Tuesday, 16 December 2014

# 336 - WAR - Jonathan Hunt's book - Trial by Conspiracy.

I was first contacted by Jonathan Hunt earlier this year after he had come across this blog and we had a long chat about the BBC's bias.

Jonathan Hunt's particular concern, for many years, has been his determination to expose the truth behind the controversy that brought down John Major's government involving Neil Hamilton and others and 'the cash for questions' saga. More recently he has turned his fire onto the BBC who were wholly complicit in the cover up to prevent the truth being told. In his book ' Trial by Conspiracy' he explains in great detail how and why the Guardian newspaper basically concocted the whole story to help set in motion, what became the long running story, of Tory sleaze that helped bring about the Conservative government.

I urge you to find the time to watch this YouTube film he has produced which is the fourth and latest in a number he has produced on the subject :-

Hopefully this story is not going to go away so please help spread the word.

# 335 - WAR - The BBC's bias will only go when they lose the licence fee.

Two more examples of bias today:-

John Humphreys  - the veteran broadcaster admitted yesterday that the BBC had ignored mass immigration because it feared critics would say it was racist. He went on to say his employer was 'soft', 'complacent' and 'institutionally nervous' when it came to tackling the story or questioning multiculturalism. Finally he said that BBC employees are unable to understand the concerns of ordinary people because they typically lead 'sheltered' middle-class lives and are overwhelmingly 'liberal Oxbridge males'.

Well I have news for the BBC as I don't brand it racist but I DO brand it bias and very bias at that!

Glamorising cannabis  - Radio 4's Today programme is being investigated by Ofcom
 over claims it celebrated drug use in a news report about Bob Marley-branded cannabis. In terms of bias this means only pushing one side of the argument and failing to point out the lives cannabis can shatter.

What you have to realise is that the BBC is bias in favour of cannabis use BECAUSE many of their liberal minded staff and their children use cannabis recreationally and one has to say probably fairly safely and responsibly. But of course they do NOT want to end up with a criminal record for using cannabis and so they unashamedly push for its legalisation. The trouble is going soft on cannabis use, as we current are, or legalising it will help them but will devastate the lives of the less fortunate in our society as we can see on the sink estates.

Never forget these champagne socialists, on this issue of cannabis use, care first for themselves. Further more so many of their policies aim at solving their own consciences without any hard nosed analysis of whether they really work in practice.

If you consider my last point when judging the BBC's output you may start to understand why it is 'INSTITUTIONALLY BIAS.'

Sunday, 14 December 2014

# 334 - WAR - Question Time and The BBC book at bedtime.

Question Time.

A bias audience and dumbed down last Thursday's QT, with Nigel Farage and Russell Brand, turned a once great BBC programme into The Jeremy Kyle Show.

David Dimbleby seemed to give up chairing the debate one can only assume being instructed through his ear piece, by a BBC Guardian reading leftie,  to let things run as it made 'Great' TV?!

To cap it all a foul mouthed Bunny La Rouche ( plus it appeared a tame supporter two seats in front of her) from the Socialist Workers Party was also given a free stage for her rant that Nigel Farage was "a racist scumbag."

How much lower can the BBC sink?

It's remit is to ' inform, educate and entertain' and on Thursday night QT did none of those.

BBC 4's Book at bedtime.

The BBC keeps claiming that it is NOT bias and then picks, out of many other contenders, Hilary Mantel's book 'The assassination of Margaret Thatcher' for it's Book at Bedtime slot.

As Lord Tebbit commented 'It is a sick book from a sick mind and is being promoted by a sick broadcasting corporation.'

How can ANY reasonable person disagree with that?

More ammunition to not pay your TV licence.


Monday, 8 December 2014

# 333 - WAR - The Autumn Statement and the BBC.

I'm sure you have all read the stories in the press so suffice to say the BBC claimed the current Autumn Statement would take us back to the austerity of the 1930's which by any analysis takes "hyperbolic coverage' to a new level.

The BBC's continued bias is why I don't pay my TV licence.

Thursday, 4 December 2014

# 332 - WAR - How the BBC wastes your money.

I have just submitted this complaint to the BBC via their internet link :-

"As is constantly reported in the media the BBC has got to save money in the years ahead and yet tonight on the News at six the lead story, concerning a tragic suicide of Mother and daughter from the Clifton suspension bridge, was reported by Duncan Kennedy on the main news and Andrew Plant on the local news.
This is a complete waste of money.
As a second complaint why is the BBC 1 news delivered by one newscaster and yet the local news in the west has two.
As a third complaint, learnt this week, why are more than 91 BBC staff paid more then the Prime Minster?
The BBC is a bloated out of control monster and needs urgent surgery to reduce costs which you will NEVER do while you can call on the poor licence fee payers to cough up.
Why does the BBC waste our money in these ways?"

Wednesday, 3 December 2014

# 331 - WAR - Loads of money at the BBC!

Here is the tally of top pay at the bloated BBC obtained from their website and a freedom of information request.:-

1. 11 of it's senior bosses get twice the pay of the Prime Minster.
2. A further 80 get more than the PMs £142,500
3. 250 on air stars are believed to get more than £250,000 eg. Graham Norton said to be on £2.6 million and Gary Lineker on £2 million.

The total of the top 91 staff comes to £19 million plus bonuses.

The licence fee raised £3.762 billion tax free last year which was an increase of £70million on the previous 12 months.

The BBC will remain bloated until the licence fee is scrapped.


Monday, 24 November 2014

# 330 - WAR - Sir Cliff Richards and the BBC

So Sir Cliff Richards is considering taking legal action against the BBC for a breach of his privacy after their ' premature and disproportionate' reporting of the raid on his house after a man claimed he was sexually assaulted by him during a Christian rally in Sheffield in 1985.

Perhaps those of us who consider the BBC in breach of their Royal Charter due to their undoubted and provable bias reporting should also consider taking legal action for their breach of contract.

Just a thought!   

Wednesday, 5 November 2014

Saturday, 25 October 2014

# 328 - WAR - Newsnight has lost the plot.

Newsnight has been losing viewers for some time so the BBC's answer is not to maintain QUALITY but to DUMB DOWN further.

The first move was a new editor Ian Katz and yes you guessed it straight from the loss making  Guardian :-

"Ian Katz is a South-African born British journalist who is the editor of the Newsnight current affairs programme on BBC Two. Earlier Katz followed a career in print journalism, and was previously a deputy editor of The Guardian until 2013. Wikipedia"
Next they replace Paxman with Evan Davis and now run a very silly advert to encourage viewers to watch it.
The result is last night  we get a 10 minute feature on Ebola and a 17 minute slot for Russell Brand to rant on while promoting his juvenile book on revolution.
Newsnight is no longer a 'Flagship' programme but a dumbed down typical BBC programme attempting to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
This seems like another good reason along with the bias not to pay your TV licence.  

Thursday, 16 October 2014

# 327 - WAR - The BBC show it has learnt NOTHING.

In march 2012 the BBC decided to rename a wing at Broadcasting House after John Peel who died in 2004 with a commemorative blue plaque.

However this idea was shelved after it was revealed John Peel had and admitted to having sex with under aged girls on BBC premise.

Now only two years later the BBC are apparently resurrecting he idea of naming the wing after John Peel.

Despite being a national treasure John Peel undoubtedly had unusual sexual preferences and as a result is NOT really the sort of chap who show be honoured in this way by the BBC.

The BBC is showing NO contrition in this case and it proves that they have learnt nothing from the past and isn't remotely sorry for what it did.


Saturday, 11 October 2014

#326 - WAR - A bias Question Time audience.

Question Time this Thursday, the 9th October, came from Clacton-on-sea where by any standards of balance there should have been a fairly large chunk of the audience who were UKIP supporters.

However at around 17.39 minutes into the programme Dimbleby ask the audience to raise their hands if they are supporters or members of UKIP. I could only see, at best,  around 3 hands raised.

This BBC bias at its most insidious best.

I don't, and can see no reason why citing bias anyone need fear not paying their TV licence.

Wednesday, 1 October 2014

# 325 - WAR - BBC admit racist slur had NO substance in fact.

Alasdair Gennie who is the TV correspondent for the Daily Mail reports today that:-

"BBC chiefs accepted yesterday that producers had made a huge mistake in a children's programme by claiming that Florence Nightingale was 'racist'.

This arose in the BBC's programme Horrible Histories when it showed Florence Nightingale as turning down four job applications from Jamaican born Miss Seacole saying that the nursing work was for 'British girls' only.

The Nightingale  Society made a complaint and the BBC Trust has now ruled that the two minute 34 second depiction was inaccurate.

This is SO typical of the BBC's bias agenda in which it pushes its 'Guardianist' agenda with little to no concerns for the truth.

This is nothing short of a scandal because this isn't just making a 'bias nuance' but actually setting out, with NO proof, to distort the facts.

This is of course why I don't pay my TV licence and will continue to refuse until the BBC starts to report in an un-bias way as laid down by its Royal Charter.  

Thursday, 28 August 2014

# 324 - WAR - Was BBC's audience in Scotland debate their usual bias rent-a-mob?

The BBC have form, most noticeable on Panorama, for picking bias audiences, so why should this be any different?


# 323 - WAR - Threatening letters from the BBC.

If only the people who don't pay their TV licence cited BIAS as the reason they didn't pay then not only would they have a great case NOT to pay but the accumulative effect of so many citing BIAS would help rock the foundations of the BBC.


Thursday, 14 August 2014

# 322 - WAR - Another BBC old timer tells it how it is!

John Simpson who is 69 has recently claimed the BBC is " grotesquely managed by the tough women who run it "! He sums up life at the BBC in general as " a ghastly outfit"!

I don't believe the BBC is only badly managed by 'tough women' as there are plenty of examples of BBC men being just as bad. However what I do suspect, in the undoubtedly Politically Correct BBC, is that they will promote women into positions of management because they are women and not because they are necessarily capable of doing the job well.

 If you want a snap shot of all that is going wrong in in this country then the BBC gives you one of the best examples there is.

Only getting rid of the TV licence tax will the BBC, faced with real competition, start to seriously reform.  

Friday, 8 August 2014

# 321 - WAR - Incompetence at the heart of the BBC.

A tribunal has found in favour of John Linwood for his unfair dismissal from the BBC over the £100 million IT fiasco.

The BBC clearly don't know the most basic of industrial procedures for dismissing a person.

1. Verbal Warning for XYZ
2. Formal Warning for say XY
3. Final Formal warning for say Y
4. Dismissal for Y

All stages above need to include retraining of the employee as appropriate and if and when dismissal is finally given it MUST be something the person was verbally warned about. So warnings should be broadly based.  For example it will not be deemed fair to verbally warn for lateness and then dismiss for untidiness.

Of course in severe cases of  misconduct dismissal for Gross Misconduct without any previous warnings can be given for example thief or violence.

The BBC needed a scape goat and Linwood took the chop UNFAIRLY and will be receiving compensation.

The BBC is a bloated, bureaucratic, bias institution and will ONLY be reformed when the licence fee is stopped.

Thursday, 10 July 2014

# 320 - WAR - Nigel Lawson banned by the BBC.

Not that he has been officially told but Lord Lawson has learnt that he is not to be included on future debates on climate change on the BBC, despite being something of an expert and Author of 'An appeal to reason', because he is not a scientist.

As he points out in the Daily Mail yesterday then he trusts the BBC will also not interview the Energy Secretary Ed Davey, Ed Miliband, Lord Deben (chairman of the Government's Climate Change Advisory Committee), Lord Stern and others who are also not scientists.

This decision not to talk to Lord Lawson again came after a deluge of complaints from various 'Greens' after he appeared in February in a debate on the BBC with Professor Sir Brian Hoskins about the climate issues around the flooding being experienced.

After initially defending the decision the BBC gave in to the pressure and declared they would not interview Lord Lawson again because "his views are not supported by the evidence from computer modelling."

As Lord Lawson went on to say in the article computer modelling is not 'evidence' but purely conjecture.

The BBC are fully certified members of the new 'Green' religion and their coverage of this important issue is completely bias.    

Wednesday, 9 July 2014

# 319 - WAR - BBC headcount increases since last year.

First let me address the issue that the information I often glean from a daily paper comes from the Daily Mail.

The legacy media are in many respects as bad as each other but the Daily Mail is at least a consistent critic of the BBC and for that they deserve praise. Also just for the record I happen to like the crosswords, Sudoku X, Hidato, Zygolex, 30 second Challenge, World's smallest hardest crossword and not forgetting the Doodle-Do - doing such things, so I'm told, helps keep the brain active and dementia at bay!!

Anyway yesterday they reported that the number of people employed at the BBC had risen despite repeated promises to cut staffing levels. The official figures reveal that 22,039 people work at the corporation an increase of 310 since last year.

Also it has emerged that head hunters were paid £650,000 in 2013 to fill posts across the organisation. This seems a complete waste of money given the poor quality of the BBC's top management!

With a reduced licence fee or preferably no licence fee at all the bloated and bias BBC would have to enter the real world and put its house in order.  

Monday, 30 June 2014

# 318 - WAR - The bias ABBBC!!

Comment in the Daily Mail today by Phil Alderson from Bridgewater Somerset in the feature headed 'Straight to the point':-

The BBC is to spend 2.1 million to promote more ethnic minorities on our screens. I suggest we re-name Aunty the ABBBC - Anything But British Broadcasting Corporation.

The BBC seems fairly diverse to me already given ethnic minorities only make up 10% of our population.

The BBC needs to be put down there is simply no hope for it!!

Saturday, 28 June 2014

# 317 - WAR - Bias by omission.

 On the 10 O'clock news last night on BBC 1 the story was covered about the EU's latest trade deal with Ukraine but they failed to mention ANYTHING about the larger part to this trade deal which involves political and even military cooperation.

Here is a link from the blog EU Referendum that explains the significance of this new EU/Ukraine deal:-


Ukraine comes under the Russian sphere of influence and they are not going to like this on e bit.

Evil Empires like the EU of course need to expand or they implode but you won't get the pro EU BBC telling you any of this.

So now we see the BBC can be bias by what it does not report.

Wednesday, 25 June 2014

# 316 - WAR - Robert Peston says there is no left-wing bias in the BBC!

One has to wonder how he would know being in the BBC bubble along with his other loss making Guardian reading metropolitan chums at the Beeb.


Apparently he says it is 'bollocks' that the BBC is bias!

Well I have news for him this blog and others proves it is bias and it really is 'bollocks' to claim the BBC is not bias on matters such as being pro the left of British politics,, climate change, the EU and not forgetting dumbing down.

The BBC is INSTITUTIONALLY BIAS and you cannot expect someone working in it to see this.

Sunday, 22 June 2014

#315 - WAR - BBC opposes the Conservative party.

As reported in the Daily Mail yesterday, fortunately a paper not afraid to point out the bias in the BBC, Iain Duncan-Smith has complained to the BBC that they are a bigger enemy to his Welfare Reforms than the Labour opposition.

Enough said!

Saturday, 24 May 2014

# 314 - WAR - So no bias here then!?

The BBC’s warning to its staff to remain impartial came too late for Mimi Kempton-Stewart, the assistant politics editor of the Today programme. Here are some of her thoughts on yesterday’s election, including that “it’d be nice” if every UKIP voter were just to disappear forever or die”:


Friday, 23 May 2014

# 313 - WAR - More bias appointments of course.

So I read in the Daily Mail today that in the last two days two BBC staff, including an editor on its news channel have been caught labelling UKIP and its supporters as racist, sexist and lunatics.

Meanwhile the ex-Guardian executive now editing Newsnight, who made a former TUC advisor its economic correspondent, yesterday handed a reporting role to a woman who once fronted a Labour election rally and dated one of the party MPs.

This is the BBC which claims to be even handed who also appointed ex-Blairite James Purnell as Director of Strategy. 

The BBC is INSTITUTIONALLY bias and these promotion PROVE it.

Friday, 25 April 2014

# 312 - WAR - BBC Proms dumbing down again.

I know this blog is  called BBC Institutional Bias but it now could just as easily be called BBC Institutionally Dumbed Down.

Following on from last years two rappers and a punk band this years proms is schedules to include pop star Paloma Faith (who is she?) Rufus Wainwright and the Pet Shop Boys.

The BBC is in a spiral of intellectual decline that mirrors the dumbed down society in which we now live.

This is supposedly being done to attracted a younger audience but why should the proms necessarily set out to attract a younger audience especially if that involves dumbed down gimmicks.

The BBC used to set the agenda now it just follows as it mirrors every popular trend and fashion.

# 311 - WAR - BBC report is bias.

Unsurprisingly a report commissioned by the BBC, lead by an insider, came to the conclusion the BBC is NOT bias in its reporting on EU matters.


Friday, 18 April 2014

# 310 - WAR - Now even Paxman criticises the BBC.

Jeremy Paxman now joins other distinguished and long serving BBC presenters in criticising the BBC.

From memory the list includes :-

John Humphrys
David Dimbleby
Michael Buerk
Peter Sissons

Well they cannot all be wrong can they

Paxman's complaints include the following:-

1. 60 million golden goodbyes
2. How the BBC distorts the market and undermines commercial rivals
3. Waste as in the £100 million Digital Media Initiative
4. Poor BBC management
5. Funding for the likes of Radio 1 which the private sector can and do cover.
6. Unnecessary web presence
7. How it challenges the country's press through publicly funded news websites.

So quite a lot to be getting on with there and of course nothing that I haven't covered on this blog.

IMO the changes to the BBC will be gradual and will be brought about by the gradual reduction in the value of the licence fee. Sweeping and dramatic change is simply not the way the BBC does business.

Sunday, 30 March 2014

#309 - WAR - Paying A Compulsory Tax For BBC Bias Is Morally Wrong

#309 - WAR - Paying A Compulsory Tax For BBC Bias Is Morally Wrong

A biased BBC isn't worth its licence fee

The Rev Paul Flowers has been exposed as a buffoon, who had no idea of the size of the bank of which he was Chairman. 
He has also been shown by hard evidence to be a grotesque hypocrite, with a personal life quite out of keeping with his position in the Methodist Church.
Those who trusted him have acted accordingly. The Methodist Church has suspended him indefinitely. The Co-operative Bank forced him to resign. Even the Labour Party, no stranger to internal irregularities, has suspended him.
Paul Flowers was interviewed by a simpering Paxman on the BBC's Newsnight programme
Paul Flowers was interviewed by a simpering Paxman 
on the BBC's Newsnight programme
The Mail on Sunday, acting quite properly in the tradition of robust journalism, played a major part in his downfall by exposing his drug abuse. Mr Flowers might well feel aggrieved at that. Even saints (which he is not) dislike being shown up in public.
But why did the supposedly impartial BBC feel it was its job to sympathise with Mr Flowers, and to give him a platform for an orgy of public self-pity, combined with crude, baseless abuse of this newspaper? 
The BBC’s bias is most clearly shown by its frequent failures to pursue and interrogate those with whom it secretly sympathises. Yet it will turn like a tiger on those of whom it secretly disapproves. 
Who can forget Jeremy Paxman’s relentless interrogation of former Tory Home Secretary Michael Howard, in which he asked the same question 12 times?
But in his encounter with Mr Flowers, Mr Paxman was transformed from tiger into purring pussycat.
His questions were gentle lobs. He failed to rebuke Mr Flowers for blatantly flattering him with allusions to his supposed ferocity. 
Mr Paxman even laughed sycophantically at an unfunny remark about scripture, as if the two men were Oxbridge dons maundering over the port.

He did not press Mr Flowers on his not-very-Christian unwillingness to offer a proper apology for his actions or show any convincing remorse.
He failed to challenge Mr Flowers’s refusal (on spurious legal grounds) to discuss his alleged drug abuse, or his claim that he cannot afford to sue The Mail on Sunday, in this era of no-win, no-fee lawyers. 
The real reason for his silence is that this newspaper’s stories are true.
'Mr Paxman even laughed sycophantically at an unfunny remark about scripture, as if the two men were Oxbridge dons maundering over the port'
'Mr Paxman even laughed sycophantically at an unfunny remark about 
scripture, as if the two men were Oxbridge dons maundering over the port'
We cannot know the reason for this toothless, flaccid performance by the famed Grand Inquisitor of the BBC.
But there is a clue in the way in which Mr Flowers was wholly unchallenged when he used the interview to attack The Mail on Sunday as ‘pseudo-fascist’, the sort of baseless, politically illiterate abuse that might be shouted at a student demonstration, rather than spoken by a man of the cloth.
How ironic that last week’s Mail on Sunday revealed Mr Paxman’s Newsnight colleague Duncan Weldon tried to minimise his own past as a supporter of the BNP.
The BBC simply does not deserve the great privilege of the licence fee if it cannot try harder than this to be fair.

Majestic stoicism

The Queen herself will never complain openly about anything. But the Government should be ashamed of the thoughtless way in which they have overloaded the Monarch’s schedule in the first week of June.
They should also note that the 87-year-old Head of State has been forced to take on back-to-back engagements precisely because her Parliament, full of fit and well-paid young men and women, has so little to do.

To see this article GoTo:

Saturday, 29 March 2014

#308 - WAR - The BBC Hiding The EU Millions

The millions in EU funding 

the BBC tried to hide

 28 February 2014 17:41
‘Dripping wet’ Chris Patten. Image: Getty
‘Dripping wet’ Chris Patten. Image: Getty

Over the last three years the BBC has secretly obtained millions of pounds in grants from the European Union. Licence fee payers might assume that the Corporation would have been compelled to disclose the source of this money in its annual reports, but they bear no trace of it specifically. In the latest set of accounts, for example, these funds are simply referred to as ‘other grant income’.
Instead of making an open declaration, the BBC’s successful lobbying for this money had to be prised out of it using a Freedom of Information (FoI) request lodged for The Spectator, proving that there was never any danger of the state broadcaster’s bosses volunteering it willingly.
The FoI response confirms that BBC staff applied for, and accepted, about £3 million of EU funds between April 2011 and November 2013, most of which has been spent on unspecified ‘research and development’ projects, with the remaining £1 million spent on programming.
Next to the £3.65 billion tax-free income that the BBC receives each year via the licence fee, £3 million is, admittedly, a mere speck of dust – just 0.8 per cent of its annual guaranteed revenue and, obviously, even less than that when spread over 36 months.
However, the size of these EU gifts is arguably irrelevant, even though they are indicative of the BBC’s seemingly unquenchable thirst for public money. What is undeniably true is that the BBC has acted with characteristic slyness by concealing that it ever requested, let alone received, this European cash, suggesting that it is uneasy about the public being aware of its financial arrangements.
With the European elections only three months away, the timing of this disclosure is certainly unhelpful to the BBC, fuelling longstanding pro-EU bias concerns.
Rob Wilson MP, an aide to the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, says that he believes evidence of the BBC receiving any EU money leaves it open to attack because being on its payroll risks feeding the perception that is incapable of reporting objectively on European affairs. Mr Wilson also questions why the BBC needed to go ‘cap in hand’ to the EU for funds in the first place when its enviably secure financial position allows it to outgun commercial rivals in so many spheres.
He says:
‘The whole point of the licence fee is to protect the BBC’s political independence and impartiality by providing it with a source of funding that is outside the hands of governments and politicians. Thanks to this FoI response, we now learn that it has been going cap in hand to the EU for millions of pounds on the quiet over the last few years. Such outrageous flouting of the principles on which the BBC is based and funded will only promote cynicism about its political impartiality and lead to a loss of trust in the BBC’s independence.’
He adds that he intends to write to part-time BBC Trust chairman Chris Patten about this matter.
But despite Patten being paid £110,000 per year to represent the interests of licence payers, it is hard to imagine that the dripping wet former EU Commissioner and Euro enthusiast will pay much attention.
In view of the fact that he stands to benefit from a fantastically generous EU pension  – which Ukip deputy leader Paul Nuttall estimates to be worth £100,000 per year for the rest of his life – thanks to his 47 months on the gravy train, Patten is surely part of the problem when it comes to questions about the BBC and Europe.
Indeed, his slippery and unaccountable nature reflects rather neatly all that is wrong with it. With trademark arrogance, Patten is currently refusing to appear in front of the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee to answer questions about the BBC’s coverage of Europe. He has rebuffed three invitations to do so knowing that, under parliamentary rules, his status as a member of the Lords means he cannot be forced to appear in front of an MPs’ committee. Could there be a more perfect illustration of the BBC – and portly Patten – having their cake and eating it?
In the FoI response, the BBC refuses to name any of the ‘research and development’ projects or television programmes on which it spent the EU grant money.
This, apparently, is information that’s far too sensitive for mere licence payers to be told about.
All it says by way of explanation is that the funds come from two separate sources – the EU Framework Programme for Research and Development; and the European Regional Development Fund. It admits that during the financial year 2010/11 it accepted £956,000 from the first of these funds and that during the following financial year it was given a further £435,000 for the same purpose.
During the first half of the current financial year, between April and November 2013, it was awarded a third EU research and development grant worth £812,000.
More money – none of which is given without a formal application – is expected before April 2014 but the running total for these three tranches stands at £2.2 million.
A BBC spokesman says the money was used for ‘technology-based projects based on existing BBC R&D priorities and business needs’ but would elaborate no further.
The BBC’s response then reveals that it has also received EU grants for programme-making from the European Regional Development Fund.
Although it claims such funding is commonplace among Europe’s public service broadcasters, it has declined to provide a breakdown of the grants beyond insisting that none of the money was spent on news programmes. A helpful BBC insider has worked out that the total amount of EU money spent on programmes over the last three years is likely to have been £1 million.
However, with a straight face, the BBC does explain in its response that Channel 4 has in the past received funding from the same source, and that it used its EU prize money to make the 2008 film Slumdog Millionaire.
When the BBC is prepared to use an FoI response to state how a rival organisation spent its EU booty, but refuses to explain how it spent its own, its standards of transparency are surely broken.
Eurosceptic Labour MP Kate Hoey, now part of an unofficial coalition of politicians overseeing the privately-funded organisation Newswatch, which monitors the BBC for EU bias at a cost of £60,000 per year, says the FoI disclosure is ‘shocking’. She says:
‘I have grave concerns about the bias of the BBC when it comes to EU matters. I find the whole thing shocking. The lack of transparency is unjustified. Why does it seem so worried about people knowing where it gets its money? What has the BBC got to hide other than knowing that many of us don’t trust them on EU matters and the need for a referendum on Britain’s EU membership?’
Ms Hoey adds that she has concerns that the BBC ‘very rarely’ reports Labour MPs’ views on Europe. She says:
‘Even Today in Parliament [on Radio 4] always tries to convey Tory splits on Europe, and this doesn’t help the perception of an EU bias. There are Labour MPs with strong views on Europe as well. It doesn’t help that the BBC very rarely reports these views.’
The evidence contained in this FoI response is the latest in a series of examples shining some light on the BBC’s relationship with the EU.
Last autumn we learned that its charity arm, BBC Media Action, part of its Global News division, was given almost £4 million of EU money in 2012 for a project to train hundreds of journalists from countries which share volatile borders with EU member states, an initiative known as the European Neighbourhood Policy. This acceptance of EU money, not volunteered by the BBC, was condemned in some quarters as proof that it was effectively being paid to help encourage the enlargement of the European project, promoting the EU’s political agenda.
Viewers also had to watch as BBC news bulletins last October lapped up in the most excruciating fashion a European Commission-funded report denying the existence of ‘benefits tourism’, a phenomenon in which non-contributory benefits are available for the unemployed, thereby allowing those who have not paid into our system to make welfare claims in Britain even though unemployed Britons living in, for example, France or Spain, which are not party to this skewed arrangement, cannot make similar claims.
It was depressing to watch the BBC’s unquestioning, lazy reporting, which failed to make the point that Britain is one of only five European countries (along with Ireland, Germany, Finland and Estonia) stupid enough to have allowed itself to be in this situation.
But when the BBC is the recipient of secret EU funds, and is not compelled by any law to disclose its sources of income, what else should licence payers expect? Commenting on the FoI response, a BBC spokesman said:
‘BBC News does not receive any grant funding from the EU. Impartiality and balanced reporting is and always will be of paramount importance for the BBC. Each year in our Annual Report we disclose the total income received from a variety of grants, of which and grants from the EU make up a relatively small proportion of the total figure. The vast majority of EU grants are used for research and development projects. The notion that millions of pounds of EU money goes into our programming is untrue.’

First Published @ The Spectator  http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/02/the-millions-in-eu-funding-the-bbc-tried-to-hide/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-millions-in-eu-funding-the-bbc-tried-to-hide

#307 - WAR - BBC tries to hide EU funding

BBC tries to hide EU funding

by  on MARCH 3, 2014

Over the last three years the BBC has secretly obtained millions of pounds in grants from the European Union. Licence fee payers might assume that the Corporation would have been compelled to disclose the source of this money in its annual reports, but they bear no trace of it specifically. In the latest set of accounts, for example, these funds are simply referred to as ‘other grant income’.
Instead of making an open declaration, the BBC’s successful lobbying for this money had to be prised out of it using a Freedom of Information (FoI) request lodged for The Spectator, proving that there was never any danger of the state broadcaster’s bosses volunteering it willingly.
The FoI response confirms that BBC staff applied for, and accepted, about £3 million of EU funds between April 2011 and November 2013, most of which has been spent on unspecified ‘research and development’ projects, with the remaining £1 million spent on programming.
This rightly begs the question, how can the BBC report EU matters in an unbiased way when it receives EU funding? As Miles Goslett quite rightly asserts in his article in The Spectator, £3 million is a drop in the ocean when it comes to the overall BBC budget, however, why has the BBC been so secretive about the income it receives from the EU?
Kate Hoey, Labour MP for Vauxhall had this to say:
‘I have grave concerns about the bias of the BBC when it comes to EU matters. I find the whole thing shocking. The lack of transparency is unjustified. Why does it seem so worried about people knowing where it gets its money? What has the BBC got to hide other than knowing that many of us don’t trust them on EU matters and the need for a referendum on Britain’s EU membership?
‘Even Today in Parliament [on Radio 4] always tries to convey Tory splits on Europe, and this doesn’t help the perception of an EU bias. There are Labour MPs with strong views on Europe as well. It doesn’t help that the BBC very rarely reports these views.’
She is right. Being secretive only gives the impression that you have something to hide. If you have nothing to hide, why be secretive?

Kate Hoey1


Monday, 17 March 2014

# 306 - WAR - The ingredients for a balanced report.

Let's take the forthcoming budget as a topic.

 In a balanced report would get the news item followed by a comment from the Cons/Lib Dims and another from Nu Liebour and then if applicable and time allowing a comment from the public with say two pro Tory and two pro Labour.

However I've noticed of late, as I I have so often in the past, that the sequence has been - News item critical of Coalition policy which contains a comment from the Chancellor and then as balance an interview with Balls who is allowed to spout uncontested that there is a Cost of Living crisis, that Labour will be fairer, tax the rich and generally lead us to the promised land.

Keep this in mind when you watch a news report and see if I'm not right.

This is of course political bias in favour of  the left.

Saturday, 15 March 2014

# 305 - WAR - And there is more!

In the words of the popular 60's song ........



# 304 - WAR - Question Time bias ...................so what is new!

An article in the Daily Mail on Thursday questioned pointed out how a leaked briefing document showed David Dimbleby had been urged to ask more questions of Lord Heseltine and Simon Hughes than the Labout MP Rachel Reeves.

It even made the local press as well:-


When an organisation is institutionally bias, as the BBC is, it will take more than their spokesperson assuring us that " the programme was fair balanced and followed our guidelines on impartiality" to turn things around.

The TV licence needs to be reformed and the bloated bias BBC needs to face some competition.

Wednesday, 12 March 2014

# 303 - WAR - John Humphreys admits the bleeding obvious!

In the Daily Mail yesterday it was reported that John Humphreys believes the BBC is "grotesuely over managed" and has always had a "broadly liberal bias" admitting that its coverage on such issues as immigration and the EU have not been sufficiently sceptical.

If you are NOT getting what it says on the BBC tin why pay the TV licence?

Wednesday, 26 February 2014

# 302 - WAR - Is the sea level risng?

Thanks to the blog site ' Not a lot of people know that ' I see the BBC is being very economical with the truth as usual.


Under the heading ' Indonesia rising sea level threatens 1,500 Islands' the BBC reports on-line under 'News from elsewhere' at 11.19am today that sea level rises are threatening Indonesian Islands.

This simply isn't true as the problem is the land is sinking due to tectonic plate movement as recorded in the Yanags and Akaki study in 1994.

Because BBC staff are indoctrinated with the false science of global warming they also believe sea levels are rising and push this at every opportunity.

This is BIAS.

Tuesday, 25 February 2014

# 301 - WAR - Harmen, Dromey and Hewitt and the NCCL and PIE.

The BBC has finally joined the party after clearly attempting to ignore the story for about 4 days that the Daily Mail has been running.

In brief the NCCL, now Liberty run by Shami Chakrabarti, employed Harriet Harmen, Jack Dromey and Patrica Hewitt in the 70's and early 80's when the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) was affiliated to it.

PIE is of course no more and several of those involved with it were arrested and charged and to her credit Shani Chakrabarti has apologised and admitted that it was wrong that the then NCCL gave support to PIE.

However despite repeated requests to admit that the NCCL made a mistake, in its support for PIE, Harriet Harman last night on Newsnight refused to say it was a mistake.

This story isn't over yet and is another example of BBC bias for can you imagine the BBC ignoring this story for 4 days if the 3 involved had been Conservatives?

Friday, 21 February 2014

# 300 - WAR - Is it the wettest winter on record??

Last night I complined on line to the BBC about their 10 o'clock news report on the this now officially being the wettest winter on record.

Below is the automatic reply from the BBC and the detail of my complaint:-

Dear Mr Warry

Thanks for contacting the BBC. This is an automated email confirming we have received the complaint below and submitted in this name via www.bbc.co.uk/complaints. Please do not reply to this email since it is generated from an unmonitored address. If you believe you have received this in error please contact us using our webform at www.bbc.co.uk/complaints.

We attach the text of the complaint for your records and will normally include it in our overnight report of all today’s audience reaction. This is circulated to BBC staff tomorrow (with your personal details removed) and ensures your points will reach the right people quickly. We aim normally to reply within 10 working days (around 2 weeks) depending on the nature of your complaint.

To make sure we use the licence fee efficiently we may not investigate every issue in detail, and for consistency may send the same reply if others have also complained about the same issue. For our full complaints procedures and how we consider the issues raised in feedback please read www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/



Complaint Summary: Rainfall figures were confusing and inaccurate.

Full Complaint: The news item on the amount of rainfall in essence stated that it has been the wettest winter since records began in 1910. Your figures were confusing but I believe you said that in the three months from Dec 2013 to the end of February 2014 the amount of rainfall would be 486.8mm. My research anticipates the rainfall for those three months is more likely to be 650mm. However in 1929 the total for the same three months was 812mm. So this has NOT been the wettest since records began. Also the news item talked about both climate change, as it always does, and global warming which it has NOT done in the last 10 years. I'm aware that your staff have been indoctrinated with the false science of global warming/ climate change and your reports on these matters are bias. However you have in this report, if my research is correct, used figures that are simply not true. One final point I gather weather records go back to 1766 and not 1910 as you state. I await your reply with interest.

Thursday, 13 February 2014

# 299 - WAR - It's water vapour stupid!!

I've been trying, for more time than I care to admit, to attach a photograph of a chimney belching out 'smoke' but have failed!
My point is how many times does the BBC talk about Climate Change ( it always has!) and or Global Warming (no it isn't) and show a chimney belching forth 'smoke/CO2' well the pictures invariably show chimneys giving off harmless WATER VAPOUR.
That ladies and gentlemen is bias. 

Monday, 3 February 2014

# 298 - WAR - Michael Gove and Baroness Morgan.

Although I have not posted on here for 15 days the BBC has still been bias in one way or another most days. However the bias shown over Baroness Morgan being replaced is so blatant as to need recording.

Here are the three reasons I can think of to show that this story is bias against the Conservatives and therefore pro the left.

1. This minor news story only became the lead news item, as it did, because it was anti Conservative.
2. Little mention has been that Michael Gove actually appointed Baroness Morgan in the first place.
3. There has been NO balance or analysis, that I have seen, of how New Labour stuffed their 'supporters' into the top jobs in Quangos and many other bodies.

Today the issue still rumbles on with an airing as a discussion item on the Jeremy Vine show.

The BBC is so devoid of rightwingers that they simply don't see how bias they are and have become.

PS. Dominic Lawson in the Daily Mail today reported that the Policy Exchange think-tank recorded that in the Blair years the ratio in some years was 75 to 15 percent in favour of New Labour appointments.

Sunday, 19 January 2014

# 297 WAR - BBC's anti-Tory posters

As if we need any further proof of BBC bias it is reported in the Sunday Telegraph today that in the BBC's office opposite Westminster they had on the staff notice board headlines cut out from the Daily Mirror which were critical of the Tories.

Conservative MP Rob Wilson called on the BBC to remove the articles and launch an investigation.

A BBC spokesman said: " We don't immediately know what staff notice board Mr Wilson is referring to, but whatever it is, it won't have anything to do with the BBC output."

Oh yes it will Mr BBC spokesman as you are all so 'Guardianised' and INSTITUTIONALLY BIAS that you only comprehend the left of centre view of our politics. 

Tuesday, 14 January 2014

#296 - WAR - The way the news is set out is bias.

Here are two examples of bias based on the way a news story is put together. Both these examples come from the news on Radio 2 today and yesterday.

1. Fracking - An item on fracking yestersday started with the news that councils  are being offer government incentives to allow fracking and then went straight into the enviromental concerns and to a Green Peace spokesperson for their comments which were of course anti fracking. The bias comes about by immediately linking the news story with concerns over fracking and comments from Green Peace. Why for example could they not follow the story with comments from those who are NOT concerned with fracking and only see advantages and then follow up with a comment from an expert who is pro fracking.

2. Inflation -  Today the first item on the morning news was that inflation is at its lowest for four years and without drawing breath went straight into commenting that despite this there are still concerns over the cost of living. Again why was this news not immediately followed by a positive comment on the advantages of low inflation.

 As expected the BBC cannnot let news about this mainly Tory government escape without an adverse comment which is usually broadcast without contradiction and if issued by a spokesperson is seldom if ever challenged.

Also I read somewhere in the last couple of days that Nick Clegg was allowed to push his Lib Dim views, without challenge, on the Andrew Marr show on Sunday and of course while talking about the EU was NOT challenged on the lie that 3 million jobs would be lost if we left the EU.

The BBC is beyond reform it must be scrapped.     

Sunday, 12 January 2014

# 295 - WAR - Some more classic BBC bias.

Two stories from the good old Sunday Mail which to its credit never shies away from criticism of the BBC and pointing out their bias.

1. Sherlock Holmes - The Co-writer of this show Mark Gatiss has spoken of his hatred of the Tories while his colleague Steven Moffat has been vocal about his left wing views. So it is no surprise that the production is seen as peddling a left wing agenda with the introduction of an evil capitalist newspaper baron as Sherlock's nemesis and last week's  jibes directed at a 'dithering, in coherent, and self-interested unnamed major of London and his hair brained schemes.

This is in sharp contact with the saga over Ian Curteis' play on the Falklands war which was commissioned in 1983  for release in 86 but never shown until 2002 due to it's supoosed favourable treatment of Mrs Thatcher.

Please remind yourself of the story here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Falklands_Play

2. Attempts to cover-up 'eco conference' - The BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds over 6 years trying to keep secret an 'eco' conference they held for 28 top BBC executives which promoted the green's agenda on climte change.

 In 2006 with a £67,00 loan from New Labour the BBC's own enviromental analyst Roger Harrabin set up the seminar to promote the line on climate change and other Third World issues in BBC reporting.

This is BBC chief Helen Boaden's statement to the inquiry urging the seminar stayed secret:-

" The seminar had an impact on a broad range of BBC output spanning science programmes and News reports. Some editors and executives, who attended, were inspired to be more ambitious and creative in their editorial coverage of this complex issue....[It] should not later be reproduced in such a way as to allow attribution. The list of attendees should not be released to third parties."   

Says it all really and all you need to know about the BBC and its bias.

Friday, 3 January 2014

# 294 - WAR - BBC bias on immigration.

It is pretty clear to me that the BBC is generally pro immigration and is loathed to criticise the last New Labour governments 'Blairite approach' to the issue.

So it is no surprise that they gave blanket coverage to a report last month, by Christian Dustmann and Tommaso Frattini from the UCL, which said immigration had made a substantial contribution to the public finances.

However yesterday Mervyn Stone a senior statistician at the UCL said the report contained some basic schoolboy errors.

The BBC has a duty to be impartial and not only balanced but check out information BEFORE they broadcast.

I'm sure the BBC won't publish a retraction but then they don't care as they have used the airways to promote their view of the world and to hell with the truth.

The trouble is the BBC's version of the truth is NOT representative of the public at large.