently leaked to The Times by Tim Allan, a former aide to the Prime Minister.[3]. On 6 September 2005, Humphrys was censured by the Corporation for his use of "inappropriate and misguided" language.[4]'
You mean - he told the truth and paid the price.
So much time taken to say so little Tim. Firstly it is your narrative, not mine, after all you made it up.
Secondly you allege I am up at all hours smearing people. That is a complete lie. I do not smear anyone and I defy you to provide any evidence that I have. I await your excuse for being unable to do so.
Thirdly I criticised you for your hypocrisy. At a time you were calling for a blogging code of conduct and claiming high standards, you were in fact actively flaming the comments sections of blogs trying to generate traffic to your site by creating an artificial row. That is why I have a low opinion of you. By your reasoning anyone who has publicly criticised you has done so because they bear a grudge. That is pretty childish Tim.
Lastly, I am not anyone's minion. I am an individual with my own views. I do not defend anyone, nor has anyone asked me to. People are quite capable of speaking for themselves - which is a point that seems lost on you. It is clear that you do not like people treating you the way you treat others. Think about that for a bit.
Tony Sharp:
Where you haven't missed the point, you've dodged it. I love especially that you blame me for your inventions... and fail to provide the evidence required to back them up.
No evidence = you've got nothing.
As for my evidence, it's all right here in this thread.
Earlier, to undermine or draw attention away from my point, you made an unrelated statement/suggestion designed to damage that you should know to be false. That is a smear. Your repeat of it leads to think that a grudge motivates it... the only others options I can think of are stupidity or blind party loyalty.
Either way, you smeared me (for a second time) at 7:56pm on Friday with a rambling follow-up at 1:08am the next day... that's 'up at all hours', to most people.
As for flames, I've often objected to the ongoing flaming originating from this weblog and associated weblogs and (as expected) have been flamed as a result... while Dale berates me for 'dragging him into an blogwar'. Meanwhile he allows every man and his dog to flame me on his website. If he is ever cornered into simply following his own moderation policy and is forced to delete anonymous abuse directed against me (that he claims he deletes generally as a matter of course) he will do so with a flourish that questions if I might not be a bit sensitive. Typically this kind of thing is very revealing to anyone with an IQ over 100.
As counter-productive as it may seem to those on a mission to secure a Tory victory at the next election at all costs, I will continue to do this (on a casual basis at the very least) for as long as the activity is instructive to me or others. I am going somewhere with this, and the blogosphere will be cleaner as a result... life is about to become a lot tougher for those who rely on spin, sock-puppets and smears to 'win' a political debate. (And yes, it is also about to get tougher for those who rely on all of the latter and still have the audacity to scream 'spin', 'sock-puppet' or 'smear' at at their opponents.)
One look at the bigger picture should show you that Dale relies on the weak-minded to echo/endorse his opinions and bully anyone who opposes them into submission. Your flat-out refusal to see this or address any points I raise about it leads me to group you with the rest of the baaa-aaa-aaad boys.
tapestry:
Exactly. Compare this to Iain's reaction to the absurd claims from Grant Shapps that his alleged '1234' password had been compromised.
I remember at the time that you said... oh, my apologies, you didn't have much to say at all about that, did you?
I sometimes wonder what the consequences would have been had Iain Dale told the truth that day. I often wonder what role (if any) Iain's desire to become an MP (if any) plays when Head Office and/or Mr Head Of [Blank] comes a-calling.
So when you say I am up all hours smearing people you are actually accusing me of just smearing you. It does get confusing trying to make sense of your comments when you flick from the first person to the third person then refer to yourself in the plural. No matter.
If it soothes your paranoia and your juvenile desire to label anything critical of your attitude and self promoting antics as sockpuppetry, you go ahead and group me with who you like. The emails I have received telling me I am wasting my time by engaging with you have been proved prophetic.
Hey, I'm people... but thanks for dodging the points raised just one last time for the record.
I did not accuse you of sock-puppetry you cheeky manipulator, you; if you read that passage again, you'll see that I also used the words 'spin' and 'smear' in a collective sense. Hell, you can have an extra one if you like... sheep.
[Psst! Those emails wouldn't have been from Iain "There is no conspiracy!" Dale, would they? One wonders if he might have cause to read the way this thread was going and instead of challenging my evidence publicly suggest that you shut the hell up privately. I'd say more about the likelihood of this, but I would be forced to reveal the source of an 'off the record' statement.]
Tim
You are so wrong on so many things.
try this:-
"Meanwhile he allows every man and his dog to flame me on his website."
Actually, I posted a fairly vile flame of you yesterday and Iain, (quite rightly) got rid of it because it was obscene and did nothing to add to the debate, though it did make me feel better.
I will however, have the pleasure of making you wonder what it said.
"every man and his dog" = no mention of weasels
So while I've got you on the line, WW, as you clearly approve of the use of multiple online identities to push your views and bypass any moderation, may I ask how many personalities you would regard to be the maximum for one person to maintain in any one thread? Just a guestimate from someone who would know is all I ask...
Still mud slinging Tim? You really need to get some professional help. Many conspiracy theories are at least based on a coincidence or something that can sound vaguely plausible. Yours however...
Not being one to mock the afflicted let me tell you that Iain has never emailed me about any posting on this site, let alone anything to do with you. Keep wearing the foil hat and reading your David Icke books. Be well.
"Still mud slinging?" asks the man who goes straight on to suggest that I'm mentally divergent.
(applauds)
Thanks for bringing us back to the point, even if that wasn't your intention.
jeez boys - i havent seen this much infighting action since i turned up at a commercial premises and asked Them to make me an offer.
Exactly who is this ridiculous 'Tim' personoid?
The trouble is, this time I'm not coming out to play.
But you did. Tim I always get a bit of interest why don`t you lower your sights from a serious blogger like Iain and have a look at how I do it. I `ll be happy to guive you a few tips on writing and subject matter.....It gets easier with practice
XX
I wonder if those of you who heard the Cameron interview by Naughtie on Radio 4’s Today were as annoyed as me with the “hug a hoodie” jibe from the interviewer?
I believe that the Beeb’s impartiality should extend to the avoidance of perpetuating urban myths such as this. These insinuations that when repeated often enough end up appearing to be true.
I’m sure Cameron is annoyed by having to rebut this line time and again.
I'm not coming out to play.
And yet here you are.
:o)
I tried to post this on BBC Newsnight web site tonight and it was rejected as not being accepted
Newsnight enjoys the huge payroll of employing the "great broadcasters" but come all the private school holidays they all vanish,and we are fed Iran non-stop.
Sky News has a different outlook which is why they win the RTS awards for services to Broadcasting..
Was this a poor observation ?
Post a Comment