BBC Blog Network

User Profile

West_London_Willy

Listed below are comments made by West_London_Willy between Friday, 4th December 2009 and Friday, 18th December 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Weekly Bonus Question 12:47pm on 18 Dec 2009 I have two brothers. My mother will descend on one of us on Christmas Day, meaning no Bond film, no snooze after lunch, The Queen's Speech in all it's HD Glory, and the need to stay sober to drive her home afterwards.

What are the odds of a Merry Christmas for me?
Pre-Budget report disagreement between Treasury and No 10 3:26pm on 15 Dec 2009 429:

"It would be more logical for the BBC to curry favour with the party they have most to fear from: the Conservatives."

But Nick doesn't. So therefore the only logical conclusion is that Nick's tacit support for Labour, evidenced through his failure to report any story that could harm them and his track record of spinning all stories in their favour, is both personal and illogical. As his employers (and as it's their name under which he posts) The BBC have ultimate responsibility to ensure the terms of the Charter are upheld by all employees - in this instance they are failing.
Pre-Budget report disagreement between Treasury and No 10 3:22pm on 15 Dec 2009 # 426:

This is proof you don't read Nick's blogs, only the responses. Nick is constantly called - by members of the entire political spectrum, saving your good self and other New Labour apologists - of only blogging articles which either show Labour in a good light, can be spun to show Labour in a good light, or can be spun to show the Conservatives in a poor light.

Try reading some of what you comment upon, and you'll see the ironic lie in your statement.

And as for the Telegraph, others have already told you that privately funded organisations can do what they want - that line of comment simply strengthens the argument against a state-funded broadcaster being in any way outwardly biased towards the political paymasters of the day.

#428 eye-wish: I acknowledge the irony you tried to put into your post. Please provide me with one substantiated example from the last six months where one of Nicks posts have been both scornful of the Labour administration and also contained praise for the Conservatives. Then you'll be taken seriously.

I await the evidence (but not with baited breath....)
Pre-Budget report disagreement between Treasury and No 10 12:21pm on 15 Dec 2009 ~417:

It calls for independence, in fact the opening statement declares that The Queen believes it to be in the interest of the people that there continue to be an independent corporation resoinsible for disseminating news, education and entertainment. And this bit of the site, whilst entertaining on occasion, is about information.

It states that "The BBC shall be independent in all matters concerning the content of its output, the times and manner in which this is supplied, and in the management of its affairs."

The BBC Trust has the ultimate responsibility for "upholding the public interest within the BBC, particularly the interests of licence feepayers", and it's Geenral Duties are listed as:
"(a)representing the interests of licence fee payers;
(b)secure that the independence of the BBC is maintained;
(c)carefully and appropriately assessing the views of licence fee payers;
(d)exercising rigorous stewardship of public money;
(e)having regard to the competitive impact of the BBC’s activities on the wider market;
and(f)ensuring that the BBC observes high standards of openness and transparency."

Now, which part of this do you feel is in keeping with having a Chief Political Correspondent who is so openly supportive of one party over another in his blogs, his style of writing, and what he chooses to report?

Nick, still waiting for that article about the Service job cuts and the apparently now vital helicopters.....
Pre-Budget report disagreement between Treasury and No 10 09:40am on 15 Dec 2009 Time to catch up with the world, Nick. Nobody here really cares about disagreements between Number 10 and Number 11. Now when they are both wrong. It's simply neighbours banging on the walls when the telly's too loud.

Can I draw your attention to the thousands of Servciemen that will lose their jobs to pay for the helicopters that Gordon Brown has consistently stated "we don't need" and "are not in short supply"? Can I draw your attention to their families, many of whom will be made homeless when the servicemen lose their jobs? Can I also point out the delivery date for these "unnecessary" helicopters is 2013?

Please feel free to do what the BBC Charter and the tax-payers money demands of you, and challenge these Ministers over their failings rather than continually championing their election cause.
Pre-Budget report disagreement between Treasury and No 10 12:47pm on 14 Dec 2009 315 pdavies65:

"Most people would sell their own children into slavery for a lot less"

No - most people would not. However, never let the truth get in the way of a good rant. Most people in this country are not yet as morally bankrupt as New Labour, and most people in this country (unlike New Labour) still believe that family is important.
Ouch! 1:47pm on 10 Dec 2009 98. pdavies65 wrote:
93/94/95 When the unthinking right starts blaming the messenger, we know Darling must have made a pretty good job of it, politically at least.

**********

No, it's just obvious how transparent Nick's personal politics have become. But then, having listened to Balls on Five Live last night, it's a bit rich for any Labour supporter to accuse anyone of having a go at the BBC - his vitriolic abuse of Peter Allen was horrendous to listen to. Wouldn't answer a question, accused Peter of being 'political' in his questioning, and failed to put anything actually true in the whole interview. I have no doubt that the Five Live presenting team were as convinced as I was that he is a loudmouthed, lying boor. That's how he portrayed himself. Fine ministerial credentials - I don't think.
Ouch! 1:40pm on 10 Dec 2009 Just catching up - sorry for the delay, but some of us have day jobs, we're not all on benefit.....

68. sagamix wrote:
hard @ 65

Oh. That's gone a bit wrong then. The brief I gave Andy was that the tax increases should only fall on people who can afford to pay a bit more. Sounds like he's messed up. I will have a word and see what I can do.

**************

That's right - blame your fiscal ineptitude on the Tory. New Labour Cock-Up Avoidance 101.
Why's Gordon smiling? 2:07pm on 04 Dec 2009 309 pdavies65:

when this kind of personal attack is leveraged, no wonder that there's concern for David Cameron's image. In the same way that there's outrage and affront taken (and actual apologies forced) when Gordon Brown is called a "o**-e*** s****** i***t" by Jeremy Clarkson. The whole state machinery rolls into play whenever anyone mentions anything less than complimentary about Gordon.

However, being an ex-Etonian isn't a bad thing. It says two things: one, that his well-to-do parents invested in their child by sending him there; and two, that he has an education that many people, not just in the UK but around the world, would covet and want for their child, save for the cost.

But to an obvous and self-confessed conspiracy theorist such as yourself, maybe you believe that Eton receives funding to equip some unholy group of Fundamentalist Upper Class revolutionaries? That kind of misdirection of public funds could never happen under a Labour government, could it?

And your repetitive mention of the term "airbrushing" reminds me of what Harperson tried to do to Lady Thatcher in her "Women in Politics" publication. I'm sure that was simply an oversight, and no attempt to enforce any political or editorial policty whatsoever.
Why's Gordon smiling? 1:11pm on 04 Dec 2009 300. pdavies65:

I know I'm biting here, but this one can't be left unreplied....

"280 Willy

OK, fair enough. But you can see why I thought you were correcting me, given that your post began "Or more accurately" and then rephrased what I had written."

I was correcting the unfair spin you put by using the word "mumbled", as if you wanted to imply some shame on his not knowing the detailed background of all his colleagues at the drop of a hat.

"I think "I don't know" or "I have no idea" is always a good thing to say if it's true. I should use it more myself. However, we have no way of knowing whether Andrew Lansley was aware of the website's policy of airbrushing out the public school education of certain members of the shadow front bench, including DC himself."

I assume that you have proof that this is a "policy" of the website, this "airbrushing"? Or (as I would bet money on, even in a recession that we are least best able to cope with) are you spinning stuff again? Just because something is not there, does not mean that there's a conspiracy to hide it. I've never seen Gordon Brown out dancing with Katie Price at an all-night rave, but I wouldn't for one minute believe that there's a Downing Street 'policy' to 'airbrush' such occurences so that they never come to the public's attention.

"The interesting thing for me (although I am not unbiased, of course) is that the airbrushing took place in the first place. As I've said before, it shows how twitchy the Tories are about the issue."

Refer you to my previous answer - you can't 'airbrush' something that wasn't on a site in the first place. Mere spin again.....

"For me, it's a matter of image rather than substance (as DC knows, with his background in PR). They don't like the fact that, thanks to those Bullingdon Club photos, it's easy to caricature Dave Cameron and George Osborne as Lord Snooty and his sidekick. Should it matter? Probably not."

I'd go further and say that categorically it should not matter. And any implication that it might is just as offensive as any suggestion that a person be caricatured as inappropriate from public office because they went to a comprehensive on a sink-hole estate.

"At least, no more than Michael Foot's unkempt hair, William Hague's lack of hair, John Major's boring throaty voice, Jeremy Thorpe's alleged involvement with a hit-man … But like it or not, image is very important these days."

Yes it is. Your point here is pretty much irrelevant to the rest of your post, but nevertheless true. Explains why Labour are going for the 'character assasination' angle rather than rely on their own failed policies.

"The Tories and their henchmen in the press have, in the past, been quick to caricature Labour politicians - and occasionally on the basis of class (John Prescott and Michael Martin spring to mind - and constantly referring to Alan Johnson as a postman is also rather dismissive). "

Alan Johnson WAS a postman - and proved that by working hard your background doesn't matter. I know him personally, and am therefore able to say this. I like him as a man, but disagree with his politics. I even used to work with him, so know full well from whence he came.

Prescott and Martin caricatured themselves, and were also so quick to leap on the bandwagon that they made themselves fair game. I have no problem with their treatment, either in the Speakers chair or on the croquet lawn.

"It's all a normal part of political sparring. I don't think Lord Snooty and his chums can start bleating on about the Queensberry rules when they themselves have been more than happy to land punches below the belt."

Pots and kettles spring to mind with this last one. For someone who is so keen to be an apologist for all those who use class epithets as 'legitimate political sparring', you are rather strangely using the same weapon that you decry.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

West_London_Willy